Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 29 Apr 2025 · Black Maternal Health Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  I did not say that the people in the NHS are racist; I said the NHS has a problem with institutional racism. I hope the hon. Member will accept that there are distinctions between those two things.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Black Maternal Health Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  I am just challenging her point. Just because for one or two reasons she may not have seen any institutional racism in the NHS, that does not mean it does not exist. Further, the figures for black maternal mortality are the same in the United States, which has a completely different healthcare system from ours, but they are not the same in countries in Africa or the Caribbean, where black women are the majority. Does she see why that can point only to institutional racism? It is a completely different healthcare system in United States. The only difference is that we are both living in societies where institutional racism is known to be a problem.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q8. I am sure the Prime Minister will join me in celebrating the opening of the new Brixton blood donation centre in my constituency, which in three months has seen over 3,700 people donate, more than 1,000 of them first-timers and 10% of them black. However, given that sickle cell anaemia is the fastest growing genetic condition in the UK, that is not enough. Demand for the Ro blood subtype—more common in people of African descent—is rising by 10% to 15% annually, and it is crucial for treating sickle cell. Rules around travellers as well as inaccurate iron tests mean that we are seeing willing black donors turned away for four to 12 months. Of course blood donation must be safe, but failure to review the guidelines is costing lives. Will the Prime Minister commit to reviewing the rules and join me in calling on you, Mr Speaker, to help us all play our part by facilitating a biannual blood drive in Parliament?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians · Hansard source

  More

  For me, the most important aspect of our country is not our flags or even our institutions, but our people, and our people—the elected representatives of thousands of British people—have been treated with contempt. My understanding was that we are Britain and you do not do this to us. There is, at least, consensus on this side of the House that this is not how we should expect to be treated by our allies. While I welcome the Minister’s statement, I still cannot understand where our red lines were when thousands were slaughtered, when aid was prevented from entering Gaza, or when international law or the ceasefire was broken. Can he explain where those red lines are, and how, when Britain and Parliament have been insulted, we can continue to sell arms to Israel?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her attention to this situation, but I have to ask on behalf of my constituents, how much more does Thames Water have to fail before we decide that it is no longer fit to operate? The level of failure is so high that, although I appreciate what the Minister says about following the letter of the law, people simply will not understand.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing the debate and for not supporting Thames Water; I am very pleased to hear that. I do not think anyone has been deluded into thinking that Thames Water is doing a good job—certainly not me or my constituents. Since I was elected to this House, hardly a year has passed without another major water infrastructure issue that leaves hundreds of my constituents without water for days on end. That is not to mention the years that I have lived in my constituency and been a victim of Thames Water’s extremely shoddy service. Apart from three years in Yorkshire, I have had to endure Thames Water for the entirety of my life, and it has shown very little concern for the impact that it has. In 2023, a burst water pipe on Brixton Hill left residents without water for three days. Last July, on one of the hottest days of the year, residents of Clarence Avenue had their water shut off without any prior notice. As recently as December, faulty valve pumps in Brixton left homes without water for more than four days. Those are just the most recent incidents—as I said, there have been a number of them since I was elected. The residents of Clapham and Brixton Hill are not the only ones who will have experienced those disruptions in service, so Members can imagine my constituents’ outrage when, in the wake of poor service and increased bills, they see Thames Water’s shareholders and directors receive millions of pounds in dividends. In October 2023, Thames Water made interim dividend payments totalling £37.5 million to its holding company, Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd, while the pipes were literally rotting under our feet. In March 2024, the company made further dividend payments amounting to £158.3 million, from which shareholders received non-cash benefits, all while the quality of water has continued to decline every single year. Thames Water chairman Sir Adrian Montague was accused of a conflict of interest over the £37 million in dividend payments that were made to shareholders in February 2025. Under his tenure, Thames Water paid £195.8 million in dividends, breaching Ofwat rules. Ofwat fined it just £18 million, but Thames Water paid zero pounds of that £18 million fine. I agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that Ofwat is also unfit for purpose. Others may have a better understanding of how such things work, but I do not understand how a company that is in debt and failing, and that has damaged infrastructure, has the money to pay dividends to its shareholders. While my constituents’ taps run dry, the fat cats of Thames Water are literally turning theirs on—but not to drink the water of course, because they know better. The cherry on the sewage-filled cake? On Tuesday, my constituents and millions of Thames Water customers woke up to what would have been the world’s worst April fool’s day joke—the grim reality of a 31% bill increase. One constituent wrote to me because they are experiencing a 45.8% increase in their monthly bill, from £36.55 to £53.30 a month. The service will remain shoddy, but the price that customers are made to pay will rise. Thames Water is rinsing my constituents, pouring sewage into our waterways and siphoning off money to shareholders, and hiking up bills to pay for it. It is fair to say that Thames Water’s management are comparable with what the company is dumping in the Thames—crap. They are just crap. They are running the company’s finances into the ground and relying on the Government to bail them out, all the while leaving my constituents in the vulnerable position of having no running water at times. If they are relying on the Government to bail them out, we taxpayers are literally paying them twice. Clearly, they cannot be trusted to operate such a vital service legitimately, and they certainly should not be allowed to pocket thousands of pounds in the process. I do believe that the Government should be supporting Thames Water—supporting it back into public ownership. That is the only support that they should give it. Rather than a US private equity firm being allowed to take it over, it should be taken over by the Government and made accountable to its service users, the British public. Those who are against nationalisation on an ideological basis will say that competition is needed to ensure innovation and the best service, but there is no competition for Thames Water. Which other water company can my constituents switch to when the service is poor? It makes no sense to me that a new private company should be allowed to take over and reap the profits with little incentive to provide a better service. My constituents deserve a better service, and the continued private ownership of Thames Water will not bring that. Public ownership will not solve every single issue with Thames Water, but it will certainly solve more than allowing an American company to take it over and profit off the backs of my constituents.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I have to ask the hon. Member why he is so against the idea of nationalising water. I am sure he agrees that the whole idea of privatisation is that there is some sort of competition, but there cannot be competition with water, and therefore we cannot guarantee a good service. We are seeing that at the moment, and we saw it under the Conservative Government for a number of years. Does he understand why privatisation cannot really work in this instance?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  How much of the fine that the hon. Gentleman mentioned has Thames Water actually paid? How was it allowed to pay out all these dividends in previous years, given the measures that he is setting out? I genuinely cannot understand how that was allowed to continue for so long.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I have met many leaseholders fighting for fair treatment from housing association freeholders such as Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing, Hyde, L&Q, Notting Hill Genesis, Optivo and Peabody, to name a few. They are struggling to secure general repairs, sort issues with damp and mould and get transparency about rising service charges that are running into the thousands of pounds. Such behaviour from a landlord or council would be considered unacceptable, yet housing associations continue to act with impunity, and past leasehold reform legislation has done little to address the issues. Can the Leader of the House assure leaseholders in my constituency that the Government will take legislative steps to ensure that they are able to hold their housing association freeholders to account?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Children in Temporary Accommodation: England · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend and her Committee on this crucial report. As my constituency neighbour, she knows how much this is an issue within our borough, and I am sure she would agree that the end to no-fault evictions in the Renters’ Reform Bill will be a positive step towards ending the number of families who are evicted with no cause and forced into emergency and temporary accommodation. Our hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) just spoke about extortionate and unregulated rent increases in the private sector forcing families into temporary accommodation. Does the Chair agree that the Government should be looking at regulating private rents—essentially rent controls—so that they are affordable for the average family?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this crucial debate. I am sure we can all agree that every aspect of a child’s education is important and plays a crucial role in shaping them into well-rounded members of society, but there is a strong argument that no lesson is more valuable in shaping our young people than relationship and sex education. From teaching the basics of puberty, reproduction and how to engage in an adult relationship, to understanding issues around consent, abuse and sexual and gender identity, good-quality relationship and sex education gives children a crucial basis for relationships. It will influence their interactions with others for the rest of their lives. The reality is that in the UK, we are failing to provide our children with the quality relationship and sex education that they need. That is leading to a number of issues and gaps in their understanding of healthy relationships. Our children’s RSE classes are grossly inadequate and severely outdated, and in some cases, are not taught at all. Despite RSE being compulsory for all primary school pupils, 50% of students reported receiving no RSE classes during the covid lockdown. We are talking, of course, about age-appropriate sex education, because the catch-all term and sensationalist headlines have led some parents to believe that their children are being taught things at certain ages when they are obviously not. That has only helped to fuel certain issues, which has been awful for promoting the healthy and proper teaching of relationship and sex education. The latest Sex Education Forum report found that only 50% of the 16 to 17-year-olds surveyed rated their RSE classes as “good” or “very good”. That is an improvement on the previous year’s findings, but it still demonstrates that the relationship and sex education of our young people is simply not good enough. Hopefully, everybody has by now heard about the truly gripping Netflix drama, “Adolescence”. For any Members who have not yet seen it, I cannot recommend it strongly enough. It is a crucial watch for anyone who works with, or indeed, legislates for children, as we do. As we have heard, it touches on a number of issues relating to incel culture, the manosphere and the increasingly concerning attitude towards women and girls that is infecting our young boys. We often talk about incel culture and toxic attitudes towards women, and indeed men, but we fail to properly come up with solutions on how to tackle them. We land on things such as limiting social media access for young people, placing more onus on social media sites to monitor online chatter and take down harmful posts and videos, or reducing the airtime given to toxic individuals who perpetuate this kind of nonsense. Those are all really useful options that we have to consider and take action on, but they are far from the solution. We really ought to look at the role that education can play in combating misinformed views. The core of relationship and sex education, beyond the basics of biology, is to teach children about healthy relationships. It is about teaching young girls and boys how to properly respect and interact with someone they are in a relationship with, whether that is romantic, sexual, platonic or familial. Their understanding of these relationships can be informed by good-quality education, and it goes without saying that the opposite is also true. Poor-quality RSE can drastically impact a child’s understanding of relationships and cause untold damage. We need comprehensive relationship and sex education that is age-appropriate and delivered by well-trained teachers, who could be crucial in combating toxic incel ideology, or who, at the very least, would provide students with correct information that counters the stuff they read on the internet or watch on YouTube. Effective classes can provide a safe, non-judgmental space for children to ask questions. If they do not have that, we risk either leaving their questions unanswered or leaving them to the mercy of some Andrew Tate-esque figures who will fill their heads with poison. Both options are cause for concern, but the latter is nearly unthinkable. Like all forms of discrimination, misogyny is ignorance. Education is the best tool against ignorance, but it has to be properly funded and teachers have to be properly trained to deliver it. I sincerely hope to hear from the Minister about the concrete steps that the Government will take to invest in RSE. Making it compulsory is important, but proper funding and training mean, ultimately, that it will be done well. It being done badly is almost as bad as not teaching it at all.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Political Donations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am proud to declare my membership of Unite the union. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for support I have received from other unions, because trade union money is the cleanest money in politics; we know exactly where it comes from. We all know the saying, “Money is power,” and I would hope that none of us are naive enough to think that this does not apply to the UK. If we want to create a democratic system where everyone’s vote has equal value, we need strong protections in place to prevent the very richest individuals in our society from warping our democracy. As we heard today, we are not the worst in the world. I remember a visit I took with you, Mrs Harris, on an international delegation, during which I spoke to a Member of Parliament from another country, which I will not name. We got talking about election spending limits for individual candidates. When I told them what it was in the UK, they turned to me and said, “What are you going to buy with that?” But just because we are not as bad as some does not mean that we cannot do better—and we have to do better, because public confidence in the financial transparency of our system has plummeted. Just 15% of Brits surveyed by the Electoral Commission last year believed that spending and funding is transparent in our system. Sadly, the evidence shows that this is a problem of trust, as big money continues to have a corrosive influence on our politics. The last Government stripped the Electoral Commission of its ability to prosecute criminal offences and placed it under ministerial control—hardly impartial. As well as manoeuvring the electoral system further in their favour, the last Government quietly passed a statutory instrument to raise campaign spending limits. National election spending caps rose by 80%, and the amount of money that an individual can donate to a party without declaring who donated it rose from £7,500 to £11,180. I am sure that there will be some Members who think that there is nothing wrong with very wealthy people putting their money behind a party that reflects their principles, but why should we not know who they are? We have to be a little more clear-sighted about the reality: first, because of the size and scale of these donations; and secondly, because if we follow the money, we notice a pattern of some people suspiciously changing teams whenever we are about to see a changing of the guard. It would be naive to suggest that large donors are doing this purely out of the goodness of their own hearts. I was alarmed to read the recent report by Transparency International, which found that 10% of all UK political donations originate from dubious sources. That is because it suited the last Government to allow front companies, which are set up for the sole purpose of laundering money. I was unsurprised to read that two thirds of that dark money went to the Conservative party. While I am pleased that my party in government has introduced the foreign influence registration scheme, I am concerned by reports that we may have not moved further on plans to ban any foreign political donations. This should not be a left or right issue—it just has to be based on the idea that every vote is worth the same. It goes without saying that people like the owner of the social media website that I will only ever call Twitter, who is not even registered to vote in the UK, does not own companies incorporated in the UK and invariably avoids paying his full share of tax in the UK, should not be free to throw money at our politics, but here we are. The wealthiest man in the world could conceivably shower huge sums on any party that will help him to advance his divide and rule politics, which are designed to protect his vast wealth. This exemplifies why we need to get big money out of our politics and protect it from the undue influence of the super-rich. The Institute for Public Policy Research has recommended capping individual and corporate donations to political parties at £100,000 a year. That seems like a modest starting point. We need a crackdown on dark money entering via shell companies that have never turned a profit in the UK and through unincorporated associations with no legal requirement to disclose their funders. We should also reinstate the Electoral Commission’s ability to monitor and prosecute offences and put the resources it needs behind that—nothing hon. Members have not already heard today. I would also like to see my Government revisit the proposals to ensure that individuals donors are registered electors and that companies that donate are owned by people who live in Britain and pay their fair share of tax here. That is extremely important. Political funding is not the only way that the very rich are able to exert undue influence. However, it is the most obvious place where we can take decisive action now. After a decade in which billionaire donors more than trebled their wealth and working people saw the biggest pay squeeze since the Napoleonic wars, we absolutely need change.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Knife Crime: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on knife crime among children and young people, an issue that continues to devastate communities across the country. I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing the debate. Very few people can say that they are not deeply concerned about the rising levels of knife crime, particularly among children and young people. As has been heard from my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), in the early hours of this morning a young man was stabbed and killed in Brixton, a town centre that we share along with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). Our thoughts go to the young man and his family at this time. It is a tragedy, but even more sadly, it is a tragedy that we hear far too often. The latest figures show that there were more than 50,000 knife-related offences in England and Wales last year. Alarmingly, around one in five knife possessions involved young people under the age of 18. In 2023-24, there were 53 records of homicides using a sharp instrument where the victim was aged between 13 and 19 years. Though those statistics are alarming, we have to remember that they are not just numbers but young lives that are being lost, and with each one comes a family that will be left grieving and a community that is scarred. I know that many hon. Members will point to the need for more policing, increased stop and search and harsher sentencing, and restrictions on who can buy a knife as solutions. Indeed, successive Governments, including this one, have introduced measures along those lines to tackle the surge in knife crime. I certainly will not stand here and argue that we do not need to review how we police the issue, although I believe that increased policing measures such as stop and search need to be thoroughly thought-through and must be intelligence-led. Increased policing and sentencing are not the only solution and cannot work on their own. Youth and knife crime are a wider societal issue that require a holistic approach. If tougher sentencing and more stop and search powers were all it took, we would have solved this crisis a long time ago. We cannot take reactive steps alone; we have to take preventive ones. I know Conservative Members do not particularly enjoy our pointing out their record in government, but we cannot let this debate go by without mentioning the impact of the past 14 years. This is not a political point but a factual one, because over that time we saw the systematic dismantling of the support systems that helped keep young people away from crime. Research from the YMCA showed that youth services have been cut by 73% since 2010, with over 750 youth centres closed and the number of youth workers falling by a third to 1,662 full-time equivalent roles. The result has been fewer spaces, mentors and positive role models for young people. A recent Unison report revealed that in England 1,036 council-run youth centres were closed between 2010 and 2023, and only 480 remained open in April 2023. Funding for Sure Start children’s centres, which provided early intervention and family support, has been decimated. Funding for police community support officers, who play a vital role in building trust between police and young people, has been drastically reduced. School budget cuts have squeezed pastoral support, mental health provision and behavioural interventions, increasing exclusions overall. The link between school exclusions and serious violence is well known. Excluded children often fall through the cracks. Many enter pupil referral units where gangs recruit vulnerable young people. Others disengage entirely, making them more susceptible to criminal activity. Those cuts have consequences, and when young people lack support, opportunity or hope, they become vulnerable to criminal exploitation. Gangs step in where the state has stepped back. It is no coincidence that as these services have disappeared, knife crime has risen. Conservative Members cannot ignore the direct correlation between austerity and serious youth violence, but equally Labour Members cannot either. If we maintain the cuts or extend them even further, that is the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. As a starting point for tackling youth violence and knife crime, I strongly urge the Government to look at reversing the cuts and investing in youth services. I also urge the Government to look at how local councils tackle the issue. I point to my council in the borough of Lambeth. Lambeth Made Safer was launched in 2021 by Councillor Jacqui Dyer. It takes a public health approach to violence reduction, focusing on prevention, early intervention and community-led solutions. It prioritises targeted outreach, family support and investment in community initiatives. It is obviously woefully under-resourced, but it is the sort of initiative and community-driven approach that should be rolled out nationwide. There is no single solution to this crisis, but we can begin to address it by ensuring that young people have the wraparound services that we know prevent them from being involved in, or the victim of, crime.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Disabled People’s Access to Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and her Committee for a fantastic report. Will she join me in congratulating disability rights activists such as my former constituent, Sam Jennings, who I know is thrilled by the report, which I hope my hon. Friend would be happy to hear? It is important that we congratulate these activists, who have been looking for a report like this for a long time. Sam certainly opened my eyes to a number of different issues. If the Government accept these recommendations, which they should, it will be due to their fantastic activism.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Use of Stop and Search · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, but the figures are absolutely clear. Although I get what he says about the proportion of black people across the country, I am talking about lived experiences. I am talking about the experiences of people who live in my constituency and in other parts of the country who feel like they are being targeted. This is not just about the numbers: it is about what is happening to people on a daily basis. The reality of the situation is that people need the police. We have heard in the debate already that black people can in some cases, in relation to particular crimes, be disproportionately the victims of crime. For that reason, we need to be able to work with the police in our communities, but it is difficult to do that if people feel like they are being harassed by them. The reason why I point to intelligence-led policing is that if police are able to work with the people in their communities and they are able to trust the police, they can often be the ones to provide the intelligence that helps to prevent other crimes. But if they feel like they are being impacted by stops and searches, they see the police as an enemy. I want them to see the police for who they are meant to be—the people who keep them safe. The second point I want to raise is about increased gang crime, drug dealing and overall antisocial behaviour in Clapham and Brixton Hill. As I have said, effective, intelligence-led stop and search could help to clamp down on that, but its inconsistent application is undermining police efforts. In areas such as Brixton, known drug dealers and criminals are often not targeted with stop and search, while young black men with no criminal records are repeatedly stopped. This selective approach raises concerns about policing priorities, and about whether the police are focused on reducing crime or on maintaining control over certain communities. When I raise the issue of known offenders not being searched, I am often told that the police do not currently have the powers to intervene. I find that incomprehensible. It cannot be true: the police arguably have more powers now than they have had in a very long time, so I cannot begin to imagine what more powers they could possibly need to carry out their work. Things may need to be done to increase their confidence, but they certainly do not need more powers. Rather than creating new police powers, which is the current trend, we ought to look at how the police are using the powers they have and how they can use them more effectively. If people are going to trust the police, there has to be genuine transparency and accountability around their powers, and that has include stop and search. Stop and search has to be evidence-led, and to tackle crime the police have to work with the communities they serve.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Use of Stop and Search · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a relief to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing this debate, which comes at a crucial time as we discuss the new Government’s Crime and Policing Bill. When we legislate to give the police more powers, it is important that we properly assess the powers they currently have and how they are already being used. Police stop and search is an issue of serious importance for my constituents. The reason is twofold. First, my constituency of Clapham and Brixton Hill has a high proportion of young black and ethnic minority men, who we know are disproportionately targeted for random stop and search. Secondly, and unfortunately, my constituency experiences high levels of gang violence, drug dealing and antisocial behaviour more generally, which creates serious issues for the area. My remarks today will address those two points. First, on the disproportionate use of police stop and search on black, Asian and ethnic minority communities, the evidence is clear. According to the latest Government data, in the year ending 31 March 2023, some 529,474 stop and searches were conducted in England and Wales, equating to 8.9 stop and searches per 1,000 individuals. However, when the figures are disaggregated by ethnicity, we see that black people were subject to 24.5 stop and searches per 1,000 people, Asian people 8.5 stop and searches per 1,000 people and white people 5.9 stop and searches per 1,000 people. That means that black people are over four times more likely to be stopped and searched. Report after report reveals the severe problem of institutional racism in the Metropolitan police. The overuse of stop and search to target black and ethnic minority communities is stark evidence of that. It has resulted in entire communities feeling unfairly targeted, over-policed and alienated from law enforcement, and this does not serve anybody. Black and ethnic minority people are no more likely to commit crimes than their white counterparts. I repeat that: black and ethnic minority people are no more likely to commit crimes than their white counterparts. They are also no more likely to be in possession of illegal substances or objects than their white counterparts. Yet they are more likely to be stopped and searched, and it is for this reason they are more likely to appear in criminal statistics. The disproportionate use of stop and search has a severe impact on community trust in the police, which is at an all-time low, particularly in boroughs like Lambeth, which already has the lowest trust in policing across London, according to the Mayor of London’s most recent data. Many people simply do not believe officers will treat them fairly, because the reality is that they do not, and that lack of confidence makes community policing far less effective. This is not just a question of numbers: it is about lived experiences. It is about young black men being stopped multiple times a week for no good reason. It is about people feeling criminalised simply as they walk down the street and go about their business. It is about communities feeling that the police are there not to protect them but to harass them. Policing by consent is a fundamental principle of British policing. The relationship between the police and the public should be built on trust, respect and co-operation. Random, unjustified stop and searches undermine that principle entirely. That is why I have been steadfast in calling for the abolition of section 60 stop-and-search powers. To be clear—I want to be absolutely clear on this—intelligence-based stop and search can be, has been and will continue to be a useful tool to tackle crime.

• 6 Mar 2025 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on introducing this vital debate. She is a true champion of women’s issues and an inspiration to many. Twenty-one fifty-eight—2,158 is not my number; we have a long way to go before we get to that—is the year when, at the current rate of progress, we will see full gender parity. That is 133 years away and five generations of girls who will continue to live under a system of gender inequality. Imagine if the leaders of the Suffragette movement had known that in spite of their heroic actions it would take another 10 generations before we achieved equality of the sexes. That is why this year’s theme, “Accelerate Action” is appropriate, because the current rate of action is unacceptable. A number of areas will require focus if we are to accelerate progress, but I want to focus on women’s health. Members will have heard me speak often about racial disparities in maternity care and the disproportionate fatality rate for black mothers, and more must be done to address that. However, issues around maternity are now worsening for all women in this country. When I first raised the issue of black maternal health in the House, black women were four times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth. That has now reduced to just over three times. Awareness has played a huge role in that, and I pay tribute to Five X More and other organisations that have done so much to raise awareness. Regrettably, most of that decrease is not because maternity services are improving, and the rate of women and babies of all ethnicities dying in pregnancy and childbirth in this country has increased in the past two decades. The UK sits in the middle to low range of maternal mortality compared with the global standard, but we should not settle for that, just as we should not settle for racial disparities or poor maternal care, especially when our maternal mortality rate is far higher than that of other-high income countries such as Iceland, Norway, and Finland. It is not just in maternity care where women are being failed, because women’s health issues have long been overlooked, as men have historically been treated as the default. For many men, as we have heard, there is just a physical exam and a few questions in order to be diagnosed with something such as erectile dysfunction, but it takes eight years for a woman to receive a diagnosis for endometriosis. Every seven and a half seconds a man is prescribed ED medication, but it takes eight years for a woman to be diagnosed with endometriosis. We still know next to nothing about the causes, symptoms and diagnosis for the management of conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome, despite that impacting one in eight women. We know so little even about periods, yet almost every person who has experienced one understands the pain and discomfort involved. For any men who are still wondering, yes, a period cramp is typically at least more painful than testicular trauma, while at its worst it is as intense as a heart attack. Only 2.5% of publicly funded research is dedicated to reproductive health, although 90% of women suffer from such issues. Women feel gaslit by their GPs, they are told to go on painkillers, and there is so much more that they are not receiving when they ask for help with their healthcare. We cannot fight for gender equality when the disparity in the treatment of women’s health conditions is so stark. I do not imagine that by next International Women’s Day we will have complete gender equality, but I hope we will see some concrete steps towards getting there on health.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Historic Slavery: Reparations · Hansard source

  More

  10. Whether he has had recent discussions with his international counterparts on the payment of reparations to people impacted by historic slavery.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Historic Slavery: Reparations · Hansard source

  More

  Last week saw the 38th ordinary session of the African Union Assembly of Heads of State and Government, the topic of which was “Justice for Africans and people of African descent through reparations”. Caribbean Heads of State were also present, and we know that the Caribbean Community, or CARICOM, has long engaged in discussions on reparative justice. Whether or not we participate in these discussions, they will continue to happen. Does the Minister accept that the world and its power structures are changing? In our turbulent post-Brexit reality, we need allies and friends, but we will not even say that we are sorry. We would be foolish to think that we are not deeply resented for that. Is it not better for the UK to engage in these discussions and ensure that we play a constructive role in addressing the enduring legacies of slavery and colonialism?

• 13 Feb 2025 · HIV Testing Week · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on bringing forward this important debate and on the work he continues to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on the APPG. While we will spend most of this afternoon’s debate speaking about the goal to end new HIV transmissions by 2030, I feel it is important to recognise just how far we have come in our understanding of HIV and treatments for it, and in our education and awareness raising. We have seen so much progress in the fight against HIV since the 1980s crisis. Although there is still a way to go, it is through open discussions, such as the one we are having today, that we have been able to reduce the number of HIV cases in the UK down to an estimated 113,500. But it is thought that 4,700 people are unaware that they are living with HIV, and that is why it is vital that we continue to push to increase testing. We know that when caught early HIV is treatable and that the quality of life of those living with HIV is far better than it was back in the ’80s. Unknowing carriers risk not only not getting the treatment they need or getting it too late, but unknowingly infecting others. Testing is easy, quick and can save lives. We know that testing among men who have sex with other men is high. This is incredibly encouraging, but we must do more to increase testing among heterosexual men, heterosexual and bisexual women, and the trans and non-binary community. The stereotype that HIV is only something that affects men who have sex with men is not true. In fact, the increase in infections in 2023 was attributed to sex between men and women, with a 35% increase among heterosexual men and a 30% increase among heterosexual women. We should be doing more to encourage testing among all groups. That means greater investment in local and community-based public health initiatives, so I am pleased that the Government are investing in local government public health. I am particularly pleased to hear about the £38 million that is being awarded to my borough of Lambeth, which will go a long way towards supporting people with HIV, preventing HIV and funding other public health initiatives that the borough runs. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) spoke about the important role that councils play, and it is a crucial role indeed. They encourage testing and are well-poised to target the right communities and areas to increase awareness, and they can tailor messaging in the way that is needed. The work of local councils and community-based organisations has really helped to increase testing rates and reduce stigma. It has also helped to ensure that as many people as possible know their HIV status, and the recent round of Government funding will continue supporting that work. I hope to see more from the Government on the international front. We must actively look to support international efforts to stop HIV transmissions, especially at a time when President Trump is running his reckless review of American aid and has put the future of the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in the balance. Any credible attempt to end HIV transmission must include a global response. When it comes to ending HIV transmission, we are not an island. Ending new cases here will only last for so long if we are not contributing to efforts to end them abroad. Where the US is stepping down from efforts to tackle global HIV transmissions, we should be stepping up. As it stands, we are already not on track to reach our target of ending new cases by 2030, but I hope that today we will hear insights from the Minister on the steps the Government are taking to increase testing and to end new cases in the UK and abroad. As I am sure other hon. Members do, I eagerly await the Government’s new HIV action plan in the summer.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Home Secretary and her team for the reforms in the Bill that are genuinely positive, including the scrapping of the unworkable and costly plan to expel asylum seekers to Rwanda—a repressive regime that is making war on its neighbours. The Bill rescues us from the “Alice in Wonderland” situation in which Rwanda is safe if the Government say it is safe. The Government have also scrapped and towed away the Bibby Stockholm, the miserable and dangerous prison ship, and committed to deciding asylum claims that had previously been placed in indefinite limbo. Those are all positive developments. However, it is difficult to be positive about the remainder of the Bill. It clearly aims to prioritise border security, but the malign Greek chorus that chants “Stop the boats!” in response to every problem in our society is wrong. With these measures, as with others, the boats will not be stopped unless we look at the issue holistically. Have we stopped organised crime, drugs, people trafficking, fraud, firearms and so on? Of course not, because some of those crimes are high-tech operations, but all these overseas-based people smugglers need is a dinghy. We cannot have a credible plan to smash the gangs unless we deal first with the demand for what they supply. Many of us have long argued that the way to undercut and ultimately eliminate the gangs is to re-establish safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, to establish processing centres in northern France, to turn away failed applicants, and to allow safe travel for those who are entitled to be here.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention, and obviously she is always right. It is not impossible; in fact, it has been done before. Instead, this Bill could end up criminalising people because of how they travelled here, which is wrong. It is widely understood that many of these people, precisely because they are victims of persecution, cannot apply for visas in the normal fashion, and many more cannot afford the cost of long-haul flights either. Genuine and valid asylum seekers could be criminalised. We should remember that these people are fleeing war and devastation. Some have been trafficked, and many of those are brought here as slaves—either for domestic service and menial unpaid work, or for sex slavery. The Bill could abolish their rights and protections under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Then there is the question of immigration detention, which will increase as a result of the Bill. The immigration detention estate is already costly and cruel. It is a ridiculous irony that we are releasing criminals because our jails are full, yet we are increasing the use of immigration detention despite 75% of those detained eventually being found to be entitled to be here. The main concern has been foreign national offenders, and 4,674 were returned in the year ending September 2024. That is an increase of more than a quarter compared with the previous year, which means that this Government are doing what they want to do on foreign national offenders. Why are we holding on to the idea of increasing the immigration detention estate when we know that in 2019 the Conservative Government awarded asylum accommodation contracts worth billions of pounds to just three companies, and almost every single one of the removal centres operated by those companies has reported overcrowding, hostile and unsanitary conditions, and, at worst, death and suicide? Those centres are costly and cruel. A limit on immigration detention would be both humane and efficient. The average daily cost of holding an individual in immigration detention is £122. What a huge cost when there are options for detention in the community. Most people are detained when they go to their bi-weekly reporting session at the Home Office. We are detaining far too many people unlawfully. In 2023-24, the Home Office issued 832 compensation payments for unlawful detention, totalling £12 million. As we have heard, we detain children—in 2023, the Home Office detained 47 children for immigration-related reasons. We disagree on many things across the House, but the rights of children is not usually one of them. People say there are complex reasons why such detentions happen. To that I say: “Make it simple and make it stop.” We should not be detaining children for immigration-related reasons. I am also concerned that the Bill might undermine the application of international law to refugees. Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 will be untouched, even though it was a truly rotten measure introduced by the Conservatives, who had a problematic relationship with international law. We on the Government Benches must be better than them. At the moment, a trafficked woman who arrived here having been abducted halfway across the world would have no rights as refugee, precisely because her traffickers brought her here on a small boat. That cannot be right. The Bill focuses on small boat crossings, but it is an immigration Bill, and that means it does not all have to be negative. There are things we could do that we largely agree on, such as scrapping child citizenship fees and introducing further protections for European Union nationals and the Windrush generation. When we were in opposition, we supported scrapping child citizenship fees. The shadow Home Secretary, when he was the immigration Minister, implemented a fee waiver, but last year only 36% of those waivers were accepted—40% were rejected and 22% are awaiting decision. That is just not good enough. This is about children who have lived here for their whole lives—children who were born here, including the children of EU nationals. We know that EU nationals continue struggle with their rights, which is something that we could resolve. We can all agree that the Windrush generation have the right to be here, but they are still having major issues; we should not wait for the appointment of the Windrush commissioner to be told that they are still subject to the hostile environment. We could do so much more on things we agree on, but unfortunately there are too many instances where victims can be blamed for the crime, and I worry that the Bill could codify that injustice in law.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  This is not necessarily a divisive issue. When we ask those who are suffering the most from these matters, we find that they believe that it is difficult to move forward because of some of the wrongs that have been done to them in the past. It is simply about recognition and looking at ways to tackle this issue, and at how we can deliver recompense for the wrong that we have done. It is not about being divisive; it is just about accepting what went wrong and understanding that we have a duty to make it right.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms McVey. I start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for bringing forward this crucial debate, and for his continuous campaigning on this matter. I chair the APPG for Afrikan Reparations and I have long called on the UK Government to engage in discussions around reparative justice. I have said time and again that reparative justice is about just that—justice. It is about more than handing over money; it is about addressing the structural inequalities that colonialism created and still perpetuates, and changing those global structures that keep the global south in its situation. Those inequalities have been instrumental in creating the debt that we are discussing today. Reparative justice is about addressing disparities that are starkly evident in the fight against climate change, particularly in the context of our international financial system, which is, quite frankly, a relic of the 20th century. Worsening droughts in east Africa, tropical hurricanes in the Caribbean, and tsunamis in Asia show how Britain’s former colonies remain disproportionately vulnerable to the frontline effects of crises that they did little to cause. Not only did we engage in colonial crimes, but we remain a leading historical emitter. The UK could take responsibility by reframing reparative justice within the context of climate justice. We could fund large-scale restoration projects, compensate for biodiversity loss, and help nations to adapt to climate change. That form of reparative justice could remove the burden of debt that is preventing those countries from fighting the climate emergency themselves, by building infrastructure to defend against some of the environmental challenges that, if we do not get our act together, will be permanent. Some of the world’s poorest and most climate-vulnerable countries are seeing their debt payments grow twice as fast as their climate support—they do not stand a chance. When faced with extreme weather conditions every year, such as deathly floods and droughts, they are forced to borrow more and more to support their people and rebuild their infrastructure—adding to their already insurmountable debt. In 2022, I joined a parliamentary delegation to Kenya with CAFOD and saw at first hand the impact of famine and drought on the people living in Marsabit County. Their agriculture and their livestock had been decimated—the country had been decimated—by one of the worst droughts in living memory. The situation that we all saw on the ground in Kenya brought home the devastating ramifications of the climate crisis, and the inequities that it is rooted in—inequities that we benefited from and have sustained since. Kenya is not a notable emitter of carbon dioxide and does not drastically contribute to climate destruction. In fact, it is responsible for just 0.03% of global carbon dioxide emissions to date—around 160 times less than the United Kingdom. Yet man-made climate change, for which the UK has historical responsibility, is causing untold levels of destruction in that nation, and its debt crisis means that, like many other countries mentioned today, it is unable to take meaningful steps to address it. In 2021, its debt repayments were more than five times the amount of money the Government were spending on measures to tackle the climate crisis. Like many other countries, it is fighting this crisis with both hands tied behind its back. Countries in the global south will face an estimated $290 billion to $580 billion in climate-related loss and damage ever year by 2030—every single year. At the start of the covid-19 pandemic, the G20 agreed a scheme to suspend debt payments for over 70 countries, but because private lenders were not made to participate on equal terms, countries that applied to the scheme had under a quarter of external debt payments suspended. As hon. Members have mentioned, over 90% of the bonds owned by countries eligible for debt relief, under G20 schemes, are governed by English law. That means that they are under our control, and we can actually do something about them. The UK could play a leading role in addressing the debt crisis, instead of standing by as private creditors are bailed out. The Government should be supporting efforts to cancel debts for all climate-vulnerable countries with unsustainable debts by expanding the G20 common framework to include middle-income nations, and strengthen it to ensure that private creditors participate. To be frank, we know that the situation for the average person in some so-called middle-income nations is still dire. I call on the Government to enhance the UK’s commitment on international climate finance overall and to encourage other countries to do the same. That should be done through a comprehensive financing facility to offer unconditional grants, not more debt, to countries facing climate disaster, to push for automatic debt payment suspension and relief for countries in the event of a climate-related disaster, and to introduce legislation to stop private creditors from suing those same climate-vulnerable countries. The UK’s role as a major historical emitter, a former colonial power and a current global leader places a special obligation on us to put climate justice at the heart of the global response to the disaster we now face. Some people ask: why reparative justice and not simply aid? That is because aid has not worked, and when a duty is put on people to do something, and when they understand that they owe somebody something as a matter of justice, they are more likely to do it. Aid has become an industry. Aid itself is subject to supply and demand, and so many countries are not benefiting from it in the way that they should be. We need to look at this issue as one of reparative justice, and we the UK have to pay what we owe.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Cat Breeding: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  There are 12.5 million cat owners in the UK, and hundreds of thousands of cats are killed on the roads every year. The previous Government agreed that it would be right to include cats in the Road Safety Act 2006, but they simply did not do it. This means that cats are regularly hit and, because there is no legal duty to report it, are just scooped to the side of the road. Does the Minister agree that this is something that we should do to bring parity to cats and dogs when it comes to safety on the road?