Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way again. I am again completely confused. His specific example at the beginning aside, I still do not understand why, if the individuals concerned pose such a huge threat, other pieces of legislation will not deal with them and keep the public safe. He also pointed to the fact that somebody could win their appeal and he could still wish to deprive them of citizenship. I want to understand the circumstances in which, after someone’s appeal was upheld by a judge, the Minister would still wish to deprive them of their citizenship.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may remember that on 23 April, I asked a question in Prime Minister’s questions about blood donations and how people were being turned away because of low haemoglobin levels. The week before, I had put down some parliamentary questions about diversity and blood donation deferrals. When I got the responses back, I found that up to 70% of black donors were being turned away because of low haemoglobin levels. I had wanted to raise this matter with the Minister directly in a meeting two weeks earlier. This meeting was attended by leaders from the NHS Blood and Transplant service. A few days later, they pulled the answers to the questions that I had presented to them. NHS Blood and Transplant’s own website states that it can meet the Ro blood type only 50% of the time, which means that black blood donations are extremely important. Since 12 May—for six or seven weeks—I have been trying to get answers to my questions, which I had been told were incorrect. I have been writing to Ministers and to NHS Blood and Transplant. The best that NHSBT could do today was to send me a letter to say that it was sorry, and that it would give a response to me next week. That is outrageous. NHSBT was talking about quality of data, but if any agency should look at its quality of data—given the important service that it provides—it should be NHSBT. I have a number of other questions as well, but NHSBT needs to understand how much everybody is doing. A few weeks ago, it was National Blood Donor Week and people across the country donated so much that the website crashed. [Interruption.] People are doing their bit, but the same cannot be said of NHSBT.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of new clause 107, which stands in my name, and to lend my support to other vital amendments, particularly those relating to protest rights, joint enterprise, facial recognition and predictive policing technologies. New clause 107 would require the Home Secretary to publish a comprehensive equality impact assessment within 12 months of the Bill becoming law. I acknowledge the initial equality impact assessments, but I must stress that they are no substitute for a thorough and ongoing review of how the powers will be used and who they will affect. This Bill touches every part of our criminal justice system, from police powers and sentencing to surveillance. If we know anything from decades of experience, it is that such legislation rarely lands equally. We already know, for example, that black men are disproportionately stopped and searched; that Muslim communities are targeted by counter-terrorism laws; and that ethnic minority communities are more likely to face over-policing, under-protection and systemic mistrust. We must also talk frankly about how the system fails women, particularly in the context of violence against women and girls. While the state has found countless new ways to expand police powers and increase maximum sentences, we are yet to find the will to use those powers to properly protect women: not when women who report domestic abuse and sexual violence are ignored; not when black, minoritised and working-class women who report violence are dismissed; and not when rape is effectively decriminalised, with cases rarely making it to court. Let us not forget those cases that have shocked the nation, the reports that have exposed misogyny, racism and abuse within police ranks, and the institutional discrimination and failures that some forces still fail to admit exists.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. A wealth tax would be a start, and there are other ways in which the Government could look for savings on disability benefits. They could start with the US multinationals that make a profit off the humiliating PIP assessments. Maximus, the US firm that tests eligibility for UK disability benefits, recently reported a 23% rise in profits, making £29.1 million in the year ending September 2024. That is yet another example of a private company profiting while people are forced into financial vulnerability. In last month’s PIP debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I reiterated her point that it is never too late for the Government to change course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) just pointed out. The Prime Minister recently doubled down on plans to proceed with the cuts, but it is not too late. There can be a change of course, and I urge the Government to reconsider this very cruel group of cuts.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing the debate. Of the 13,132 disabled people who live in my constituency, 5,110 claim PIP. Cutting benefits without tackling the sky-high extra costs that disabled people face is unconscionable. Scope’s research shows that the monthly extra cost incurred by disabled people living in London is currently £1,469, which is notably higher than the UK-wide figure. The Government’s claim that the cuts will increase employment is not backed by any assessment. Their own impact assessment found that the cuts will result in 250,000 more people in relative poverty, of whom 50,000 will be children. Disability benefit cuts will affect 3.2 million current or future claimant families. What I heard recently about the proposed cuts to disability benefit from disabled constituents at an event organised by the Disability Advice Service in Lambeth only deepened my conviction that the cuts are wrong and deeply damaging. Sadly, the Government are not listening.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Iran-Israel Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor confirmed yesterday that UK military assets could potentially be used to help defend Israel. We are sending military aircraft to the middle east, and the Prime Minister has not ruled out them being used to help Israel. The Minister for the Armed Forces recently confirmed in response to a written question that the UK is training Israel Defence Forces personnel on UK-based training courses. Does the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that through bolstering Israel’s military in this way we are actively demonstrating our support for one side in this conflict, and does he therefore accept that this undermines our calls for a diplomatic solution and de-escalation?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this vital debate. The legacy of Windrush and the plight of the Windrush generation is a matter very dear to my hon. Friend and her constituents, as it is to me and my constituents, not least because her constituency is home to Windrush Square, which sits on the edge of my constituency, and to which we both have the pleasure of making numerous visits throughout the year. Most recently, I had the pleasure of joining my hon. Friend and neighbour, along with our other neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), at the Windrush national vigil, organised by the Windrush National Organisation. This event brought together community members for a moment of reflection, remembrance and solidarity for the Windrush generation and their descendants, and provided an opportunity to acknowledge the profound contributions they have made to the fabric of our society. It is that aspect I want to focus on before coming to the Windrush scandal and compensation scheme. I have spoken before in this Chamber about the role the Windrush generation played in not only rebuilding our nation, but transforming our society and culture. My constituency of Clapham and Brixton Hill was completely reshaped by the Windrush generation, with a legacy that is still evident in the people, the culture, the music, the art, the cuisine and in so many other ways. Beyond rebuilding our cities and enriching our culture, the Windrush generation played a crucial role in shaping and sustaining the public services that we continue to rely on every single day. They were the nurses, midwives and doctors who formed the backbone of our NHS, often working long hours in difficult conditions to care for the sick and vulnerable. They were the bus drivers and train operators who kept our transport networks running, ensuring that Britain’s economy kept going. They were the teachers who educated generations of children, instilling in them the values of hard work and perseverance. They served in our armed forces, fighting for a country that did not always recognise them as equals. Their contributions were not just significant—they were indispensable. Without them, Britain would not be the country it is today. We in this House often speak of the values of tolerance, diversity, resilience and community—what we call British values. The Windrush generation embodied those values through their courage, determination and unwavering belief in a better future, but they were not always treated with those same values in mind. Their influence runs through the fabric of our nation, and we must ensure that their contributions are not just remembered, but celebrated, honoured and upheld for generations to come. We have to celebrate them, but we must also understand and remember that the Windrush generation were not always treated with the dignity and respect that they deserved, and that has to be as much a part of our commemorations as anything else. Those who travelled across oceans to come to Britain did so thinking they were coming to a mother country that would welcome them with open arms. Instead, they were met with hostility, discrimination and barriers to opportunity. They were denied housing, turned away from jobs for which they were over-qualified, and often made to feel unwelcome in the very nation they had come to help rebuild. Many of them and their descendants faced similar treatment during the appalling Windrush scandal. It was very much a scandal of the previous Government’s making. The Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), recently gave a lecture in this very building as part of the Windrush summit. I remember the immigration legislation that caused all the problems and led to the Windrush scandal unfolding. I remember the Mother of the House standing in this House and warning the Home Secretary at the time that if the Government passed the legislation, it would affect people they had not intended it to affect—people who looked different to a number of people across this country. She was pointing to the black community and saying that the legislation would be applied in a way that would cause this scandal, and it did. I remember when the scandal was brought to the fore. I remember the news at the time and the people coming forward with individual cases. I pay tribute to the Mother of the House, because it was she who led the first urgent question on the issue, and it was she who continually brought the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box to apologise, repeatedly—until one of them ultimately paid the price with her job and until certain guarantees were made and we started with the review. The previous Government took some steps towards recompensing people for how they had been treated, and that was important, but for so many—me included—it never felt as though there was genuine remorse for the pain, humiliation and torment inflicted on the Windrush generation. It never felt as though the Government at the time truly cared. I am pleased that that seems to have changed. The Minister for Migration and Citizenship was the first Government Minister to visit Windrush Square and joined us at the vigil in April. It did not go unnoticed that this token of respect for the Windrush generation was one that no previous Government Minister had ever displayed. I am so pleased that the Government have now taken steps to re-establish the Home Office’s Windrush unit, which will focus on the action needed to ensure that the Windrush scandal is never repeated. I am also pleased that the Home Office is recruiting a Windrush commissioner. I hope the Minister can update the House on the progress of that appointment. Most importantly, the Minister has stressed that the Government are committed to a fundamental reset for the Windrush generation. I hope that the Minister will outline clearly what steps the Government are taking to bring about that reset. Unfortunately, it does not seem from the current immigration legislation going through this House as if lessons have been learned from Windrush. One thing the Mother of the House mentioned in her recent lecture is that we should be careful not to romanticise the issues of the Windrush generation, because the scandal continues. Windrush Day is great, but justice would be better. The Windrush monument is great, but justice would be even better. The funding being given to community organisations—it is not much, but it is some—to push these issues is great, but in comparison to the compensation that should be paid, it is not enough, and again, justice would be better. While it is nice that the grants and bits of support are going ahead and that we talk about the Windrush generation more, the Home Office must not think that that is a substitute for the justice that the Windrush generation have continually been denied. The Home Office must not think that we do not notice that far too many have died before regularising their status and before receiving a penny of justice. It has not gone unnoticed, and it must be resolved. The Windrush generation deserve nothing short of our respect and gratitude for the role they have played in British society. I hope that the Government will begin to lay the groundwork to demonstrate that, and not just with pomp and platitudes but with the justice that they have been denied for far too long.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  A noble Friend from the other place reminded me of a conversation that she overheard me having with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) in October 2023. Israel had begun bombing the civilian population in the Gaza strip, and my hon. Friend asked, “When will they say something?” As I often do, I said the first thing that came to my mind: “When they level it to the ground.” I have to ask the Minister if that is the change that we are waiting for, because I have asked what our red lines are, and it seems that we have none. History will not look kindly on those who perpetuate genocide, or those who assist it, whether through the sale of arms or through sheer inaction. Does the Minister accept that this is now us? The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) pointed to actions that we might take; I have to ask: why are these actions not good enough for the people of Palestine? How many more people will have to die before we do something?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  I am most grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the Petitions Committee for this crucial debate. I also thank Gemma, the thousands of people who have signed the petition and the hundreds of constituents who have contacted me over the years, adding their voices to the call to end the archaic law that sees women who access medical services given some of the harshest sentences that our criminal system doles out. Despite the surrounding issues, we have to be clear that the debate today is not specifically about changing the laws around termination limits. It is not about changing the eligibility for legal abortions, nor is it about changing the requirements for administering abortions. This debate is about changing antiquated laws from a bygone era that are no longer fit for our modern understanding of women’s bodily autonomy or women’s health. [Peter Dowd in the Chair ] The Abortion Act 1967 is now almost 60 years old. There are many things that have changed in terms of women’s rights. In fact, it was not until 1991 that the idea that women could be raped by their husbands was accepted and the act was criminalised. This nearly 60-year-old law is in urgent need of updating so that it protects women and our right to bodily autonomy, rather than seeking to control it. Some of the other legislation that criminalises women for accessing healthcare dates from as early as the 1600s. In 2020, I was pleased to join parliamentarians in voting to repeal legislation in Northern Ireland that prosecuted women for terminating their own pregnancies, yet in England, Scotland and Wales this type of legislation remains in place. The rest of the UK is dragging far behind the rest of the world: in England and Wales, we have the harshest criminalisation of abortion of any country in the world, and that includes countries that are actively anti-abortion, such as Poland and the USA. When President Trump announced his plans to criminalise women accessing abortion, he faced backlash from the Susan B. Anthony List, ardent anti-abortion campaigners. In the past three years in England six women have appeared in court, charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancies. Abortion providers estimate that, for every woman who ends up in court, at least 10 others are subject to prolonged police investigations. When we talk about women being criminalised, we are not only referring to those who have accessed abortion beyond the legal term limit or even those suspected of doing so, but those women who have experienced miscarriages and stillbirths, who are being criminalised, investigated, and treated like criminals when they are going through a difficult and traumatic experience. As someone who has experienced a stillbirth, I cannot express how traumatic it is. The idea that, during what can be the most difficult time in your life, you would be treated in that way—it just bears no understanding whatsoever. I remember that, very late on in my pregnancy, I was strongly advised—in fact, I felt under pressure—to terminate my pregnancy, and by doctors, not by anyone else. I was told that an injection could be given to stop my baby’s heart, but that I would still have to give birth because of how late it was. I said no—but what I want to point out here is that it was my choice. It is very important to stress that it was my choice. We spend so much time fighting for abortion rights and the right to healthcare that we often have no time to make the point that this is all about the choice women are given. So many people come at this issue from a point of faith. We need to understand that the right to exercise one’s faith in healthcare decisions is a human right. If that right is taken away and relinquished for one group of women who may choose to act for whatever reason, it is also relinquished for those who may choose not to move forward with an abortion. We have to keep stressing that: it is about choice. As a woman—as a black woman—I know that things have been done to our bodies for years without our consent. The rights we have now are about our autonomy, and we have to maintain them in whatever way we can. It cannot be right that, while a woman is in this situation, the recent guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council includes instructions to search her home, internet history, text messages and even fertility tracking apps. That is awful. The guidance also, alarmingly, outlines ways in which the police can obtain abortion-related medical records from NHS providers, such as MSI Reproductive Choices UK, without a court order. Pregnancy loss is a devastating tragedy, and those who endure it deserve compassion and support—not criminalisation. It is grossly unacceptable to treat grieving parents as potential suspects in the loss of their child. This guidance risks compounding grief with the fear of prosecution, creating an effect that could deter women from seeking medical help or honest conversations with healthcare providers. Equally, the decision to end a pregnancy can be devastating—a tragedy. Those who endure that also deserve compassion and support, not criminalisation. Access to healthcare should never be a criminal matter; making it so only puts lives at risk. Rather than targeting bereaved families, there should be a focus on improving maternal healthcare, addressing systemic failures, and ensuring that every parent receives the support they need during such a loss. As Louise McCudden, the head of external affairs at MSI Reproductive Choices UK, said: “This guidance will be fuelling a culture of hostility and suspicion towards abortion and pregnancy.” This policy is born out of a culture that demonises and criminalises women who access abortions, exercising their bodily autonomy, and it is sweeping up women who have seen their pregnancies come to an unplanned end. No one deserves to be investigated for ending their own pregnancy—and they certainly do not deserve it when they have lost their child. Those women and their partners need support during that time, but they will not get it if they are being treated like criminals. The continued criminalisation of abortion is antiquated, it lacks compassion and it needs to come to an end. This is about a choice, and every woman should be allowed to make that choice based on her views and beliefs. That is what our human rights are supposed to be about.

• 14 May 2025 · Artificial Intelligence: Environmental Impact · Hansard source

  More

  5. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of AI on the environment.

• 14 May 2025 · Artificial Intelligence: Environmental Impact · Hansard source

  More

  We know that AI has the power to transform civilisation, but its huge drain on the environment is a problem. For example, ChatGPT has an estimated 57 million daily users, but for every five to 50 questions it is asked, 500 ml of water are used to cool down its data centres. The Minister has explained some of the work that is being done and I understand that the AI energy council is looking at energy solutions to align the Government’s AI ambitions with our net zero goals, but with the increased incidence of drought and the overall climate emergency, what steps are the Government taking specifically to manage water consumption and sustainability with their AI ambitions?

• 13 May 2025 · Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing the debate and giving us the opportunity to hail the amazing contribution of churches and religious buildings in our local communities. It is not an exaggeration to say that almost every religious building offers invaluable service to its local community. We see that especially in times of national hardship, such as during the pandemic and in the cost of living crisis, but we also see it in everyday life. Holy Trinity Clapham, which is in my constituency and which is my hon. Friend’s church, is a clear example of the impact that churches and other places of worship can have on their local community. It is the largest Church of England church in the diocese of Southwark, with around 800 worshippers each Sunday, a number that has tripled in size over the past decade. The work of Holy Trinity Clapham has touched so many people in the community. Like so many other churches that we have already heard about, it ran a significant food bank during the covid pandemic, supporting those who were unable to afford basic goods or to get to a supermarket. To carry on that work, the church has established a breakfast club that feeds approximately 200 people every week. It also runs youth clubs, works with ex-offenders, puts on courses for those who have suffered from domestic violence, prepares couples for marriage, and does so much more. Holy Trinity Clapham is not just a place of worship; it is a community hub. Members may also be intrigued to know that Holy Trinity Clapham is the church where William Wilberforce and the Clapham sect worshipped. Continuing that legacy, Holy Trinity has worked with other organisations to help to tackle modern day slavery. It has also extended support to other churches and communities in the area, having sent teams of people to help revitalise other struggling churches and communities in Brixton, Vauxhall and Mitcham. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and the right hon. Member for Salisbury have expressed words of support for Holy Trinity’s vision and I am sure the church is very grateful for that. To facilitate the plans to expand its work, Holy Trinity has begun a project to make its building more suitable for the modern day. It has raised a total of £6 million, with £4.5 million coming through donations from the congregation and the remaining £1.5 million coming from successful grant applications. That is a huge amount of work that the church has already done on its own. The whole project is a massive undertaking, but Holy Trinity has managed to raise the funds and the works will take place over the next 12 to 18 months, or so we hope. As we have heard today, the changes to the listed places of worship grant scheme, and particularly the £25,000 cap, have put those plans in doubt. Holy Trinity had assumed that it would be able to recoup most of the VAT on the £6 million project and it entered into a number of contracts on that basis and on the assumption that the scheme will continue. Now it faces the prospect of an extra £1 million in expenditure. The church does not have that money, nor does its already generous congregation. However, without finding that extra £1 million—or unless the Government introduce an exemption for places of worship that had already signed contracts for projects set to conclude in 2025-26, before the cap is introduced—the project will have to be brought to a temporary halt and potentially a permanent one. I am sure Members will agree that that would be a great shame, with hugely negative repercussions for the local community and those who rely on the church’s services, as well as more widely in the boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth, which the church was hoping to reach. Holy Trinity Clapham is not the only church impacted by these changes. It serves as a very clear example of the impact they will have on the estimated 200 churches across the country whose restoration projects have been placed in jeopardy. Will the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to support churches that have already begun their restoration projects, and stick to the agreement—or the belief—that the churches had when they began them? This morning’s debate has been filled with many shining examples of the crucial role that churches and places of worship play in their local communities, and it would be a great shame to lose that. I hope the Minister shares that sentiment.

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her mention of my new clause and her commitment to ending the financial burden on young children and their families who have a right to citizenship. What further work will be done to consult campaigns such as Citizens UK, Lambeth Citizens and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens that have been working on this issue? I know that the White Paper covers a range of issues, but I want to understand what consultation will be done with those organisations to ensure that we get to where we need to be: a situation where children are not priced out of citizenship.

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to speak in support of new clause 37, which stands in my name, but I will begin by addressing the political theatre that often surrounds immigration. Politicians constantly speak about immigration, spinning fear and suspicion, and then conveniently report back that immigration is a top concern for voters, when it is not. Recent polls show clearly that immigration does not feature in the top concerns among those who were considering voting Labour but did not. Instead, people are talking about tangible issues, such as the winter fuel allowance, the rising cost of living and the desperate need to fund our public services. Rather than dealing with those issues, we choose to stoke division with sentiments about “strangers”. I want to be crystal clear: immigration is not the crisis. What we are facing is the crisis in how we treat people, value rights and understand our responsibilities to one another. The focus seems always to be on small boat crossings, but irregular migration—people arriving by boats—accounts for just a fraction of the nearly 1 million people who came to this country last year. I do not call then “illegal migrants” as that term is morally degrading and asylum seekers have the right under international law to seek refuge. If we want to resolve these issues, we need to start with safe and legal routes. Regular migration has soared since 2021, under the Tories and post Brexit, because the Government’s own policies created this situation. The points-based immigration system was always designed to encourage people to come here—and they have. So the issue is not migration itself, but the exploitative business model behind it. Policies around immigration are never about fairness but always seem to come back to profit. That same logic—profits over people—governs our asylum system. The companies contracted to run immigration detention—household names such as Serco, Mitie and Mears—are all profiteering and make millions off the backs of vulnerable people. We have seen reports of detainees being abused and being kept in unsanitary conditions, yet those companies continue to get millions of pounds in contracts. Speaking of protection, let me turn to children, specifically children born here in the UK or who have lived here since they were young, who have called no other place home, yet are still denied British citizenship. I have tabled new clause 37 to address that. These children are not migrants, but they are treated like second-class citizens, often not knowing they are not officially citizens until they apply to university or for a job. Does that sound familiar? They suddenly find themselves locked out of everything through no fault of their own. It is a quiet scandal, just like the Windrush scandal—they have lived here their whole lives, only to be told that they have no right to be here. We promised “Never again” and said that we would learn lessons, but in 2025 we are charging British-born children £1,214 to register as citizens, when we know the administrative cost is only £372. We are charging those children for something that is their right. Up to 215,000 children are legally entitled to citizenship but they are undocumented because of the exploitative fee. The fee waiver is not working, so we are calling for fairness. At the very least, if a child is entitled to citizenship, they should be able to claim it without being priced out. No child should be punished for where their parents were born or how much money they have.

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns that, by the Government’s own estimates, 300,000 people will be pushed into relative poverty by 2030 and, as a result, will need to rely on council services that are already severely oversubscribed? Does she agree that these cuts, without funding for council emergency services, will be a disastrous combination that risks exacerbating the pressures already faced by our local councils?

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing this important debate—as always, she is right. Like many hon. Members, I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents who are angry and anxious about the Government’s proposed cuts, which make no sense and will push people further into poverty. There is no evidence that they will get people into work, but there is an abundance of evidence of how devastating they will be. My biggest fear is that we may ultimately count the cost of these cuts in lost lives. Lest we forget, a study attributed 330,000 excess deaths in Britain between 2012 and 2019 to the last round of austerity cuts. There is no denying that the number of people claiming sickness and disability benefits is rising, but we cannot ignore the fact that the increase in claims is linked to an ageing population and a decade of under-investment in our health services. If the Government are to recoup costs from somewhere, they should cast their gaze away from some of the most vulnerable in our society and instead look at those with the broadest shoulders. Disabled people bore the brunt of cuts under the previous Government, while UK billionaires saw their wealth triple. These cuts represent the worst of all worlds and will plunge disabled people into poverty while failing to increase employment. They will make people sicker and more reliant on the NHS, and they will not win the Government any favours with the electorate. At the last general election, people voted for change—for a Labour Government that would be more compassionate than the previous Conservative one. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington that it is not too late to change course. The Government can and should reverse these plans.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. Rents in my constituency are becoming exceedingly unaffordable. The most recent Office for National Statistics data estimates that the average rent has risen by 10% in the past year, while the average wage has not risen at the same rate. Several metro mayors are calling for the power to control rents in their region in order to tackle the issue. The steps taken in the Renters’ Rights Bill to cap rents at the market rate are positive, but as it is landlords who set the market rate, renters in my constituency fear that those steps will not be enough to protect them from rising rents. What steps are the Government taking to bring down rental prices?

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

  More

  I thank all Members present in this afternoon’s debate for their thoughtful and balanced contributions. It is not very often in the House that we are generally in agreement, so I am heartened to be joined by Members from different political backgrounds calling for us to improve the state of maternity care. I was grateful for the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan), who talked about the lack of spaces where black women feel supported and the importance of increasing those for all women in maternity care. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) pointed out the need for a national target and framework to challenge these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), the chair of the APPG on maternity, gave a fantastic speech on the significant concerns about the quality and safety of maternity services in the Nottingham University Hospitals Trust. She made very important points on tackling the underlying issues of culture within the NHS. I was also pleased to hear the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), rightly pointing out that this disparity is a national scandal. We are at risk of normalising these issues, and it is so important that we continue to challenge them. Although I do not agree with the shadow Minister on much, she made a very good point about language services. I thank the Minister for her response and for detailing the steps that the Government are taking to tackle this. I know that the Government have committed to setting a target to end racial disparities in maternity care, and I was pleased to see it as a manifesto commitment, but at times, it can feel as though the issue is being kicked into the long grass, as the target has not yet been set. We are looking forward to that, and there are several campaigns watching the debate this afternoon that will have rejoiced when they heard that the Government have committed to setting a target. Like me, however, they continue to wait in eager anticipation to hear what it is. I hope the Minister will take that on board, and that we will not wait too much longer for the target to be announced. Should there be a national inquiry into maternity services, we would hope that black maternal health would be considered as a clear element of the problem, with stand-alone recommendations on what should be done to tackle the disparities. That would be extremely important. I also thank the Minister for acknowledging the need for anti-racism training, that systemic racism exists, and that there are various things that we must do to tackle it. One of the worst things that can happen to women in this situation is being gaslit into thinking that their experiences did not happen. Women not being listened to purely because of what they look like, where they are from and their ethnic origin, is causing so many problems and even leading to deaths. We must acknowledge them and, instead of burying our heads in the sand, tackle issues of racism and discrimination in our health service. Finally, I thank all the campaigners listening to the debate today again for their hard work and tireless campaigning. Many of the women in the campaign are involved because of their own experience in maternity care or that of a loved one. Many who have dedicated their time to campaigning on the issue do so because they do not want anybody else to go through what they did. It can be exhausting to re-live past traumas and continue to push the cause, but it is through their hard work that we are having the debate today and that we have a Government willing to address the issues. In my opening remarks, I mentioned the worrying findings from the recent MBRRACE-UK report, which revealed that the overall maternal death rate is increasing. That is outrageous. That should be alarming to all of us and should spur us into action. I say this each time we have this debate: improving the state of maternity care for black and ethnic minority women and babies will improve the overall quality of maternity care for all mothers and babies. I hope we can agree that that is certainly worth doing. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Black Maternal Health Week 2025.

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

  More

  Does the hon. Lady accept that, given that she is not of an ethnic minority and has not looked at the information given by a number of women from ethnic minority backgrounds who have experienced this, she is not really in a position to say that what they say they experienced does not exist?

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he is absolutely right. I re-emphasise the point that black, Asian and minority ethnic women are more likely to suffer from common mental health disorders, yet are less likely to access treatment. According to MBRRACE-UK’s “Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care” report from last October, deaths from mental health-related causes accounted for 34% of deaths occurring between six weeks and a year after the end of pregnancy. It is vital that all those who experience pregnancy and childbirth receive mental health support, even if they do not necessarily present as struggling with their mental health; but that is especially true of black, Asian and minority ethnic women, who are more likely to have a negative experience during pregnancy and childbirth. Some of these women’s experiences are deeply traumatic and scarring, and can lead to several mental health problems. Despite that, they are less likely to access mental health support, so they are left to try to recover mentally from the experience on their own. That disparity exists beyond pregnancy and childbirth, and even before conception. According to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, black women are 25 times less likely to access fertility treatment, and NHS-funded in vitro fertilisation cycles among black patients decreased from 60% in 2019 to 41% in 2021. Black and Asian patients aged 18 to 37 had the lowest IVF success rates compared with white patients in 2020-21, and non-white groups also struggled to access donor eggs, with 89% of egg donors being white, 4% Asian, 3% of mixed heritage and only 3% black. During the International Women’s Day debate, I highlighted the latest MBRRACE-UK data, which showed a statistically significant increase in the UK’s maternal death rate in the years 2020 to 2022, even when excluding deaths caused by covid-19. Put plainly, more women and babies of all races are dying in the UK now than in the past two decades. This is incredibly worrying, and it means that black women, who often face the worst care, are likely to experience even further deterioration. When I was researching the latest statistics and figures for this debate, it became increasingly apparent that the data on racial disparities in maternity care is limited and scattered. The data I have cited comes from a collection of reports by various medical bodies and advocacy organisations. Racial disparities are often identified as part of broader studies but, as far as I know, to date there has been no comprehensive medical study dedicated exclusively to racial disparities in maternity care and outcomes, despite the statistics consistently showing how bad things are becoming. The Lancet ’s recent study on maternal mortality and MBRRACE-UK’s reports do include racial breakdowns, but they are based on the data that they have, not the data that they need. A single, dedicated study is yet to be conducted. The lack of comprehensive research makes it incredibly difficult to see a full picture of what is happening, so I hope that the Minister will address that point and highlight what the Government are doing to get a clearer picture of the state of maternity care. There is no one driver of the racial disparities in maternity care and outcomes. The causes are multifaceted, but overwhelmingly they are the result of a combination of structural racism, unconscious bias, gaps in culturally competent care and socioeconomic inequalities. The first two are incredibly important to highlight. Without acknowledging that the NHS has an issue with institutional racism and unconscious bias, we cannot address the problem. Those issues feed into the quality of care being delivered for black mothers and their babies. The inaccurate and dog-whistle assumptions around black women’s pain tolerance, for example, can lead to women being denied pain medication during childbirth, or misbelieved when raising concerns about pain felt that signals a severe medical condition. Those beliefs are not taught in medical school or during training, yet so many black women have come across a nurse, midwife or doctor who holds them. They are a direct result of institutional racism in the NHS and have a direct impact on the care that women receive. It is important to note that, although racial disparities in maternity care are experienced regardless of class, occupation, education or geography, socioeconomic inequalities are still a very important factor in determining health outcomes and experiences. Women living in the most deprived areas have a maternal mortality rate more than twice that of women living in the least deprived areas. Black and minority ethnic people are 2.5 times more likely to be in relative poverty and 2.2 times more likely to live in deep poverty. The combination of socioeconomic inequalities and institutional racism in the NHS is having a dual impact on black mothers’ experiences of maternity care and health outcomes. Much of the previous Government’s work to improve maternity care was focused on co-morbidities and socioeconomic drivers of poor health. Indeed, it is crucial that those areas are addressed, but without looking at the structural racism and unconscious bias in the NHS, the problems will persist. I want to recognise the campaign groups that are pushing the issue up the political agenda. In the absence of concrete Government or NHS action, advocacy groups have stepped in to offer their solutions and recommendations. Where they can, they also offer alternative care and training. First—always first—I commend Five X More, which established Black Maternal Health Awareness Week in 2019. Its work empowers black women to make informed decisions during pregnancy, and it advocates for systemic change. It is currently conducting its second national survey, building on its impactful 2022 research. Five X More is calling for a measurable Government target to end racial disparities in maternal death, a commitment that the Labour Government support but have yet to implement. I hope that the Minister will confirm today whether such a target will be set, how it will be measured and when we can expect it. Five X More also advocates for mandatory annual maternity surveys focused on black women’s experiences, compulsory anti-racism and cultural competence training for all maternity professionals, and improved data collection on ethnicity and outcomes.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Black Maternal Health Week 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Before I get to the crux of this debate, I want to begin by saying that the UK is one of the safest countries in the world for a woman to give birth. I say that at the outset not to diminish the importance of this debate, but to move beyond that platitude—because in the sixth largest economy in the world, this should be one of the safest places to give birth. It is important that we move beyond that and focus on the real and persistent inequalities facing black and minority ethnic women in maternity care. While I am sure it is not the intention to focus on that, it can give the impression that, because the UK is broadly safe, the negative experiences of some women are exceptional and not matters that require significant Government attention. When we detail some of the harrowing experiences of women and hear that response, it can feel as though our concerns are being minimalised, so I hope the Minister will appreciate that I have got that part out of the way. While the UK is among the safest places to give birth, it is by no means perfect, and for many women it is deadly. As always, it is vital to lay out the current state of affairs. The disparities in maternity care are evident not only in maternal mortality statistics, which show that black and mixed heritage women are three times more likely to die during pregnancy or childbirth as white women, and Asian women twice as likely, but in many other areas. Miscarriage rates are 40% higher in black women, and black ethnicity is now regarded as a risk factor for miscarriage. MBRRACE-UK’s 2023 comparison of care for black and white women who have experienced stillbirth or neonatal death found that the majority of all significant issues were identified in antenatal care for 83% of black women, compared with 69% of white women; 67% of black mothers and babies had a major or significant issue related to pathology, compared with 46% of white mothers and babies; and 75% of black parents and 66% of white parents had significant issues identified during the follow-up or reviews of their and their baby's care. Public Health England’s 2020 report found that prematurity is a major cause of long-term infant morbidity. Black mothers, particularly those of black Caribbean background, are twice as likely to give birth before 37 weeks. In Five X More’s “Black Maternity Experiences Report 2022”, 27% of the 1,340 survey respondents felt that they received “poor” or “very poor” care during pregnancy and labour, and postnatally. Forty-two per cent of the standard of care during childbirth was “poor” or “very poor”, and I sincerely hope that the findings of Five X More’s next survey, which is currently under way, will show some improvement here. According to Bliss, many babies born to black mothers require specialist care after birth, particularly due to preterm birth or full term complications, yet significant inequalities persist in neonatal care, admissions, the quality of care received, and outcomes after discharge. Poor care received at such an early stage of life can have critical consequences and lead to long-term health complications for black babies and deepen trauma for their families. Post-natal mental health disparities are also significant; UK studies show that women from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are more likely to suffer from common mental health disorders, yet are less likely to access treatment.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These figures have been circulating for decades, but it was only after a successful parliamentary petition launched by Five X More that we first debated them in the House. We are now five or six years on and we are still in the same situation. Things have to change. I will continue to pay tribute to the amazing groups that have been pushing for decades to put the issue on the agenda. Mimosa Midwives is another remarkable group that offers culturally safe, continuous maternity care. It campaigns for a culturally appropriate care model in the NHS and for inclusive training in midwifery education to reflect diverse maternal experiences, because much of our medical training remains centred on white women. The Motherhood Group is a social enterprise supporting black mothers with peer-led services, training workshops and national campaigns. Its annual black maternal health conference brings together researchers, clinicians and service users to tackle disparities. It also launched the Blackmums app to connect mothers navigating similar challenges. Other charities such as Bliss, Tommy’s, Birthrights and the Royal College of Midwives also highlight racial disparities in their broader efforts to improve maternity care. Where the Government and the NHS have fallen short, they have taken the time to campaign and to step in. I will, however, acknowledge the positive steps that the new Government and the NHS have taken. In response to my written parliamentary questions last month, the Government outlined some ongoing measures. Every local maternity system must now publish an equity and equality action plan that sets out tailored actions to reduce disparities, especially for ethnic minority women and those in deprived areas. I welcome the roll-out of version 3 of the Saving Babies’ Lives care bundle, which aims to reduce stillbirth, neonatal death, pre-term birth and brain injury. Maternal medicine networks are being established to ensure equitable access to specialist care for women at heightened risk. Those efforts are supported by the NHS equality, diversity and inclusion improvement plan, which was launched in 2023. That plan requires NHS organisations to tackle workforce discrimination, improve leadership accountability and foster an inclusive, harassment-free environment. I am also pleased to note that NHS England is developing a respectful and inclusive maternity care toolkit to support inclusive and culturally competent practice. Those are all really welcome developments, but much more is needed. I will close with four questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit to a statutory inquiry into racial disparities in maternity care, including testimony from affected families and frontline providers? Secondly, will the Government fund dedicated research into the medical complications disproportionately affecting black women during pregnancy and childbirth? Thirdly, will the Government commission a review of maternity training across all medical professions, to better equip practitioners in recognising complications and symptoms in black women and babies? Finally, do the Government acknowledge the presence of systemic racism within the NHS? If so, what steps are being taken to confront and eliminate it? It is good that in the past few years, the House has taken the time to acknowledge these issues and allow us to debate them, but even though the Government stated in their manifesto that a target will be set, we now need to see action. We cannot continue to see gaping inequalities in maternal outcomes.

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

  More

  I just want to check whether the hon. Lady understands that structural racism is about not the number of people within an organisation, but the way the organisation is set up and treats different people. Does she understand that having a high proportion of ethnic minority people does not necessarily mean that an organisation such as the NHS—which, I might add, in its senior levels is run by people mostly not from ethnic minorities—does not discriminate against people in a certain way?

• 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.