Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. How far have we fallen if we renege on those commitments that we have made, particularly those under the refugee convention? Removing such status or forcibly removing people who have lived here lawfully for a number of years would be in direct contravention of our values as a country. The Government cannot claim to support integration while pricing children out of citizenship. They cannot talk about fairness while extending the ILR pathway. They cannot promise compassion while allowing profiteering in the immigration system, while reneging on commitments and demonising asylum seekers. We need to build an immigration system that reflects not just our economic priorities, but our values as a country. These reforms do neither.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Cost of Living: Families · Hansard source

  More

  4. What fiscal steps she has taken to help reduce the cost of living for families.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Cost of Living: Families · Hansard source

  More

  The Trussell Trust’s recent “Hunger in the UK” report highlights the startling reality of food insecurity. It has found that rates are higher for private renters in receipt of housing benefit, either through local housing allowance or through the housing element of universal credit. Private renters on the lowest incomes cannot keep up with the rising cost of living, and maintaining the freeze on local housing allowance risks driving even more people into hunger and homelessness, because private renters receiving LHA will likely see an average shortfall of £243 a month. The Government have taken meaningful steps towards tackling food insecurity, but will the Chancellor build on this by lifting the freeze on local housing allowance?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She will have heard people talk many times in this Chamber about the lack of diversity in our judicial system. Last July, I met the Bar Council, because when a sector has issues we should talk to the workers—more often than not, they have the solutions. In my view, that has always been the Labour way. They had a number of recommendations that should be considered—for example, that defendants who are awaiting trial should be remanded at a conveniently located prison close to the court, because Serco, the company tasked with prisoner transportation, persistently fails to transport prisoners in good time. This wastes the court’s time and results in a new court date having to be set. We should end that privatisation and bring prisoner transportation back in-house. We should provide greater flexibility for hearings and allow virtual courts, so that more cases are heard; permit all available judges, including those who have retired but are below the age of 75, to sit as many days as they are available; invest in more court staff and support; and list trials from Monday to Thursday, so that all short matters can be dealt with on one day—namely, Friday—minimising disruption for all other court users, such as jurors, witnesses and defendants. These are all simple changes that would significantly maximise sittings while preserving the basic foundations of our criminal justice system. The wholesale change that we ought to be considering today is the complete reversal of the austerity measures introduced by the coalition Government, which led to this mess, but that has been overshadowed by the proposal to restrict jury trials. Finally, racial bias in our criminal justice system is well documented. Any reforms should address this head-on, but to conduct a post-legislative review on discrimination is deeply insulting to those communities that are impacted. As I said earlier, this Bill was our opportunity to fully implement the Lammy review; instead, we will have a situation where there is no automatic right to appeal, when black women are 22% more likely to be convicted. To quote Ife Thompson, one of the brilliant lawyers who was protesting outside Parliament today, “In a justice system that already produces racially discriminatory outcomes, removing juries means removing one of the few spaces where ordinary people and some real diversity still exist in the courtroom.” We all have to have red lines, and racism in our justice system has ruined so many lives in our communities. I cannot support this measure, and if it is not removed from the legislation, I will not be supporting this Bill.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that after enduring 14 years of Conservative government, now is the opportunity to implement the Lammy review in full?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  While there is lots to welcome in the Bill, I fear it has been completely overshadowed by plans to restrict jury trials. This is not what victims are asking for—they need changes that are backed by evidence and that will result in genuine improvements to the criminal justice system. Jury trials are not what has led to the backlog, and these reforms will not reduce it. I have a close friend who is a survivor of rape, and she is alarmed by this proposal. After a three and a half year wait for her trial, the delay made her suicidal. She desperately wants action on court backlogs, but she opposes these plans and is outraged that her trauma and that of thousands of survivors is being used to justify what she sees as effectively a cost-cutting exercise. As learned Friends know, courts could be instructed to prioritise rape cases and have them heard in a set period of time, such as six months. As my brave hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) asked, where are the specialist courts? None of these things require legislation. We need to address the backlog in our criminal courts, but any steps taken should never jeopardise equality or access to justice.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Foreign Office’s preparation for a potential evacuation of Britons currently in the middle east and the Prime Minister’s commitment to their safety. However, among them will be a number of British residents who may have gone there for work or leisure—I have not heard them mentioned specifically today—who live their whole lives here and have their families here, like many of the 12,000 non-UK Commonwealth citizens who currently serve in our armed forces. People are concerned given the negative rhetoric surrounding those with indefinite leave to remain at the moment. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm that all UK residents, and not just citizens, will be included in any evacuation? They are our people, too.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We know that to sustain a healthy democracy, we have to always look at ways to strengthen it. This Bill seeks to do just that, so I am pleased that the Government have brought it forward. By lowering the voting age to 16, we are expanding democratic participation and taking a vital step to strengthen and renew our democracy. I have often been sceptical of those who say that young people are not interested in politics or do not understand it enough to vote. To Members of this House who suggest that, I simply ask them how often they visit schools in their constituencies. I have encountered students far younger than 16 who have shown more than a basic understanding of our political system. I regularly visit schools in my constituency and experience at first hand the political intelligence and impressive cross-examination of young people there. Last summer, I was pleased to host my first activism academy, inviting 16 to 18-year-olds to a three-day learning programme to understand what MPs do, how Parliament works, and the ways in which they can get involved. Our young people are politically engaged and understand the weight of the right they are being granted. While I welcome the change, I am disappointed that it has not been coupled with a robust programme of civic education. While many 16 to 18-year-olds have a firm understanding of politics, without comprehensive political education, those who want more information are forced to seek it elsewhere and will likely resort to social media, which is riddled with fake news. I ask the Minister when they respond to outline what the Government have planned. I very much welcome the provisions in the Bill that will introduce automatic voter registration, which is an important step to improve voter turnout. I would also like to see the Bill go the way of Australia, where everybody who is eligible to vote has a legal obligation to do so. Finally, I would like to see the Bill offer more power to the electorate to recall their Members of Parliament—yes, you heard that right. I suspect this is not a suggestion that will make me popular with my colleagues, but I think we should all be more concerned about what our constituents think. At the moment, for an MP to be recalled, they must be convicted of a criminal offence that makes them eligible and they must have exhausted the appeals process. That can take years, and during that time their constituents are not getting the representation they deserve. Unlike recall procedures in other countries, the Recall of MPs Act 2015 does not allow constituents to initiate proceedings, instead relying on criminal criteria being met. Even then, a high threshold of petitioners is needed for a by-election to be triggered. Over a number of years, MPs have been investigated for criminal offences or gross misconduct, and Members have failed to behave in a standard that is befitting of an MP. They have disgraced themselves, our profession and this House and, most importantly, they have failed their constituents. With trust in politicians at an all-time low, we need to show that we are willing to put it right. This is the Representation of the People Bill; it should seek to strengthen and improve the representation of British people by giving the electorate greater power to hold their MPs to account. The Bill is a great starting point for strengthening our democracy, and I hope the Government will not shy away from going further.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for introducing this crucial debate. I want to start by saying, on the record, that I do not agree with tuition fees, and I do not support the decision to raise them. If there is still an MP in this House who voted to bring in tuition fees in the first place, they should be deeply ashamed of themselves for pulling up the drawbridge behind them. As someone whose entire undergraduate degree cost less than what a current student can expect to pay for a year, it is only right that I advocate for current and future students. Like so many, I have had a number of constituents on plan 2 student loans contact me to say that they have been working ever since they left university, and have consistently made payments to their loan, yet they have not once seen their total loan decrease; in fact, they have increased by substantial amounts. That is happening to so many young people. Many of us have staff in that situation. Some are calling it a graduate tax, and others are even using that phrase to assert the fairness of this loan system, but that is, frankly, an insult to graduates who are already paying taxes on their income. The terms of the plan 2 student loan make it more comparable to something that a loan shark would offer. It is not a graduate tax, and it is just not fair. As for the decision to freeze the repayment threshold, it is a one-sided breach of contractual terms. We need a more equitable approach to higher education funding overall.

• 12 Feb 2026 · LGBT+ History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I start by congratulating my faves, my formidable hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne), on securing this vital debate and on their brilliant speeches. I know that this debate means a lot to members of the LGBT+ community in my constituency and across the UK. I am pleased to hear the reflections on and recognition of the incredible achievements of LGBT+ people throughout history, and about the remarkable fight for equality and an end to discrimination. Sadly, we all know that that fight is not yet over and there is still a substantial way to go before LGBT+ people are free to live and love without prejudice. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East on her victory at the Council of Europe in passing the report on banning conversion therapy, because one step to end discrimination that the previous Government—and, so far, this Government—have failed to take is the introduction of a complete trans-inclusive ban on LGBT+ conversion therapy, a vile practice better described as a form of torture of LGBT+ people. We said: “So-called conversion therapy is abuse—there is no other word for it—so Labour will finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity.” I was pleased to take those words in our 2024 manifesto to the electorate, and I was proud to hear the promise reiterated in the King’s Speech, yet almost two years on, we are still awaiting the draft conversion practices Bill. For every day that the legislation is delayed, LGBT+ people are subjected to medical, psychiatric, psychological, religious and cultural and other abusive interventions that seek to change, “cure” or suppress their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. A person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is not something that needs to be cured, nor should it be suppressed. There is nothing wrong with being lesbian, gay, bi, trans or queer, or identifying in any other way that comes under the LGBT+ umbrella. It seems like we are taking steps back on equality when we have to state that in 2026, but it is necessary because conversion practices have not been banned in their entirety, and those undertaking them seek to say otherwise. They seek to tell LGBT+ people that their identity is wrong when that is simply untrue. It is not uncommon for individuals to question or explore their sexual orientation or gender identity and seek guidance and support from their friends, family or even religious leaders, but it has always irked me when people attempt to use faith in these arguments, especially when I think of Jesus’s final commandment: quite simply, to love one another. I have never understood how you can love someone while at the same time discriminating against them. Conversion therapy is not supportive, not affirming and not therapeutic. It is a one-directional practice that seeks to force LGBT+ people to change their sexual orientation or gender identity through pseudoscientific counselling sessions, threats, corrective rape, being prayed over as a form of “healing”, and even exorcisms. These practices do nothing to make a person straight or cisgender; in fact, all they do is cause immense psychological and physical harm. For every day that the legislation is delayed, these vile conversion practices continue, and LGBT+ people are at risk of having them offered to them or forced on them. The previous Government promised to bring in a ban, but they delayed and U-turned and, ultimately, failed to introduce one. I am sure it is not a spoiler to say that I am sure the Government will deliver on their manifesto commitment, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate, particularly because I know that she has long campaigned on these issues, but the urgent question that I would like her to answer is: when?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Social Rented Housing Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her excellent report. Does she agree that housing associations sometimes try to get the heat taken off them by employing managing agents? When constituents approach them for repairs and so on, they are often sent back from one to the other. I have had particular incidents at the Darcus Howe apartments on Brixton Hill, where Notting Hill Genesis, which is the housing association, and Crabtree keep shirking the responsibility for providing some vital changes. For example, people could not get heating between November and January, the coldest months. Does my hon. Friend think that more should be done? Perhaps we should be better able to hold people criminally liable for the situations in which they put our constituents.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour in Lambeth is making an excellent speech. The arbitrary cap, which I believe was initially created in the fair funding review, created the unintended consequence of leaving Lambeth missing out on the funding that it would have otherwise received. That means that Lambeth has lost out on £47.5 million over three years. As she knows, that money is urgently needed to protect our local services. Although, like me, I am sure that she welcomes the uplift to the recovery grant that was announced yesterday, does she agree that it is not enough to meet the needs of our constituents and our local authority with its ever-growing costs?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) for bringing forward this vital debate. To many of us, it has always been abundantly clear that what is taking place in Palestine does indeed constitute a genocide. Since the Israeli attacks began in 2023, more than 70,000 people have been killed and entire bloodlines have been wiped out. We have witnessed targeted attacks on civilians and journalists, the forced displacement of people from their homes, the obstruction of humanitarian aid, the weaponisation of starvation and the destruction of vital civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools and universities. Taken together, those actions demonstrate a clear and deliberate attempt by the Israeli Government to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land. Since the ceasefire was announced in October, hundreds more Palestinians have been killed. Aid continues to be blocked from entering the region, and there are severe restrictions on the number of sick and wounded people permitted to leave for medical care. Let me be clear: even if Israel had fully complied with the ceasefire agreement, ceased all attacks today and allowed the unconditional flow of aid into Gaza, none of that would undo the suffering already inflicted on the Palestinian people or negate the fact that what has taken place constitutes a genocide. It is vital that we use the correct language. History will not describe what is unfolding in Palestine as a war, an invasion or just an occupation; it will describe it as a genocide. The questions that future historians will ask are, “Why did the international community fail to recognise it? Why did we do nothing to stop it?” There is a growing body of evidence and a clear consensus among UN experts, human rights organisations and genocide scholars that Israel has committed and continues to commit acts of genocide. The UK has a legal obligation not to aid or assist violations of international law, including a duty to take all possible measures to prevent genocide once a risk has been identified, yet we continue to sell arms to Israel that are undoubtedly being used to attack civilians. I therefore hope that, when the Minister responds, he will explain why the Government believe that it is acceptable to continue the sale and trade of arms that aid Israel’s actions, including with illegal settlements. It is our moral duty, as a nation with historical responsibility in the region, and as advocates for human rights, to ensure that the Palestinian people are granted the justice, freedom and dignity they deserve.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Human Remains (Prohibition of Sale, Purchase and Advertising) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit giving or receiving a reward for the supply of, or for offering to supply, human remains or any object partially consisting of human remains; to prohibit advertising the sale, exchange, or offer of sale or exchange, of human remains or any object partially consisting of human remains; to make provision for specified exemptions from those prohibitions; and for connected purposes. In short, this Bill is about the buying and selling of human remains. To most people, the thought of buying a bag full of human bones, a shrunken skull or a piece of human leather would be unthinkable. In fact, most people would never have thought that this was something they could purchase, but it is. A growing trade in human remains is taking place through social media, on e-commerce sites, at in-person auctions, in curiosity shops and at oddities markets. Human bones, hair, teeth, skin and other organs are frequently sold by private traders to other private individuals, entirely without regulation. I want to put on record my thanks to the members of the trading and sale of human remains taskforce of the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology, who brought the scale of this abhorrent trade to my attention. They work tirelessly to confront, expose and ultimately bring an end to the private sale of human remains. I also want to thank the African Foundation for Development—AFFORD—which, with the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations, produced the “Laying Ancestors to Rest” report, which addresses the ethical, cultural and historical concerns surrounding African ancestral remains, many of which were taken during colonial rule and continue to be displayed and sold at auction today. I must apologise in advance to Members and warn anyone with a weak stomach, because some of what I am about to describe is truly stomach-churning. Members of the taskforce have documented and shared examples of sales that they have tracked over the years. These include human skulls and skeletal bones, partial or whole; shrunken skulls; elongated skulls; a Papuan Gulf trophy skull; a child’s shrunken head; and skulls that still have hair and soft tissue attached. They have encountered shops selling lucky dip bags of bones, from small boxes for £50 to larger boxes for £90. They have also come across the sale of wet sample human organs preserved in specimen jars, including foetal hearts and lungs and even slices of human brain. For Members wondering what on earth someone would want with these remains, there is a substantial market for decorative objects made from human remains. One could purchase a wind chime made from a human skull cap with ribs and clavicles, a candlestick made from stacked human vertebrae, a human finger crucifix pendant, a skull fitted with brass nails for teeth and turned into a lamp, necklaces made of teeth or even wallets fashioned from human leather, and all of that is entirely legal. I should stress that this is by no means the full extent of the sales that take place. While the human remains taskforce does an excellent job of tracking what it can, there are undoubtedly hundreds more sales that go unnoticed. To my knowledge, the taskforce is the only body that actively attempts to police this trade. In 2026, one can sell a piece of human remains or an object partially consisting of human remains with no checks on how those remains were acquired and no verification of how old they are, who they belonged to, whether consent was given or what the buyer intends to do with them. The biggest obstacle sellers face is not the law, but the user rules of social media platforms and e-commerce sites such as Instagram, Facebook, eBay, Gumtree and Etsy. Even then, sellers routinely circumvent those rules by misspelling words, mislabelling real names as replicas or advertising collections without explicitly stating an intent to sell before completing transactions through private messages or in person. The most serious repercussion sellers are likely to face is an account suspension, and we all know how easy it is to simply set up a new one. Ultimately, the only hurdle sellers face is platform moderation; they face no legal barrier at all. In-person sellers face even fewer obstacles, with no oversight of the human remains sold in curiosity shops, flea markets or satanic markets. The UK is not wholly devoid of regulation, however. The Human Tissue Act 2004 makes it an offence to hold human remains that are less than 100 years old for certain scheduled purposes without a licence, but it does not expressly prohibit commercial sale beyond very narrow circumstances. It is silent on the sale of remains as curiosities or private objects outside regulated contexts. At present, we have stronger licensing rules for animal remains than for some human remains. That is what my Bill seeks to address. Beyond this being an incredibly disturbing trade, there is a clear moral and ethical case for banning it. There is no reliable way to establish how remains were acquired—whether they were looted or grave-robbed—their age or whether any consent was given by the individual themselves or by their relatives or descendants. During the colonial era, ancestral remains from communities across the world were stolen from battlefields, looted from graves, taken as trophies or curiosities, or used in the now discredited racist pseudoscience of phrenology, which sought to claim inherent inferiority based on skull shape. Many remains still in circulation are sold as so-called antique medical skeletons, having been imported in the tens of thousands during the 20th century until the export bans from India in 1985 and China in the 2000s. I have been informed that the underground trade continues. Imagine seeing your ancestor’s body parts listed at auction as decorative objects. That was the case for some when the skull of a tribesman from Nagaland was auctioned online in the UK as part of a “curious collector sale”—one of thousands of items taken by British colonial administrators. In fact, that has been the case for many African and Asian remains, as is outlined in the “Laying Ancestors to Rest” report. Long after colonial rule and our acceptance that racism is wrong, we continue to deny the people affected dignity, even in death. Some may argue that remains that are hundreds of years old raise fewer concerns, yet there is good reason to believe that some remains being sold are far more recent than is claimed. Labelling them as antiques does not make it so, and serious questions remain about provenance. A case currently before the US courts involves a man accused of grave-robbing and selling remains online. While we have not seen such a case here, it would be naive to assume that similar practices could not be taking place. I should be clear that there are legitimate circumstances that the Bill would not prohibit. For example, cost recovery for medical research, teaching and scientific use would remain regulated through existing licensing and ethical frameworks. Nor would it outlaw respectful bereavement practices, such as memorial jewellery containing a lock of hair, where consent is clear. The Bill carefully distinguishes between consented memorial items and the commercial sale of unprovenanced remains. I believe there is universal agreement across the House that the sale of human remains, particularly where their origin, age and acquisition are unverified, should not be allowed to continue. Although import and export restrictions exist, legislative oversight has allowed domestic sale to remain perfectly legal. This Bill corrects that oversight, and I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Siân Berry, Carla Denyer, Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Diane Abbott, Apsana Begum, Dawn Butler, Zarah Sultana and Clive Lewis present the Bill. Bell Ribeiro-Addy accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 379).

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. and learned Friend is making a fantastic speech, and I thank him for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. According to the Royal College of Nursing, 60% of internationally educated staff without ILR have said that it is very likely that extending this qualifying period will affect their decision to remain in the UK. That equates to 46,000 nursing staff at risk of leaving the UK. Does he agree that this policy would worsen the retention crisis? Also, does he agree that the Government ought to produce an NHS-specific impact assessment for this policy?

• 28 Jan 2026 · LGBTQ+ Rights · Hansard source

  More

  The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft code of practice has caused uncertainty and anxiety among the trans and non-binary community. It has also left many workplaces, businesses and single-sex spaces confused about how they should proceed. Although I am pleased that the Government have not rushed ahead with the EHRC’s proposals, we urgently need guidance on how to remain trans inclusive while also protecting single-sex spaces. Will the Minister provide an update on where her Department is with the guidance, and what assurances and guidance she can give on single-sex spaces that will fully consider and guarantee the human rights of all trans and gender non-conforming people in the UK?

• 28 Jan 2026 · LGBTQ+ Rights · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to protect LGBTQ+ rights.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Police Reform White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement about the deployment of 13,000 more neighbourhood officers. That will be incredibly welcome in my constituency, where we have a serious antisocial behaviour problem. However, residents in my borough of Lambeth overall have a historical issue with levels of trust in the police, largely due to racial profiling. Will the Home Secretary reassure me and my constituents that reforms to policing, including any measures that grant more powers to the police, will seek to address the issues of police mistrust and racial bias in policing?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Animal Welfare Strategy for England · Hansard source

  More

  A quick question on road traffic accidents, only because it would involve simple secondary legislation that inserts the word “cat” to give cats the same protection as dogs. Are there any plans for that?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member and alongside him I wish to put on record on behalf of my constituents what an absolute disgrace Thames Water is. In a desperate attempt to secure their investments, avoid special administration and keep the company within the private sector, Thames Water’s creditors are trying to strike a deal with Ofwat that would see them polluting our waterways for up to 15 years. That is a shameless attempt that proves that they cannot be trusted to put the best interests of their customers or the environment ahead of their own purses. Does the hon. Member agree that Ofwat ought to reject that deal and use the powers it has been granted through this Act and put Thames Water into special administration?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I love new year’s fireworks, and I recall how enjoyable my local council-run fireworks always were. However, as someone who has had fireworks thrown at them and gets similar reports from constituents, I know how terrifying they can be. It definitely seems that we need more regulation. Constituents complain that because fireworks are not considered serious, the police do not necessarily come when called, or they only come a few days later. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the appeal of personal firework displays is that many local councils such as my own have had to cut their budget for firework displays and can no longer hold them, while other firework displays end up being ticketed so people across the area cannot necessarily participate?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Sickle cell anaemia is the UK’s fastest growing genetic condition, with nearly 300 babies born with it every year. Instead of specialist capacity increasing, we are seeing the sickle cell day unit at the Royal London hospital facing a questionable six-month trial closure. This will put significant pressure on neighbouring services, extend emergency travel time by up to two hours, and place patients at serious and potentially fatal risk during a crisis. Five years after the sickle cell and thalassaemia all-party parliamentary group’s report, “No One’s Listening”, will the Government do what the last Government failed to and make a statement on their plans to deliver a national strategy for specific and specialised sickle cell treatment?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  While many small businesses in my constituency were grateful for the support they received, their main concern, which many repeated to me, was about the abrupt end to support measures. Almost overnight, small businesses found themselves having to repay loans, and cover staff wages and all those other expenses, even though the economy had not bounced back and their sales had not returned to pre-covid levels. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to ensure that in the event of a future crisis, as well as not excluding those who need support, anything given to people to help them through such a period does not end with a cliff edge but is tapered to allow them to adjust to the post-crisis system?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: London · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this crucial debate and for the incredible work that she has always done to shine a light on this issue. I want to be absolutely clear that we are discussing specifically male violence against women and girls. The word “male” is often omitted, giving us the neat acronym VAWG, but when we leave it out in discussion, we remove the perpetrators from the conversation and the focus shifts solely to victims. While the protection of survivors must always be a priority, we cannot treat this as a women-only issue. This is not a female issue at all—we are not the problem. It is and always has been a male issue. There is no action that a woman can take that will ever justify her harassment, assault, rape, abuse, femicide, mutilation or any other of the horrific crimes committed by men against women and girls. Violence against women and girls is not inevitable; it is the predictable outcome of a society that still treats women’s safety as optional rather than fundamental. If we are serious about ending violence against women and girls, we have to start with prevention, and that means embedding consent and healthy relationships in education in every single school. Our focus has to be addressing the culture that raises some men and boys to believe that such behaviour is acceptable. We must confront the gaps in our criminal justice system that in practice decriminalise these offences, signalling time and again that they can be committed with little fear of consequence. I am a London MP and violence against women and girls is definitely a city-wide problem. We have heard and will continue to hear statistics that show its scale. For most women, this violence can occur anywhere—at home, at school, at work, on a night out, walking in a public space and even when travelling on public transport. Most women and girls in London will have a story about harassment on the capital’s public transport network. The data suggests it is harder to find a woman who has not experienced such harassment, although we know it is rarely reported. Of the incidents that are reported, the figures paint a very stark picture. Last year, more than 120,000 crimes of violence against women and girls were reported to the Met, with alarming levels on public transport. In the first half of 2025, 907 sexual offences were reported across Transport for London services, up from 879 in the same period the previous year. On the Elizabeth line, there was a 247.8% increase from 2023 to 2024, followed by a further rise this year. On the underground, offences rose to 856 cases from 745 the previous year, and on the bus network, reports rose by 28.6%. Again, we know these figures represent only a fraction of the true scale of offending. Surveys have found that more than half of women in London have experienced sexual harassment on buses, the tube or trains. A significant proportion of women who have experienced this harassment and assault never report it. Transport-related incidents are no exception. Too many women who do come forward are not believed, are treated as though they are the problem rather than the victim, or witness at first hand the shortcomings of investigations. They are told that the perpetrator could not be identified because the carriage was too busy, that the CCTV was not working, or that nothing can be done on this occasion but they should report it if it happens again. Those responses erode confidence that the police are willing or equipped to deal with such cases, and they add to the wider crisis of trust in policing that women and girls feel acutely. Perpetrators are effectively given the green light. They know their victim may not report, and that even if she does, the chances of being caught, let alone prosecuted, are slim. This creates a vicious cycle. Fewer reports lead to fewer prosecutions, fewer prosecutions remove any meaningful deterrent, offending escalates, men become emboldened, and women feel increasingly unsafe on the city’s transport networks. I recognise that the Mayor of London and TfL have expanded poster campaigns to encourage reporting and bystander intervention. It is important that these things are done to improve our culture, but we need more. We need far stronger co-ordination between TfL and the British Transport Police to identify and catch offenders. We need concrete, measurable action to improve conviction rates. We need every institution involved—TfL, the British Transport Police, the Met, City Hall—working together with absolute clarity and purpose to tackle harassment, protect victims and hold perpetrators to account. Women and girls should be able to travel across our city without fear for their safety. We urgently need to get a grip on this issue. As I come to the end of my speech, I want to make sure to make the point that, as well as prevention, we need to ensure that when women speak out, they have somewhere safe to go. Too many specialist support services are still struggling to keep their doors open, and the services that do exist are often inaccessible to black women, migrant women and women with insecure immigration status. A refuge that a refugee woman cannot access is no refuge at all.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  My understanding was that the Government’s immigration plans were geared towards tackling so-called illegal immigration, such as channel crossings—although I would argue that they are in fact irregular, not illegal, because it is not illegal to seek asylum. The measures we are discussing today are about retrospectively making regularised migration rules more stringent. As such, they will not have any impact on channel crossings, but will instead cause fear and uncertainty for many settled, tax-paying families. This is not just about Hongkongers; there are people from all over the world who are equally deserving of our compassion and integrity. Does my hon. Friend agree that to tackle channel crossings—