Black History Month

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in the Black History Month debate. It is educational, it is inspiring, and while I know of many of the black Britons we celebrate, I always love hearing about those I have never heard about before, especially when Members tell us about black Britons from their own constituencies. That is what makes this debate matter.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker mentioned the Serjeant at Arms. I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me for intervening to pay tribute to the Serjeant at Arms, because he was educated in my constituency at Bishop Luffa school. I want to put on the record how proud Bishop Luffa school is of how far he has come.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

We are all extremely proud of the Serjeant at Arms.

I start by congratulating my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on her powerful opening speech. I hope that there is some pepper soup in her future to help with her cold. I join her in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), who has, in our time in this place, led this debate on a number of occasions. I also pay tribute to her because earlier this week I read out a list of names and inadvertently missed her off it. She may wonder why this is the fourth time I am apologising. Perhaps it is the death stare she gave me on the day, or perhaps it is how she has looked at me from out the side of her eye ever since. It might be because I cannot allow the idea that I would shadily forget her, of all people. She is my fellow British-Ghanian MP, of whom I am extremely proud.

When we err publicly, we should atone in the same way. I put on record that my hon. Friend has been a huge support to me, particularly in the past few months, as I have dealt with a challenging time as the Member of Parliament for the Arday family. I know her well enough to know that she will look at me from out the side of her eye until at least 2027, which is not too far away, but I hope that this House now knows that she is somebody who I celebrate in my community.

As we celebrate our friends and community members, it is important that we do not lose sight of the dangerous times that we live in. Online hate is rising, and foreign billionaires such as Elon Musk pour time, money and energy into far-right movements, such as the one led by Tommy Robinson. Racism is no longer whispered; it is amplified, monetised and making its way into our politics. That is why this debate is not a nicety, but a necessity.

Despite what some in the Reform party would like to suggest, black Britons are British, our history is British history and our contributions are equal to those of other Britons and equally worthy of celebration. Before the online trolls pile in with the inevitable, “Why do we have Black History Month? What about White History Month?”, I remind them that had they paid attention in school, they would know that the history of other Britons has dominated our curriculum and that happens all throughout the year. We have a Black History Month as just one month to honour those who were clearly written out of our history books. Black History Month is intended to exist until such a time as those Britons are truly incorporated. It is a means to an end. It was never intended to be an end in itself. We say that black history is British history simply as a call to action.

Black History Month was first marked in October 1987, as we have heard repeatedly, and it was specifically done on the 150th anniversary of Caribbean emancipation. It was organised by Akyaaba Addai-Sebo, a Ghanaian-born special projects officer at the Greater London council. He has been trying tirelessly, particularly as we move to the 40-year celebration next year, to get in touch with Ministers, the Mayor of London and others to make sure that he is included in the celebrations. I hope Members have heard that and will encourage that, as he was the person who led on this.

I was pleased to hear the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), saying that black history is British history during her opening speech, because I understand from comments left on my own social media that that is not the view of everybody in the House. I posted a video of me speaking during Black History Month perhaps a couple of years ago, making that specific point that black history is British history. Her colleague commented that that was not the case. They did not make a racist comment, but they made a point about how it was divisive.

On the same post, I received a lot of racist abuse—some of a kind that I had not necessarily seen in that volume before. I had people calling me the N-word, people telling me to eff-off and go back to where I came from, and people sending monkey photographs. All those sorts of things show just how turbocharged things are. The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said that things seem to be going backwards, and I think we need to keep an eye on it. As we look forward to the 40-year celebration of Black History Month next year, I hope a lot more effort is put into challenging racism, right from the top in this House.

We have to remember that Black History Month began as an act of resistance, a way to challenge racism and inspire young people, and a way to repair the record. Today it is a fixture in our national calendar, with thousands of events every October. That is why we find that some Members are losing their voice because of all those events every October. It became a fixture not by accident, but because campaigners, activists and educators fought for it, and they still do. They make sure that our young people learn things that we were never taught. They lift up names that would otherwise be forgotten, and they push back against those who profit from dividing our communities.

Every year, however, black Members are forced to play a guessing game. We look on the Order Paper with no idea whether this month we will be honoured with a debate in this Chamber. While I am pleased that this debate is being held in Government time, Black History Month has happened every October since 1987. That means it is almost as old as me and, as my aunt reminded me last week, I am much older than she thought I was. There is absolutely no reason why this debate should not be a permanent fixture, and I hope that the Minister will take that request to the Leader of the House.

We cannot talk about black history without talking about reparations. I say that because the existence of black history is reparatory in itself. I pay tribute to those Members in this House—the first black Members in this House—who made that point repeatedly. There was Bernie Grant MP, who was the first to ask a question in Prime Minister’s questions on it. He was the founder of the UK reparations movement. Our Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), has led many meetings in Parliament on this issue, including when I worked for her. Lord Paul Boateng continues to lead the charge in the other place on the restitution of artefacts and human remains.

My old history teacher, Mr Melvin Smart, passed earlier this year. He said that we study the past to live the present with an eye on the future, and that is just it. Reparations are not meant to be about guilt, but repair; looking at what we did wrong and attempting to fix it. It is not meant just to be about money, but that is what always happens. We talk about it in financial terms, and we talk about paying. We talk about who gets paid and all the things that can easily be slammed down, instead of talking about all the things that we could move forward with.

[Dawn Butler]

I thank my hon. Friend for her incredible conference last week, which saw thousands of people attend, and the debates we had. One of the signs that resonated for me, in terms of reparations, was “First stop the harm”. Does she agree that that is a fundamental part of reparations?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The idea of reparatory justice is to acknowledge that the reason we have to have a month even to celebrate black history is that we have not addressed the harm. We have not gone about repairing all the things that are wrong, including in our education system. We talk about all the different elements of discrimination that black people face in this country, and that is because we have not gone about repairing those institutions that lead to that discrimination. She is absolutely right about that.

We need to make people understand that reparations cannot possibly just be about money. Money is perhaps the smallest part of it, because there would be no point in giving any individual or any country a whole heap of money if we were not first going to repair the institutions and the relationships, because otherwise things would not change. That is the reality of the situation, and I think people are beginning to realise that. That is why there has been a huge move forward this year with the campaign globally for reparations.

In March, the United Nations General Assembly declared the transatlantic trafficking of enslaved Africans as

“the gravest crime against humanity”.

That was 123 nations declaring that. In Accra, Governments and campaigners have gathered to decide what comes next. The Jamaican Government gave a petition to the King, which has now been referred to the Privy Council. CARICOM—the Caribbean Community—has revised its 10-point plan. In the UK, we had our largest conference ever on reparatory justice, with grassroots campaigners, scholars, parliamentarians and Heads of State speaking, all with one demand: understanding where a country like ours built its wealth, why that led to the discrimination faced by people in terms of enslavement, and asking that as a country we first apologise and then seek to do what we can to repair the damage. That can be done in a number of ways, including education—what we are doing right now is a form of reparatory justice—and returning artefacts, as was discussed, or even just human remains.

Some hon. Members may remember that earlier this year I had a ten-minute rule Bill when we found that numerous human remains are being held in boxes or sold on auction sites, and many of those have come from colonial times. It is a disgusting practice. To deny peoples of African descent dignity even in death points to the discrimination they still face. It is so important that this movement can no longer be ignored; it cannot be ignored by the Government or by the House. We need to think as a country about how we will go about the work of repair.

Black History Month cannot be only for talking about these issues and perhaps celebrating, as we have throughout the debate, although that is really important. It must also be about honesty and what we are still getting wrong. This year, our community lost Professor Jason Arday, the youngest black professor in Cambridge’s history, my constituent and my friend. How he died is a matter for the coroner—I will say nothing that gets in the way of that—but how he was treated is a matter for all of us. It is not right that we have not been given the opportunity to discuss that. Nearly 30,000 people stood in Trafalgar Square for Jason and vigils were held across the country. The public did not stay silent, yet when a few weeks ago at business questions I stood to ask the House why it had not discussed him, I was asking a question that I should never have had to ask in the first place.

The House has debated other issues in relation to press conduct—it has done so for Milly Dowler, Lucy Meadows, Caroline Flack and others—and Jason deserves no less. I put it to the Government that it is still not too late for them to come to the House with a statement. We cannot stand here every October and celebrate black excellence and then look away when black excellence is torn down in front of us. We cannot honour the names in the history books and ignore those being dragged through the newspapers today. Celebration without reflection is just performance, and we are no one’s minstrels.

Those who are good at maths will know that next year marks the 40th anniversary of Black History Month in the UK. Plans are already under way, with resources being prepared for schools and communities across the country. Again, I encourage the Government and the Mayor of London to be in touch with the founder of Black History Month in the UK, Akyaaba Addai-Sebo, and his team, who really want input into the conversation and the plans we have.

[Adam Jogee]

My hon. Friend and I have known each other for a long time, but I think this is the first time I have intervened on her—this is quite something, thinking back to when we first met. She makes a really important point about engagement with the Mayor of London and the Government. May I, through her, encourage local authorities up and down our United Kingdom to engage? I think of the Staffordshire Black Business Network in my community, which can play a really important role in helping ensure that we acknowledge that 40th anniversary in as effective a way as we can.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right: that should be the case, and the Government should be leading the charge by providing resources to others and supporting them in doing so. As I said, those 40 years deserve a momentous celebration.

I hope that when the Minister responds she will tell us exactly how the Government intend to mark the anniversary. I hope that the celebration will be honest about the whole of our history, with the pain, the resistance and the repair.

Representation of the People Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 58 and 59 in my name. For far too long, survivors of domestic abuse have been locked out of our politics, for reasons ranging from the risk to physical safety to the threat of further exposure to post-separation harassment, as well as the serious toll on mental and emotional wellbeing. I know this all too well from my own horrific election experiences, where my ex-husband stood against me. I know that my experiences are not unique, and there are others who have suffered. In fact, many people who are survivors of domestic abuse cannot make the decision to run and stand for office because of the associated risks. New clauses 58 and 59 would resolve all those issues by extending to survivors of domestic abuse the protections that are afforded to the victims of other offences by enhancing disqualification orders under the Elections Act 2022, so that domestic abuse offences are adequately covered.

I am proud to say that so many leading women’s rights and violence against women and girls organisations, including Elect Her, the Jo Cox Foundation, Right to Equality, Women’s Aid, Southall Black Sisters and many more, have joined me in calling for the law to change, along with at least 40 Members from all parties across this House. I am very grateful for that support. The chief executive of the Electoral Commission wrote to me recently agreeing that these amendments would

“help strengthen candidate protection and enforcement against perpetrators.”

I am asking Members to support new clauses 58 and 59, and I am calling on the Government to adopt those changes. I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement over the past few weeks on my amendments, and for meeting with me. In her closing remarks, I hope that she will confirm that the Government will consider updating schedule 9 of the Elections Act through secondary legislation, looking at protections for survivors of domestic abuse, including a greater number of relevant offences being included, so that survivors can confidently and safely stand in elections.

Our democracy cannot be said to be representative if we tolerate the structural barriers that block out survivors. Every survivor of domestic abuse should have the same right as anyone else to stand for office.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour to her place; she will make a fantastic Minister. I want to start by talking about the risks that we are seeing to our democracy: the emergence of AI and the use of crypto to fund parties, alongside an expanding electorate and a move away from the two-party system. It is vital that the Bill introduces a much-needed refresh.

One area that the Bill has overlooked is electoral participation, which has been in stark decline for many years. At the last general election, just 59.7% of the electorate voted—the lowest turnout since 2001. The picture is far worse in local elections and by-elections; the Clacton by-election, for instance, saw turnout of a mere 44%, although there may have been other reasons for that. Low turnout is indicative of a worrisome lack of engagement in the most integral act of political participation.

That is why I have tabled new clause 57, which would require the Government to publish proposals for compulsory voting at UK general and local elections in England within 12 months of the Bill passing. Since the introduction of compulsory voting in 1924, Australia has consistently seen a minimum turnout of 90%, with only a minimal fine for non-participation. There are, of course, legitimate reasons why some cannot vote, and this new clause recognises that, while also protecting the right to spoil one’s ballot paper or return a blank paper.

Coupled with the compulsory voting provision, new clause 57 would introduce a programme of civic education. This is important, as research from the Institute For Public Policy Research shows that fewer than 42% of teachers in England report their school providing regular citizenship lessons. As the incredibly bright young people who participated in my activism academy this summer told me, it is not just young people who need political education through no fault of their own—many adults also do not understand the basics of our political system. Knowledge is power, which is why new clause 57 calls for the production of learning materials for adults, too.

Alongside new clause 57, I support a number of new clauses that would extend the franchise in parliamentary elections to qualifying EU citizens and foreign nationals with the right to remain in the UK. I have also supported measures that address the wild west of UK political donation regulations. Our democracy is seriously at risk of being hijacked by those who have only their own interests at heart.

I am extremely proud to support my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) with new clauses 58 and 59 to protect survivors of domestic abuse in public life. I do not understand why support of such new clauses would even be a question or why we would not support them right now, today.

Finally, although the Bill does not cover constituency boundaries, I would really like to see a review of how they are set. We represent constituents regardless of their right to vote, and thinking about the numbers in terms of the electorate who go on to vote, fewer and fewer people are involved in our political decisions. However, it is not just that: boundaries drawn on the electorate, not on residents, mean that inner-city constituencies like mine, which have the highest levels of residents relative to electorate, face disproportionately higher levels of casework, representing far more people. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter when enacting part 2 of the Bill.

Bills of this nature do not come around often. They offer a generational chance to refresh our democracy, and I hope that the Government will recognise the benefits that these amendments would bring.

Representation of the People Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes]

There are different ways of looking at the analysis and I am sure that the Minister will speak in detail on the way that the Government have apportioned funding based on the formula. The reality of the settlement as finalised yesterday is undoubtedly that our councils are in a very stretching situation indeed, and that could lead to difficult situations ahead. One of the areas where the Government could really help our councils is by looking at the costs that they have to bear as well as the resources that they have to meet those costs. I will come on to make some of those points in a moment.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

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?

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes the point about the recovery grant very well. I will come on to some practical suggestions for what the Government could do to alleviate that situation in the short term.

Council tax equalisation, such that the grant is now based on each area’s share of the national tax base and not actual local tax levels, penalises low tax base, high-needs areas like Lambeth and Southwark. The business rates reset will wipe out historical strong growth in some inner-London boroughs, and falling numbers of children will also have an impact through the children’s formula, even though need is growing and increasingly complex.

The risk is that our councils are left in an increasingly precarious situation and are forced to make impossibly hard choices about local services in the face of increasing need. Having agreed the final funding settlement—it is welcome that it is for three years, which gives our councils more certainty—there is more for the Government to do to help councils bring down their costs and reduce need, so that service delivery is manageable within the resources that are available.

On behalf of my councils of Lambeth and Southwark, I have a number of asks of the Minister. Our councils desperately need help with the costs of temporary accommodation. The average cost of temporary accommodation in London has risen by 75% over the last five years, and the number of people seeking help with their housing has also increased dramatically, yet the amount that the Government pay councils to subsidise temporary accommodation has been frozen since 2011. Will the Government work towards increasing the subsidy so that it is closer to the actual housing costs that our councils face?

Temporary accommodation is the least stable form of housing and it has terrible consequences for residents. I have known many constituents to get up at 5 am to travel long distances by bus to keep their children in the same school and give them some stability. Those costs could be saved if more residents could afford to rent privately, yet the freezing of the local housing allowance has made that increasingly impossible. Will the Minister work with her counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury to increase the rate of local housing allowance to stop private renters from needing temporary accommodation? Some of the £5 million that is spent every day by London local authorities on temporary accommodation would be much better deployed keeping residents in stable homes through the local housing allowance than propping up the most awful situations in temporary accommodation.

With the application of the £35 million cap, councils in receipt of the recovery grant currently face a cliff edge. For Lambeth council that will mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, a loss of £47.5 million over the next three years. If the cap was removed for just next year, it would give the council an additional £11 million to reduce the savings that it is currently having to plan for. Will the Minister consider that?

Councils have expressed concern to me about the Government’s assumptions about the level of council tax receipts. Will the Minister work with councils to ensure that the assumed level of council tax receipts closely matches actual council tax collections? The social housing crisis requires that new social homes are delivered at pace. In my constituency, we have council and housing association-owned sites with planning permission that are not currently being delivered because the soaring inflation caused by the Liz Truss mini-budget priced them out of viability.

The Government’s commitment to invest £39 billion in social housing is very welcome, but will the Minister ensure some of that funding is urgently made available to London boroughs that have sites that are ready to build? We urgently need that.

The overnight accommodation levy is very good news for London but it must be apportioned to where it is most needed. Will the Government mandate that at least 50% of the funds raised by the levy are retained locally by London boroughs to cover the costs incurred by services affected by tourism and to support local growth?

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, thank the Petitions Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for bringing forward this debate.

When the Government introduced their immigration White Paper, they proposed increasing the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10. The intent was to dissuade people from coming to settle in the UK and to convince those who are here to leave. Welcoming the Minister—and his socks—to his place, I ask him who it is that they are hoping to dissuade from coming here and who they are hoping will leave. Is it the doctors, nurses, teachers, transport workers and cleaners who kept this country moving during the pandemic and for whom many of us clapped as they put their lives at risk while we stayed safely at home? I ask because it is those sectors, which are reliant on international workers, that will be hit the hardest by this policy.

The Government have suggested that

“high-skilled, high-contributing individuals…such as nurses, doctors, engineers and AI leaders”

could be fast-tracked for settlement, but it remains unclear what that means in practice. For example, it is clear that changing the ILR period from five years to 10 will have a negative impact on the NHS workforce specifically; it risks an exodus of international healthcare staff, which would undermine the Government’s 10-year plan for the NHS.

We are talking about the one in five NHS staff who are non-UK nationals and the 45% of licensed doctors in the NHS who are international medical graduates, a large number of whom are leaving the UK, mostly due to low pay, the high cost of living and the declining quality of life. Many also cite visa requirements as a reason for leaving. We are talking about the 43.7% of international nurses who left the Nursing and Midwifery Council register in the last year who had been on the register for less than five years. Some 40% of them said that immigration policy was an important factor in that. Those departures will have a profound impact on the NHS workforce, which is already depleted and struggling. Instead of taking steps to make it harder for international medical staff to come and stay in the UK, we should be taking steps to encourage them and, for the sake of our NHS, making it easier for them to stay.

I am also deeply concerned that the Government have not yet indicated whether the change would apply to those already in the UK. International doctors and healthcare professionals need reassurance now that their status will not be affected. That means Hongkongers and all other migrants, too. It would be simply unfair and frankly cruel to apply an extension to the ILR pathway retrospectively, and it would significantly impact those already on the pathway, as well as their families, employers and communities. We have to start being frank that the pursuit of net migration targets has undermined our economy and our public services and created a hostile environment in our communities. Changing immigration rules in this way will undo the work that has been done so far to repair our NHS. I urge the Government to reconsider.

I want to end by saying two things. First, although the topic of this debate is the changes to indefinite leave to remain for skilled worker visa holders in particular, it should go without saying that a person should not have to belong to a critical sector just to deserve compassion in our immigration system. Secondly, I want to remind Members of something my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) said. She mentioned the top five nationalities in applications to be in this country over the past five years: Nigerian, Pakistani, Indian, Ghanaian and Bangladeshi—all Commonwealth nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) pointed out the rights that they are afforded: in this country, Commonwealth nationals on any length of visa can register to vote in both local and national elections, and I expect that they and their British national family members and friends will have views on these issues. We should take note of that.

The UK has always boasted a diverse workforce in every single sector, and those who come to establish their lives in the UK are a benefit to our society. We should bear in mind that they vote here. Our immigration policy should reflect the fact that we value them.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I can hear much provocation from the Conservative Benches, but any new tax is, of course, a matter for the Chancellor at the Budget, and it must balance the potential revenue and benefits against the impact on taxpayers and the economy.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I really welcome the Bill’s efforts to strengthen communities and local democracy. However, I am worried that not enough is being done to protect private renters. In Lambeth, nearly a third of residents are renters. Rents are rising faster than wages, and the average renter is paying 72% more than the national average, which is leaving many families struggling and in poverty. The Renters’ Rights Bill was definitely a step in the right direction, but it fell short on rent hikes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill is an opportunity to give metro mayors the power to bring in rent controls and protect renters in their cities?

[Angela Rayner]

The Renters’ Rights Bill does contain measures that mean that renters can challenge unfair rent hikes. The previous Government said many times that they would do something about section 21 no-fault evictions but they did not. Our Renters’ Rights Bill will ensure that we end those evictions, which are causing so much harm to my hon. Friend’s constituents and many around the country.

Our devolution revolution is well under way, with others queueing up to join it. This what we committed to in our manifesto, and we are delivering it through this Bill. Crucially, the Bill will make devolution the default for how the Government do business, with new strategic authorities having powers to pilot and request new functions and Government having a duty to respond to certain requests. It will mean that we can deliver devolution further and faster.

Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

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.

Political Donations

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am proud to declare my membership of Unite the union. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for support I have received from other unions, because trade union money is the cleanest money in politics; we know exactly where it comes from.

We all know the saying, “Money is power,” and I would hope that none of us are naive enough to think that this does not apply to the UK. If we want to create a democratic system where everyone’s vote has equal value, we need strong protections in place to prevent the very richest individuals in our society from warping our democracy. As we heard today, we are not the worst in the world. I remember a visit I took with you, Mrs Harris, on an international delegation, during which I spoke to a Member of Parliament from another country, which I will not name. We got talking about election spending limits for individual candidates. When I told them what it was in the UK, they turned to me and said, “What are you going to buy with that?” But just because we are not as bad as some does not mean that we cannot do better—and we have to do better, because public confidence in the financial transparency of our system has plummeted.

Just 15% of Brits surveyed by the Electoral Commission last year believed that spending and funding is transparent in our system. Sadly, the evidence shows that this is a problem of trust, as big money continues to have a corrosive influence on our politics. The last Government stripped the Electoral Commission of its ability to prosecute criminal offences and placed it under ministerial control—hardly impartial. As well as manoeuvring the electoral system further in their favour, the last Government quietly passed a statutory instrument to raise campaign spending limits. National election spending caps rose by 80%, and the amount of money that an individual can donate to a party without declaring who donated it rose from £7,500 to £11,180.

I am sure that there will be some Members who think that there is nothing wrong with very wealthy people putting their money behind a party that reflects their principles, but why should we not know who they are? We have to be a little more clear-sighted about the reality: first, because of the size and scale of these donations; and secondly, because if we follow the money, we notice a pattern of some people suspiciously changing teams whenever we are about to see a changing of the guard. It would be naive to suggest that large donors are doing this purely out of the goodness of their own hearts.

I was alarmed to read the recent report by Transparency International, which found that 10% of all UK political donations originate from dubious sources. That is because it suited the last Government to allow front companies, which are set up for the sole purpose of laundering money. I was unsurprised to read that two thirds of that dark money went to the Conservative party. While I am pleased that my party in government has introduced the foreign influence registration scheme, I am concerned by reports that we may have not moved further on plans to ban any foreign political donations. This should not be a left or right issue—it just has to be based on the idea that every vote is worth the same.

It goes without saying that people like the owner of the social media website that I will only ever call Twitter, who is not even registered to vote in the UK, does not own companies incorporated in the UK and invariably avoids paying his full share of tax in the UK, should not be free to throw money at our politics, but here we are. The wealthiest man in the world could conceivably shower huge sums on any party that will help him to advance his divide and rule politics, which are designed to protect his vast wealth. This exemplifies why we need to get big money out of our politics and protect it from the undue influence of the super-rich.

The Institute for Public Policy Research has recommended capping individual and corporate donations to political parties at £100,000 a year. That seems like a modest starting point. We need a crackdown on dark money entering via shell companies that have never turned a profit in the UK and through unincorporated associations with no legal requirement to disclose their funders. We should also reinstate the Electoral Commission’s ability to monitor and prosecute offences and put the resources it needs behind that—nothing hon. Members have not already heard today. I would also like to see my Government revisit the proposals to ensure that individuals donors are registered electors and that companies that donate are owned by people who live in Britain and pay their fair share of tax here. That is extremely important.

Political funding is not the only way that the very rich are able to exert undue influence. However, it is the most obvious place where we can take decisive action now. After a decade in which billionaire donors more than trebled their wealth and working people saw the biggest pay squeeze since the Napoleonic wars, we absolutely need change.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Many of us are described as either a dog person or a cat person. I have had my dog for over five years now, and as a result I definitely feel like a dog person. Joking aside, it is quite clear that we as a country are in love with our pets; so many of us are defined by them. The laws that govern us should reflect how we live and how we choose to live, but our lack of respect for people’s ability to bring a pet into their home is shocking. That is why I am pleased with the Bill.

Sadly, there are gaps for pet owners in the rental market in particular, which not only creates an uneven playing field for people choosing new homes but fills animal shelters with much-loved pets that should be in their stable homes. Many pets are in animal shelters because of landlords’ unfair rules introduced over the years. According to research conducted by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, only 8% of private landlords list their properties as pet-friendly. I do not just want to talk about statistics, as the numbers have real-life consequences for families and animals.

In my constituency of Woking, a woman along with her family were evicted after 16 years of a tenancy because the landlord decided to sell the property. The council tried to find alternative housing for the family but repeatedly came up against obstacles, including a no pets policy, which would have forced her and her family to give up their three cats, including one that her autistic son is emotionally bonded to—his emotional support pet. A letter from the GP stated how important the cat was to her child’s wellbeing, but it did not help. The cat reduced her son’s anxiety levels and helped him with his day-to-day functioning—it had a huge impact. Housing officers noted that they could have considered the family for a place in some new flats that the council had built, but the housing provider did not accept pets.

Sadly, that case, which is not unique, perfectly illustrates the emotional toll that the rules can have on families, particularly those with additional needs. Pet ownership might seem like a small issue in the face of homelessness, eviction and the heart-wrenching issues that we have heard about, but it is clear that sometimes, because there are no protections for families with pets, people are forced into a horrible situation. It is fair to say that the culture of a country should be reflected in the laws that govern it, and most of us have pets, so let us ensure that we are allowed to keep them.

I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) pursue my party’s amendments, and I was pleased to hear from the Chair of my Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). There has been much cross-party support for the Bill, while we push the Government to go further still. As supportive as I am of the Bill, it could be better and help reduce our casework of heart-wrenching stories of vulnerable tenants pushed out and treated badly by landlords. The Bill will help us, but, through the amendments tabled and others that I know will be proposed in the other place, it could be better.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I declare an interest: like one in three households in my constituency, I rent my home. As a renter and an MP who represents a large number of renters, it will come as no surprise that I rise to speak in favour of the Bill, which will bring in some important, long-overdue reforms to provide private renters with decent and secure homes.

Crucially, I am pleased to see the abolition of section 21 evictions, which was promised by the Conservative party, including in its 2019 manifesto, but never delivered. Close to a million people faced no-fault eviction notices in the last Parliament because of that failure, which added to the homelessness crisis that we now face.

I am happy to see measures in the Bill that focus on affordability. In my borough of Lambeth, renting a one-bedroom home now costs the average person more than half their take-home pay. When teachers, rail staff, nurses and other key workers went on strike to call for inflation-matching pay rises, the last Government attacked them and rejected their demands, calling them greedy, but that Government shrugged their shoulders as private landlords collected above-inflation rent hikes from some of those same key workers year after year.

In recent years, the situation has been particularly pronounced. In March 2024, the Office for National Statistics reported that monthly rents rose by 9.1%, the highest annual increase since records began in 2015. I am glad that the Bill brings some common sense to the situation, ensuring that rent increases can no longer be written into contracts and that landlords will be able to legally increase rents only once a year, and protecting tenants from egregious rent hikes.

Also highly positive are the new measures to strengthen enforcement against slum private landlords, to extend the decent homes standard to the private rental sector and to widen council enforcement powers while extending the range of financial penalties available to local authorities to fund enforcement activity.

I am pleased that the Bill legislates for a consultation on improving energy efficiency standards in rented homes. The UK has some of the most energy inefficient homes in Europe, with 2.6 million private rented homes falling below minimum energy efficiency standards in England and Wales alone. Almost a quarter of renters live in fuel poverty, the highest rate of any tenure.

The Bill contains important measures to provide renters with some basic security and to place some basic responsibility on landlords. However, so much more could be done to strengthen it. I am pleased to see that the Government are supporting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and I am pleased to support amendments 9, 5 and 6 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), which would better protect sitting tenants from unaffordable rent increases. In its current form, the Bill caps rent increases only at market rate—the prices that landlords set. The amendments would instead cap them at the rate of the consumer prices index or wage growth, whichever is the lowest. I have yet to hear a compelling reason why landlords should see their incomes grow faster than people who actually work for a living.

I place on record my support for the Renters’ Reform Coalition’s call for a national rental affordability commission, to investigate methods to bring down rents relative to incomes.

Although there are not many Members on the Opposition Benches, the few speeches that they have made have talked about homes almost entirely as assets, forgetting that people need to live in them. I welcome the amendments that remember that people with a variety of different circumstances are living in those homes, and they should be viewed with compassion. I welcome and support new clause 10 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), as well as new clause 9 tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on adaptations for disabled people.

It is welcome that the legislation would make it illegal to discriminate against benefit claimants and families for exactly the same reason. I would like further changes to prevent discrimination, such as scrapping right-to-rent checks and reforming the laws around guarantors more generally. I would like the legislation to go further on preventing illegal and back-door evictions. As the London Renters Union has pointed out, for the many families struggling with housing costs, a 20% rent hike is simply a no-fault eviction under a different name.

During my time as an MP, I have seen too many unscrupulous attempts to remove tenants to be unconcerned about a likely increase in illegal evictions in response to scrapping section 21. I welcome new enforcement powers, but we have to acknowledge the financial difficulties that local authorities face after 14 years of massive cuts. The Government must ensure that local authorities have the resources to use these enforcement powers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

16. What assessment she has made of trends in the costs of delivering statutory local government services in rural areas.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

17. What steps she is taking with local authorities to help ensure that they have adequate resources to fund local services.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

21. What steps she is taking to help ensure the financial sustainability of local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

We will of course publish a White Paper on the English devolution Bill. It will set out an ambitious programme for a power shift from this place and Whitehall to combined authorities, to local government and, of course, to communities. We are absolutely committed to that top-to-bottom power shift. We recognise that parish and town councils have a role to play.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Rising demand, rising costs and 14 years of Conservative public sector cuts mean that many local authorities and services are at breaking point. My own borough of Lambeth, a deprived inner-London area with higher demand for social housing and temporary accommodation, and for social, public and youth services, has been particularly affected, which has been quite challenging. Will the Minister commit to an emergency increase in funding to combat the immediate crisis for local authorities, and, in the long term, to a much-needed update of the funding formula to better reflect local need?

[Jim McMahon]

Like every Member of the House, my hon. Friend will know that those 14 years have taken their toll, and that it will take more than three months to repair that, but we are absolutely committed to repairing the foundations, and our multi-year financial settlements will give security. Of course, we recognise that the demand-led pressures in many places are the back-end of a bigger problem. Temporary accommodation relates to the housing crisis that needs fixing. The same applies to children’s services and adult social care.