Nationality and Borders Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. May I clarify that everybody who wants to speak in this debate is now standing? I call Bell Ribeiro-Addy.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

I wish to speak to new clause 8 about child citizenship fees, which I am grateful has been signed by a number of Members. The children in question are not migrants. I repeat that they are not migrants, because every time this issue is raised, there is some suggestion that there is something slightly illegal behind this, which is disgraceful. On the contrary, the large majority are exactly like me and the Prime Minister, and have every right to British citizenship. This Government, and all successive Governments, accept that, but the issue is that they are being priced out.

We in this country charge British children—children!—up to 10 times more to claim their citizenship rights than their counterparts in Spain, France, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden. The fee is the most expensive in Europe. If the £35 fee introduced back in 1983 had risen in line with inflation, it would be only £120 today. Instead, we charge £1,012—a fee that has doubled in the past decade, and which the Government have the ability to increase at will. It is a fee that far too many cannot afford, and a fee the level of which neither I nor the Prime Minister had to pay.

Why do I keep mentioning myself and the Prime Minister? It is because the circumstances of our births are no different to those of the children in question today. Indeed, many Members across the House were not born here or were born to migrants, and none of us faced such barriers to claiming our citizenship. No one questions our rights, and our British citizenship gives us the right to sit as Members of this House. I repeatedly mention myself and the Prime Minister because I believe that neither of us should be in a position to make things difficult for those children born after us. I certainly did not come to this House to do that.

Like the Windrush generation, through no fault of their own, and often with no idea of what is to come, these children go on to face real difficulties with everyday life and with things that we take for granted, such as travelling, getting a job, renting a home or going to university without being asked to pay international fees. That is in the country they were born in or have lived in their whole lives. Make that make sense.

Citizens UK, Amnesty International, and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, which has led on this campaign, have estimated that between 85,000 and 215,000 children with a legal entitlement to British citizenship have ended up undocumented due to the extortionate registration fee. Imagine how many children have never had the opportunity to reach their full potential because they spent the end of their childhood, and the beginning of their adulthood, fighting to prove that they have rights in their own country, or fighting to prove that they belong in the only place they have ever called home. It is exactly what happened with the Windrush generation.

We must understand that the harm of being denied citizenship rights in the only country you know cannot be overstated. It is not just about societal barriers; it is the psychological impact of being constantly treated like a second-class citizen. Why do I continually compare them to the Windrush generation? That is because, just like the Windrush generation, a piece of legislation or policy that attempted to dissuade migrants and make the environment more hostile for them is impacting on a group of people who have every right to be here. Just like the Windrush generation, this policy disproportionately affects those of black, Asian, and minority ethnic heritage.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that to make children bear the burden of this Government’s hostile environment policy must be wrong?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I am sure she will agree with me that, clearly, no lessons have been learned.

New clause 8 does not even ask the Government to scrap the fee, which is my personal preference; it just asks them to reduce it to cost and examine its impact on the rights of children. The new clause does, however, ask for the fee to be scrapped for children in care, for the obvious reason that children in care are the responsibility of the state. As we approach Christmas and we are thinking about families and home, with all the disadvantages that children in care face, the Government seem all too at ease with telling these children that they have no country to call home unless their local authority is willing to pay for it.

I spoke to children who were Lambeth care leavers and they told me horrific tales of threats of deportation to countries they have never been to because they cannot prove their link to their citizenship due to issues with their relations with their parents. Our cash-strapped local authorities cannot afford to keep paying these fees, and they are not border guards or immigration specialists who understand exactly what is happening.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) is absolutely right that there are parts of the citizenship section of the Bill that we appreciate, and things have been corrected. I spoke to the Immigration Minister earlier this week, and I was grateful for his time—I promised I would say something nice, and I did. If we are correcting all these other things, why would we not correct this policy now? We know exactly what the issue is. We know that the courts ruled, the Government appealed, and the courts ruled again that these fees are not in the best interests of children. This Bill is so horrible in so many other areas; is there not just one thing that we can all agree on? Just like with the Windrush scandal, why do the Government want to be dragged screaming into submission on something that they know is absolutely right?

I am glad to be standing here today, because I get to keep the promise that I made just before my election to a group of students from St Gabriel’s College who, along with Lambeth Citizens, explained to me their plight as children who were suffering in this way. I am proud to be a governor at their school, because they are what I call citizens. They are affected by this issue. Some of them have moved on, but they continue to fight for others in their place. I promised that I would stand up in the House and try to show that these young people are valued by their country—because this is their country. I hope that, when new clause 8—hopefully—goes to a vote, every other Member of this House will walk through the Lobby with me and show those young people that they have every single right to be here, that we will not continue to price them out, and that they should be able to access every single right, just like myself and the Prime Minister have been able to do.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clause 4, which would secure the right of abode of the brave and loyal servicemen who served Queen and country in the British military, in the Hong Kong Military Service Corps and the Hong Kong royal naval service corps, until 1997. They were servants of the Crown and I believe they should be treated equally to all those who have served in Her Majesty’s armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

Over the past 10 or 11 years, I have agreed with the right hon. Gentleman many times on many issues, particularly work and pensions. On this particular point, I am sorry, but I think he is being a little disingenuous about how some of his colleagues are using it to stir up concerns when actually we need to be together as a nation. Where I agree with him is that there is real work for the Government to do—as the Minister knows, because he kindly gave me time on the point yesterday—to communicate much more effectively with Britons across this country about the facts of the legislation, which draw on a right that has been there for the Government for 100 years, since the first world war. Most people—most of our constituents—have no idea about that.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Richard Graham]

I have given way quite a lot. Can I make some progress? I am just conscious that a lot of people want to speak. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, let me make some progress and let us see where we are.

The really important points are as follows. How many people have actually had their UK nationality revoked in such a context? On which crimes does the 100-year clause have an impact? Is there a right of appeal to a legal tribunal? There is. Will anyone have their single nationality revoked, completely obliviously to where their parents or grandparents might have come from originally? The answer to that, to my strong understanding, is almost certainly no in 99.999% of cases.

In the remaining time, may I press my hon. Friend the Minister for clarification, not just for Members but for those in the nation at large, to reassure them about the nature of the atrocities that need to be committed for this clause to be applied, and the fact that it absolutely does not target anyone of any origin whatsoever? Indeed, if it did, my wife, who was Kenyan when I married her, would certainly be affected. There are millions of people who potentially might be affected, and that is why reassurance is required to make clear that this is purely about a very simple business of notification when a person is unreachable or in a war zone.

On that note, I will give way to the hon. Member for Streatham.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I am very glad that the hon. Member has given way. I was not present when he referred to my speech, but I want to ask him if he really understands what the issues are. The Government, as he rightly said, already have the ability to reduce people’s citizenship, so why do they want to make it even easier, and why do they want to remove all checks and balances? This is where the concern arises. After what has happened to the Windrush generation, and after what has happened to the young people who—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am afraid that we have run out of time. The allotted time allows two interventions, and we have had those, so I am afraid that that is it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The residents of Rother Valley warmly welcome the Bill. I will speak against new clause 12 and in favour of clause 9. I have been very disappointed with the tone of the debate, especially with regard to the poor victims of the Windrush scandal, which was an absolute tragedy for this country. Opposition Members are somehow equating this Bill with Windrush. This Bill is designed to strip citizenship from dual citizens who are a threat to this country—terrorists, hardened criminals and those people we do not want in this country and should not be part of this country. For Opposition Members to equate those sorts of reprobates with Windrush is deeply insulting and deeply troubling. It is no more than scaremongering and trying to wind people up.

The Bill is not about taking citizenship without notice; that will not happen unless it is not “reasonably practical” to give that notice. I want to hear from Opposition Members on how we could go to, say, an ISIS fighter in Syria and hand them a notice saying, “You’re being deprived of your citizenship”, or to some terrorist in Chechnya saying, “Excuse me, Mr Terrorist, please stop shooting people—I’ve been sent here by the Government to give you a notice.” That would be ludicrous and would put UK Government officials in danger.

The question for this House is whose side we are on. Are we on the side of the rule of law, British citizens and British officials, or do we want to send British officials into harm’s way—to the ISIS suicide bombers of Iraq and Syria to give them a piece of paper? I say no. [Interruption.] I hear chuntering from a sedentary position. I am happy to take interventions from Opposition Members if they wish to challenge this, but none is forthcoming, because they know that this is the truth. They know that this Bill—

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

The hon. Member says that officials cannot go to some places to inform people about their citizenship. How did they notify Shamima Begum, I might ask, that she no longer had her British citizenship? There are clearly ways to do it. Opposition Members’ objection is that there are already mechanisms in law that allow the Government to deprive people of their citizenship. Why do they want to make that easier? Look at everything that has happened with immigration over the past number of years. That is why people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities are afraid—because every time the Government change legislation, things are worse for people from those communities.

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point, although I am a bit confused about it. Shamima Begum could be deprived of her citizenship first because she was found, as she was in a refugee camp, and secondly because she was a terrorist—and I say, good. It is good that her citizenship was taken away. Long may we continue taking citizenship away from terrorists.

Frankly, if people have done nothing wrong and are not terrorists or a threat to this country, they have nothing to fear. That is the message to put out there. This is about such a small minority of cases. Some would argue that we should take this measure against more of these terrorists and reprobates. I would definitely support that. This Bill is not about targeting minorities; it is about bad people. I am confused about whose side Labour Members are on. Are they on the side of upstanding, law-abiding British people, or the side of people who want to do harm to the country—to blow people up, cause damage and put us in harm’s way? I am very confused by their point of view.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]]

There is only one thing on which the Home Secretary and I would agree today, and that is that we have a failed and broken immigration system that costs far too much money. But that is because of successive Conservative Governments, who have failed it and broken it, and an incompetent and chaotic Home Office that continues to preside over it. When they constantly have to pay out claims for wrongful decisions and they outsource immigration detention and asylum accommodation, it costs money and causes misery. When more than 50% of those in immigration detention actually end up staying in this country, what an absolute waste. Extending the immigration detention estate will only enrich companies such as Serco and G4S, which is why the plan makes no sense to me. The pandemic has proven that it can be managed in another way. If the Government want to save money, they should simply end immigration detention.

This horrendous piece of legislation, hailed as a solution, does nothing to resolve these issues. It does nothing to create safe routes for refugees, nothing to end the hostile environment, nothing to end the danger of unsafe asylum accommodation and nothing to address the bureaucratic hurdles that leave people without documentation through no fault of their own.

We are living through an age of mass displacement driven by war, poverty and climate breakdown. Under the refugee convention, anyone seeking asylum should be able to claim in their intended destination or another safe country. Asylum seekers are under no obligation to seek refuge in the first country they arrive in, and there are a number of reasons why they may not do so.

At times like this, the Government should not be dodging their moral and legal obligations to accept their fair share of refugees. Instead of creating a fair and humane system, this Bill, coupled with the Government’s new plan, discriminates by distinguishing that whether people are fleeing from persecution is irrelevant compared with how they arrived. Does the Home Secretary realise that a trafficked woman cannot stop and ask her handler to ensure that she arrives under the correct documentation? LGBTQ people and those fleeing political and religious persecution cannot do a Google search to find out what mode might be considered the most favourable. An unaccompanied minor stripped of everything and everyone they know does not have the luxury of ticking the correct box. These people are fleeing conditions some of us could never imagine. These plans will limit the options of those most in need and create a two-tier system that will ruin lives.

It is 100% a misrepresentation to say that the legislation meets our obligations under international law. Do not take my word for it; the House has heard time and again today about the view of the United Nations, and the opinions of those lawyers who the Home Secretary seeks to demonise. I want all those campaigners and lawyers who continue to support migrants’ rights to know that, no matter what is said about them on the Conservative Benches, they are absolute heroes. Long after the Government are done away with, they will be on the right side of history.

This Bill is yet more of this Government’s authoritarian agenda, turning away the most vulnerable. As the late, great Tony Benn once said:

“The way a Government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.”

Only safe and legal routes will—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Matt Western.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sally-Ann Hart]

I acknowledge that that is the case. If we cannot have demonstrations, that sets a dangerous precedent, and I urge hon. Members to reject the new clause. Current laws provide wide-ranging powers for authorities to keep public order and protect women and the public from genuine harassment and intimidation. An extensive review undertaken by the Home Office in 2018 concluded that

“legislation already exists to restrict protest activities that cause harm to others.”

Most notably, under section 59 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, public space protection orders can be used. The UK’s first buffer zone around an abortion clinic was established in 2018 by Ealing Council, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, using a public space protection order. It prevents protesters from gathering up to 100 metres from the clinic. Other local authority areas have brought in similar public space protection orders. In summary, I urge Members of the House to reject the new clause.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to the new clauses in my name, and owing to time constraints I will focus my comments mainly on those. I would, however, like to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) the chance to intervene further.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When discussing these types of issues in this House, we must look carefully at what is actually in the amendments. We should not just say what we think is in the amendment; we should look at its actual drafting. This Bill is about the criminal law and justice system. It is not about safeguards or anything else to do with healthcare. My amendment is specifically about decriminalisation, as the Government have already done in Northern Ireland.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Let me highlight the amendments and new clauses that I seek to support, including those on the right to protest in the names of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana). I support those amendments that seek to stand up against the discrimination and persecution of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, particularly those tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), and those that challenge wider inequalities in the criminal justice system, from class to age, race, sexuality, disability and gender, including the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe). I oppose the introduction of secure academies for 16 to 19-year-olds, which is essentially the expansion of child prisons, as reflected in the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). I will also support any other amendment or new clause that seeks to remove or address the sinister nature of the Bill.

We can be under no illusion—this is yet another authoritarian clampdown on our civil liberties. The right to peaceful assembly and protest is a fundamental principle of any democracy, and the rich tradition of dissent in this country shows us that such actions can change the course of history. They are the reason that someone of my race, class and gender has the rights I have, and why I can stand here as a Member of this House. We must not forget that the struggles and protests being demonised by this Bill are seen as the milestones of progress in our society. The suffrage movement, for example, faced considerable state repression and police brutality.

My new clauses 56 and 57 call respectively for a review of stop-and-search powers and for a public inquiry into how the criminal justice system affects black, Asian and minority ethnic people. BAME people are more than nine times as likely to be stopped and searched by police, yet this Government think that it is okay just to plough ahead, exacerbating the situation further. Just last week, the United Nations released a report analysing racial justice in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd and called on member states, including the UK, to end impunity for police officers who violate the human rights of black people. A 2019 report by the Women and Equalities Committee recognised that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities are one of the most persecuted groups in Europe, yet the Government seek literally to persecute them further through the Bill.

We need a full public inquiry into the disproportionality that exists at every single level and junction of the criminal justice system. High prosecution rates, higher custody rates, longer-than-average custodial sentences, disproportionate representation in the prison system and deaths in custody—this is what under-represented communities have come to expect. We need answers, and then we need justice in order to move forward.

The Black Lives Matter movement and the protests that sprang from it sought to challenge these injustices—and what was the Government’s response to national calls to end institutional racism? It was to commission a report that said there was no institutional racism, and to introduce a policing Bill that will only further criminalise and brutalise these communities. If the Government were actually listening to what the BLM protesters said, they would not be bringing in a Bill like this.

Why not follow the example of the England football team, who have inspired us during Euro 2020 not only with their football prowess, but with their collective and principled bravery in taking the knee, representing the very best of us and our communities? To quote Gareth Southgate, it is about a

“duty to continue to interact with the public on matters such as equality, inclusivity and racial injustice, while using the power of their voices to help put debates on the table, raise awareness and educate”.

He is a football manager—he does not work for this House, but he does much better than we do, day to day.

I know with all my heart that I am on the right side of history. I urge hon. Members to stand with me and stop the criminalisation of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and of every single under-represented group that will be destroyed by legislation such as this.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Could the last two speakers stick to four minutes?

Windrush Day 2021

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate. It is absolutely right that today in Parliament we celebrate the Windrush generation from the Caribbean, from Africa, from Asia. These communities help make the UK what it is today and continue to contribute immeasurable amounts to every aspect of British society. I was very pleased on Windrush Day to join students at Corpus Christi Catholic Primary School on Brixton Hill as they played their steel pans and sang a rendition of “You Can Get It If You Really Want” by Desmond Dekker. They had spent weeks learning about the Windrush generation and were very excited to tell me about everything that they had learnt—this included teaching me some things. I was pleased to join the CARICOM heads of mission at the Windrush commemoration at Windrush Square, at the African and Caribbean war memorial that is there, which is a very important place, especially given this year’s revelation about how disrespected our former Commonwealth officers—members of the military—had been and how those who were involved in various world wars had been treated.

It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to Arthur Torrington of the Windrush Foundation and acknowledge his organisation’s call, joined by many of the Windrush generation throughout the country, to actually have the Windrush memorial that is planned built at Windrush Square, where they believe it rightfully belongs.

After the Windrush scandal broke, the apology that the Government eventually gave was momentous. It was the first time that I know of in my history that the British Government have apologised so unequivocally on an issue related to a matter of race. The celebrations that we have had over years since then, the establishment of Windrush Day and the acknowledgement of the importance of the Windrush generation to this country are important, but they all mean nothing if we do not end the scandal that is very much ongoing; if we do not admit and tackle racial injustice; and if we do not end the hostile environment.

We have to remember that the Windrush generation were treated terribly and some of them have even died before receiving a penny of justice and many died before receiving that apology. People were denied driving licences and homes and made unemployed. They were put in immigration detention centres, some were deported, and others were refused re-entry to this country and are still finding difficulty getting back into this country. Some had their families broken up. They were British citizens and this happened to them and to their loved ones.

As far as many are concerned, the scheme remains unfit for purpose. Too many have died waiting for compensation and too many have been denied it. Since the scheme started in 2019, a total of 2,367 people have applied, 122 claims have been rejected and 22 have resulted in no compensation at all. To date, only 687 claims have received any payment.

Despite the Home Secretary’s statement that the scheme has fundamentally changed since December, it is clear that that has not been the case. The author of the scheme, Martin Forde QC, has even said that those who deserve compensation think it is a “trap”—what an indictment of this Government and the Windrush generation’s confidence in them.

The scandal continues. Jacqueline McKenzie—a lawyer based in my constituency who has been holding pro bono legal surgeries for those affected by the scandal at the Black Cultural Archives and elsewhere throughout the country—has extensive evidence of persistent Home Office failings in not just administering the scheme but registering those Windrush generation members who require their citizenship. It goes on.

It should be no surprise to the Government that a number of people have signed a petition calling on the Home Office to amend the scheme, and that the Labour party is rightfully calling for the scheme to be moved out of the Home Office. We do not honour the Windrush generation if we carry on like this.

We do not honour the Windrush generation if we continue to apply the hostile environment and continue with our broken immigration and nationality system. How can we say we have learned any of the lessons of the past if we are about to drive EU nationals into an effective Windrush scandal, with thousands of them probably having not applied for the scheme by yesterday’s deadline?

It does not honour the Windrush generation that in 2019 some 421,000 children were born in the UK who were not registered as British citizens—some of them, I might add, are the children and grandchildren of the Windrush generation directly—and that in that same year 177,000 children who had been raised in the UK for at least 10 years were also unregistered. These children are not migrants, just like the Windrush generation, and they have gone on or, if the issue of citizenship fees does not change, will go on to experience real-life difficulties, continuing to fall victim to the hostile environment when it comes to accessing healthcare, taking up employment, attending university, renting a home and opening a bank account—all things they should have access to.

It does not honour the Windrush generation if we continue to push issues of racism out of the way. The recent race report was an absolute disgrace in my view. It was a complete whitewash of the institutional racism that the Windrush generation and others have faced and continue to face. Even to imply that there may be no issues with institutional racism is a complete disgrace, in terms of people’s experience, but also I believe that it is an attempt to absolve the Government of the responsibility for tackling it: if there is no institutional racism, there are no duties for the Government to impose on institutions. This is just passing the buck as usual. We do not honour the Windrush generation and we do not respect their past when we do not have a plan to change this discrimination that ultimately and undoubtedly could, and will, impact on their futures.

We do not honour the Windrush generation if we do not educate people about the history of slavery and colonialism, which are very much a part of our history as Britain. It cannot be the case that we choose a history that acknowledges neither of these major events that are part and parcel of why we are the country we are today, part and parcel of why people in this country experience racism today, and part and parcel of why the Windrush generation and the Windrush scandal happened in the way that it did. It was because of this racism. It has been inspirational to see children, schools and teachers across my constituency taking up Windrush Day and black history lessons and actively doing it themselves, but they are not doing this with Government support—despite the recommendations in the Windrush lessons learned review—and that is wrong.

Yes, the Government have apologised with Windrush Day and have certain measures that may look like they are going in the right direction, but too many fall short of what is required. If the Government stand true to the apology that they made years ago, if they respect the Windrush generation, and if they respect the continued involvement and contribution that this generation and many others from migrant backgrounds continue to make to this country, they will take stock, remove the Windrush compensation scheme from the Home Office so it can be managed properly, listen to the Windrush generation about where they would like to have their memorial, and take active steps acknowledging institutional racism and working to bring it to an end.

New Plan for Immigration

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive tone and comments. The plan is subject to consultation. It should be a people’s consultation. The British public, with the publication today, should absolutely join the consultation, and I encourage all Members to get their constituents on board. At the end of the consultation, we will obviously draft a Bill and bring it to Parliament for a second session.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]]

The 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol state that anyone seeking asylum should be able to claim in their intended destination or another safe country, but the Government’s new plan discriminates by distinguishing between people fleeing the same persecution based on their route or on their mode of transport. Does the Home Secretary realise that, under the new plan, trafficked women, LGBTQ people, and those fleeing political and religious persecution will be left with limited options? Rather than expanding safe and legal routes, the plan could actually leave more of those seeking family reunion at the mercy of people smugglers. The plan does not meet the needs of the most vulnerable, so can she explain how she reconciles this obvious misrepresentation of our obligations under international law?

[Priti Patel]

First of all, I advise the hon. Lady to actually read the immigration plan, because she will see that it is in line with international obligations, including the refugee convention. Secondly, she has spoken about categories of individuals—people seeking to flee who will be persecuted for who they are and for their values. They will, of course, be covered under our safe and legal routes scheme, so she is completely wrong in her misrepresentations.

Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and his practical suggestions. We are doing a lot on CCTV, and we do have the Safer Streets fund, which he will be very aware of. He has raised a number of areas, and I suspect that if he were to join the Committee on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, he could absolutely contribute to that and make those points there.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

I join Members in continuing to extend our thoughts and prayers to Sarah Everard’s family. My constituents have reacted with justified anger to the Metropolitan police’s treatment of those in attendance at this weekend’s vigil to commemorate Sarah and all women who lost their lives to gender-based violence. It is bitterly ironic that an event intended to highlight the issue of public safety for women was blocked on the grounds of public safety. What happened this weekend is a reminder of what happens when police try to completely bypass the views of the communities they serve. Does the Home Secretary recognise that the police’s high-handed approach got the balance between public safety and the right to protest completely wrong? Does she agree that the police’s heavy-handed treatment of female protesters was wrong? Will she now accept that her Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is ill-conceived? My constituents are very angry about what has happened and want to know what the Government will do to reassure them that they will proactively address violence against women and girls and deep-seated forms of institutional discrimination in the UK police.

[Priti Patel]

I understand the sentiments that the hon. Lady is raising on behalf of her constituents and obviously recognise the constituency that she represents and the terrible, tragic events that have taken place. All our thoughts are clearly with Sarah Everard and her family. Of course, the Metropolitan police themselves had been involved with the vigil that was planned and spent a great deal of time with the organisers, and the Metropolitan police have been very public about that. I am not going to repeat my comments about seeking greater assurance and ensuring public confidence in policing, hence the reason why Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is now conducting a full, independent “lessons learned” review. I think that is absolutely appropriate. My comments about Saturday evening are on the record and well known.

With regard to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, that is a manifesto Bill that this Government were elected on, and we will of course participate in its Second Reading later on this afternoon. It is not ill-conceived at all. The British people voted for it. We live in a democracy and this Government will work to deliver on it.

Scheduled Mass Deportation: Jamaica

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the scheduled mass deportation by charter plane to Jamaica.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

This charter flight to Jamaica is specifically to remove foreign criminals. The offences committed by the individuals on this flight include sexual assault against children, murder, rape, drug dealing and violent crime. Those are serious offences, which have a real and lasting impact on the victims and on our communities. This flight is about criminality, not nationality. Let me emphasise: it has nothing to do with the terrible wrongs faced by the Windrush generation. Despite the extensive lobbying by some, who claim that the flight is about the Windrush generation, it is not. Not a single individual on the flight is eligible for the Windrush scheme. They are all Jamaican citizens and no one on the flight was born in the United Kingdom. They are all foreign national offenders who between them have served 228 years plus a life sentence in prison.

It is a long-standing Government policy that any foreign national offender will be considered for deportation. Under the UK Borders Act 2007, which was introduced and passed by a Labour Government with the votes of a number of hon. Members who are present today, a deportation order must be made where a foreign national offender has been convicted of an offence and received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. Under the Immigration Act 1971, FNOs who have caused serious harm or are persistent offenders are also eligible for consideration.

Let me put this flight in context. In the year ending June 2020, there were 5,208 enforced returns, of which 2,630, or over half, were to European Union countries, and only 33 out of over 5,000 were to Jamaica—less than 1%. During the pandemic, we have continued with returns and deportations on scheduled flights and on over 30 charter flights to countries including Albania, France, Germany, Ghana, Lithuania, Nigeria, Poland and Spain, none of which, I notice, provoked an urgent question. The clear majority of the charter flights this year have been to European countries.

Those being deported have ample opportunity to raise reasons why they should not be. We are, however, already seeing a number of last-minute legal claims, including, in the last few days, by a convicted murderer, who has now been removed from the flight.

This Government’s priority is keeping the people of this country safe, and we make no apology—no apology—for seeking to remove dangerous foreign criminals. Any Member of this House with the safety of their constituents at heart would do exactly the same.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

First, no one opposing this flight condones any of the crimes that these individuals have been found guilty of. It is the process of mass deportation that is fundamentally wrong, and it is notorious for bundling people out of the country without due process. Does the Minister recognise that this decision effectively amounts to double jeopardy when those involved in some lesser offences have already served their custodial sentence? Does he recognise the message that that sends about the consequences of being a white offender or a black offender, given the racial disparities in sentencing?

I hope the Minister agrees that no one is above the law, not even the Government, and that no one is beneath adequate defence and proper legal representation, not even those born in other countries. Will he therefore outline whether the deportees have been granted access to adequate legal advice and representation, and whether any have been allowed to appeal this decision, particularly given the lockdown restrictions and the likelihood that they would have no access to legal aid?

On being above the law, the Equality and Human Rights Commission recently found that the Home Office unlawfully ignored warnings that the hostile environment was discriminatory. Can the Minister explain why the Government are so comfortable continuing with a key part of the hostile environment policy when it has been so damningly called into question? Has he considered the 31 children who will be impacted by having a parent removed from this country?

The Home Office has got it wrong again and again on immigration. Will it therefore think again, halt this deportation flight and finally end the illegal hostile environment?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady speaks of what she calls mass deportations. I have already pointed out that, over the last year, of the 5,800 people who have been removed, only 33 have been of Jamaican nationality.

The hon. Lady mentioned black versus white. She was insinuating in her question that there was some element of underlying racism in this, but I have pointed out already that the vast majority of people who have been removed this year have been removed to European countries. This policy applies to people from Spain, France and Italy as much as it does to people from Jamaica. There is no element of discrimination in this policy whatever, and the hon. Lady was completely wrong to insinuate that, in some way, there was.

The hon. Lady asked about double jeopardy. She said that these people have been punished by a prison sentence already, but I say this: if somebody comes to this country, commits a serious criminal offence and puts our constituents at risk, it is right that, once they have served their sentence, or a great part of it, they should be removed. It is not just me who thinks that; it is the Labour Members who voted for this law in 2007 who think that, some of whom are sitting in this Chamber today.

The hon. Lady mentioned the EHRC and the compliant environment. This case is nothing to do with the compliant environment; it is about implementing the Borders Act 2007, as we are obliged to do. In terms of due process, there are ample opportunities to complain and appeal, as many people do, and I have mentioned already the case of a murderer who was taken off the flight just a few days ago following legal appeals.

We are protecting our fellow citizens, and I suggest that the hon. Lady takes a similar approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend raises an important change that is coming through our points-based immigration system, with simplification coming into the system, as he will be aware. He is absolutely right; part of our mantra as global Britain is that we are open to the world and, in particular, to those who want to contribute to our economy and our country.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]]

The British Nationality Act 1981 was amended in 2014 to do away with the outdated notion of illegitimate children and allow a retrospective right to claim a British father’s citizenship by descent. However, the same right was not afforded to the children of British overseas territories fathers. It has been six and a half years since the Government stated their intent to remedy this oversight. What plans does the Home Secretary have to bring about a much needed change in the law?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady is right: that is a much needed change required in the law, and I will make further comments on this in due course.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

Fairness does matter to the people of Rother Valley and EU freedom of movement was never fair, being blatantly discriminatory towards non-EU countries in favour of countries that are largely white and highly developed. That is not what the Opposition will tell us. We have much more in common with our friends in the Commonwealth than with many people in the European Union, but this Bill makes it fair for everyone with the right skills to come and settle in our country. That is why the Bill, unamended, is right.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

Much has happened since the last time we debated the Bill in this House. We saw the worst of the pandemic, and we saw the ill-conceived words spoken in this House about who was low-skilled completely disproven, as those same people were our key workers who continue to see us through these tumultuous times. It was refreshing to see some of the regular scare stories about migrants displaced by splashes about migrant key workers. This Bill and the Government’s points-based system, which is not legislated for in the Bill, does not recognise that.

The Institute for Public Policy Research shows that the income threshold would mean that 69% of EU nationals currently here would not even be eligible to enter the country under these new rules. The trade union, Unison, has explained that there will be 122,000 shortages in social care, with projections from think tanks explaining that that could be up to 250,000 by 2030. This does not even help our workforce, our skills shortage or our economy, so what logical reason could there be not to have an impact assessment, as suggested in Lords amendment 1, unless it is a purely ideological one?

I will take some time to debunk some myths about refugees. Refugees are not obligated to claim asylum in the first safe country that they land in, and we are not overrun with refugees. In fact, we are below the European average for asylum applications, with countries such as Germany, France, Spain and Greece all seeing between two and four times as many as the UK, and 85% of all refugees live in developing countries. Our country has a proud tradition of accepting refugees, most notably the Kindertransport children, such as Lord Dubs, and I fully support Lords amendment 4 to continue arrangements to maintain unaccompanied child refugees and family reunion.

As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly said, without this amendment, there will be no safe and legal routes for vulnerable people. The idea that we would just turn away the most vulnerable is a disgrace, but so is a lot of this Government’s legislation of late. As the great Tony Benn once said,

“The way a government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.”

The Government have to understand why, following the ongoing Windrush scandal, EU nationals will not be content without physical proof of their status, for which Lords amendment 5 rightfully makes provision. I have said it before, and I will say it again: this is the second time in a decade that a Conservative Government have retrospectively changed the rights of migrants after they have settled in this country. Why should any migrant feel secure?

On the 28-day limit to immigration detention, the Minister has said again and again that there is no indefinite detention, so I would like to know, what is the current limit? I am heartened by the cross-party support that Lords amendment 6 has received and by the release of a number of immigration detainees during the pandemic, but recent outbreaks in Dungavel and Brook House have caused a lot of concern. We have already heard about how much is paid out in claims of false detention. Nearly 70% of those in immigration detention are eventually released and allowed to remain in the UK. Private companies such as Serco and G4S are paid by the Government to hold them. It has to end.

I am proud that the Labour party has consistently and unequivocally stood up to this reactionary Bill since its inception and all its iterations. Our hon. Friends in the other place have done a sterling job in amending some of the most reactionary parts of the Bill, and I support every single one of their amendments. They have tabled these amendments with consideration and compassion to a piece of legislation that so fundamentally impacts the lives of others. It is a disgrace that the Government intend to vote these amendments down, and I wholeheartedly believe that they will sincerely regret this decision.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my namesake, the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). This Bill is about ending free movement. It is not the place for broader changes to immigration policy in the areas of detention, asylum and care. As ever, the amendments made in the other place are a mixture of the well-meaning but unnecessary and those that seek to undercut this Government’s manifesto commitments. I urge noble Members to reflect on the fact that we have won a majority for these measures. Those of us on the leave side also won the referendum, and continually trying to frustrate what we have repeatedly put to the British people is not a good way for the other place to proceed.

In the brief time I have, I would like to speak about Lords amendments 1 and 2. As the Migration Advisory Committee and the Minister have said, immigration is not the solution to the challenges of the social care system. It depresses wages, and bowing to pressure to exempt it from these rules, in the hope of increasing pay, makes no sense. I was struck by the eloquent speech from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) about her experience in the care sector, and I pay tribute to her work in the sector before and during the pandemic. But our desire to change the immigration system in the future is not to denigrate those who have come here already and served this country so well, particularly during the pandemic. It cannot be the case that we cannot choose to change our system because we believe that that is somehow offensive to people who are already here. We are not proposing to throw people out who are here legally. We are saying that we choose a different future—a future that the British people chose when they chose to leave the European Union and end free movement.

I turn to Lords amendment 2. Under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, EU citizens who settled here before the end of the transition period can apply for settled status, so that the rights they currently enjoy are guaranteed. That is absolutely right. It was negotiated in good faith with the EU, and it applies both ways. But after the end of the transition period, it is right that EU and non-EU citizens should be treated in the same way. There should not be discrimination based on citizenship, and therefore EU citizens should meet the same requirements set out by our immigration rules— the points-based system that we will introduce—as non-EU citizens.

Lords amendment 2 would provide preferential family reunion rights under EU free movement law indefinitely. The result would be that family members of such UK nationals could forever bypass the immigration rules that would otherwise apply to family members of other UK nationals. It would be unfair to other UK nationals wishing to live in the UK with family members from other countries outside the EEA and Switzerland. The British people voted to ensure the creation of a new immigration system built on fairness, not on nationality. The creation of a lifetime right for one group of nationals would undoubtedly be unfair on other UK citizens living overseas who have family members from other parts of the world. When free movement ends, we should treat family members of all UK nationals living abroad equally. We have given a clear date of 29 March 2022 for people to bring close family members to the UK. That is fair. We are giving sufficient time for people to make changes if they wish to do so, but after that we will treat everybody the same.

I do not have time to go over the other Lords amendments, but by rejecting them we will pass the Bill as it was written. It a historic, important Bill. It is absolutely clear that delivering control of our borders, both in terms of the total numbers who come here and the skills that people bring with them, was what the British people—and my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme—voted for, and that is what the Bill will let us do. I am happy to vote to bring the Bill one step closer to law.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point in that regard. The DPP would be entitled to do that as a matter of course, using the public interest test that would ordinarily apply. We all might concede that that is not an unreasonable proposition under the circumstances. Again, we need more justification from the Minister, as far as that is concerned.

I know that the Minister wants to get this Bill into the best possible shape, and I thank him for his welcome and constructive engagement with me over the last few weeks. I do not want him to think that I am being churlish by raising these points, but it is desirable that we get these matters right, as far as we can. He and I are in much the same place in spirit, but it is about how we can get things right in practice.

Finally, I return to amendment 14. The point was well made—dare I say it, I think the Minister made the opposing case very well—that if the test of reasonable belief is important enough to put in the guidance, it is important enough to put in statute. Anyone who has practised in criminal law will know that reasonableness of belief can be pretty important in determining whether the elements of an offence or a defence are made out, and the Government would do no harm by putting that in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and the other matters that I have raised, and I hope he will recognise that I have done so in the spirit of constructive discussion and in an endeavour to improve the Bill, rather than to obstruct its overall purpose.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

As I expect we will not get an opportunity for Third Reading, I start by saying this: another day, and another attempt by the Government to ram through a Bill that puts the Executive and their agents above our laws.

I rise to speak to the amendments and new clauses in my name and those of other hon. Members—amendments that seek to protect our diverse communities, our trade unions and our right to political protest. In doing so, it is important that I correctly frame my contribution and make it clear that I, and others who oppose the Bill, completely understand the need for undercover operations, such as joining a proscribed organisation or selling or possessing drugs as a means to uncover the activities of organised criminals. Ministers have, however, failed to convince us why, unlike other countries, we have decided to legislate for such operations to include authorising criminal actions with no limits—even for the most heinous crimes—with no judicial oversight, and with power so heavily concentrated in the Executive.

Likewise, it is completely bizarre to suggest that the undercover policing inquiry that is due to start next month is irrelevant to this Bill. How can that be so when the inquiry will investigate whether crimes were committed by undercover police officers? The attempt to argue that in the course of such conduct—for example, coercing women into sexual relationships, and infiltrating and sabotaging campaigns and trade unions—no crimes were committed is surprising, to say the least, but to make such assertions before the evidence has begun to be heard, and to introduce legislation that will essentially green-light further such actions, is breathtaking.

Giving the legal go-ahead to such criminal behaviour in the future totally undermines attempts to secure justice for the past. Before I hear anybody say that that is irrelevant, I will point out that it is very relevant to many people and groups, such as the 14 trade unions that recently signed a statement and campaigning organisations including Reprieve, the Pat Finucane Centre, the Hillsborough and Orgreave truth and justice campaigns, the Blacklist Support Group, anti-racist groups and family campaigns for justice. Without question, I stand with them.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend that some of the things that have gone on in the past, such as the Finucane case in Northern Ireland, are appalling and perhaps were not covered by what is in place now. But she said that there was no limit to what the state can do under this Bill. However, there is. The Human Rights Act and the 70 pages of guidance—I accept that it should be in the Bill—place limits on such action, because it has to be proportionate. As for trade unions and the other organisations that she mentioned, they are not covered by this. I accept that in the past some bad things went on, as she has mentioned, but that is not the case at present. The Bill simply provides oversight of a process that already is going on.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I will have to respectfully disagree, but I will come to that point.

Let me start with our amendments that deal with trade unions and blacklisting. Amendment 5 and new clause 4 lay out that a criminal conduct authorisation cannot be granted to a covert human intelligence source within a trade union. Similarly, amendment 6 and new clause 5 seek to prevent the powers in the Bill from being used for blacklisting. Although I understand that the Bill is not about the authorisation of surveillance, in both instances I and my hon. Friends believe it is important to explicitly remove trade unions and blacklisting activity from the powers in the Bill. We cannot and will not simply accept the Government’s assurances, because trade unions are absolutely right to be alarmed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) explained to the House last week, since 1968, over 3,000 trade unionists have been blacklisted, over 1,000 organisations have been spied on by undercover police, and tens of thousands of ordinary citizens have had files held on them by special branch.

Similarly, for the purpose of protecting legitimate political protest, amendments 3 and 4 seek to remove “preventing disorder” and the

“interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”

as legitimate grounds for the authorisation of criminality. These grounds are ill defined and wide-ranging, not to mention open to outright political abuse. Again, I point to where they have already been abused. We know that using undercover police, allegedly posing as protesters, to commit crimes and provoke violence, including a violent response from the authorities, has been reported as an ongoing tactic and been discussed in the public domain in recent years, including more recently in the past few months, with regard to the Black Lives Matter protests and climate change and G20 demonstrations. All of these necessarily constitute an unlawful interference.

That is also why I have tabled amendment 1, which seeks to ensure that discrimination on the grounds of protected characteristics are taken into account before any such allowance for criminal conduct is given. I point to that because we know that, in the spy cops scandal, women were unfortunately discriminated against through the way in which they were coerced into sexual relationships, and as we know, ethnic minorities are disproportionately the victims of state violence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) said last week, it is not hard to see that this Bill is just another iteration of the expansion of state surveillance of marginalised communities.

I should also point out that Members from across the House routinely disagree on what is in the interests of the economic wellbeing of this country. Could my disagreement with capitalism be perceived to fall under the auspices of the Bill? Before anybody says, “That’s absolutely ridiculous,” I would remind the House that Labour Members have been subject to surveillance, and no doubt vague and wide-reaching arguments were used at the time. Where does this end?

To respond to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), is it not also the case that Ministers cannot assure members of the public by saying that the Human Rights Act guards against abuses, as it cannot be applied to individuals, only to organisations? This Bill would permit crimes to be committed in contravention of the European convention on human rights and the individual perpetrators could not be prosecuted, although the UK itself might subsequently be found in breach of the ECHR—a theme that is becoming all too common in the Government’s approach to legislation.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

As the hon. Lady knows, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) are supporting her amendments, particularly on the trade union angle, but in relation to the Human Rights Act, is it not also true that the Government themselves have argued before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal that the state, in tasking CHIS, is not the instigator of the activity and cannot be treated as responsible for it? There is therefore a real difficulty with the Government trying to give us comfort by reference to the Human Rights Act.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right, and that is why we cannot be comforted by those assurances. They would have to be put on the face of the Bill for us to have any assurance that the Government would not move forward in that way.

It is unfortunate that the Government are laying down a Bill like this, at a time like this, without putting in place clear limitations and proper oversight to prevent what are the gravest violations and curbing the use of such powers for political reasons. Our democracy has to be protected and our rights have to be upheld. Our police and security services should exist to uphold the rule of law, not break it. I therefore urge all Members to vote for the amendments and, if they are not passed, to vote against the Bill.

[Mr David Davis]

I will pay attention to your encouragement to be brief, Mr Evans. Although I support the intent of the amendments in the name of the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and the hon. Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), I will focus solely on amendment 13.

There is no doubt that there is a need for a Bill like this. Infiltrating terrorist gangs and going under cover as an informant is dangerous and risky work which often requires breaking the law, and the Bill enables authorisation of those breaches of the law. However, amendment 13, in my name and in those of others, explicitly exempts the most serious crimes of murder, torture, rape and others from powers in the Bill. The Government argue that that is not necessary because the Human Rights Act already limits their actions. The question before the House today is this: do we believe that? Do we think that that is sufficient?

Back in the early 1990s, I was one of the Ministers who took the Intelligence Services Act 1994 through the House. Section 7 of the Act enabled MI6 officers abroad to commit crimes in the interests of the state. Inevitably, in the tabloid press, it became known as the James Bond clause, but that is precisely what it was not. It was not a licence to kill. It was a licence to bribe, burgle, blackmail and bug, but it was not a licence to kill. Nevertheless, within a decade, section 7 was being used to authorise rendition, torture and the mass invasion of innocent people’s privacy—crimes that were never countenanced when the Act was put in place. I know that, because I did all the work behind it. It should be understood that the authorisation of those crimes, often within the United Kingdom, occurred after the Human Rights Act had been passed—indeed, while the ink was still wet on its pages in some cases—and it provided precisely zero protection. Likewise, the European convention on human rights, the international convention on torture and the 1949 Geneva convention, to all of which we are signatories and some of which are absolutely binding in law, provided no protection whatever.