Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s logic. The test of mental capacity in the judicial system applies to everyone equally. If I were being prosecuted for an offence, I would be assessed for mental capacity, just as my hon. Friend would. The court would accept that there might be mitigations for his actions, or a requirement for a different disposal if he lacks mental capacity, but that is an external influence on him. It may come about owing to mental illness or some other kind of disability—who knows?

The point is that this comes about through no reason other than birth. My citizenship, or my lack of citizenship, is conferred on me by reason of my birth—my parentage, or my heritage. I cannot do anything about it. I cannot be treated for it, as I can be for mental illness. This is purely because my parents may have come from another country, my skin may be of a different colour, or the country of the origin of my DNA may offer particular rights of citizenship. It is something arbitrary, about which I can do nothing. We might as well have a piece of legislation that says that people with red hair receive different treatment under the law, because there is nothing they can do about that.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this whole notion of heritage is not even an exact science? My first black ancestor to be born in this country was born in 1806, in Twyford; I have no idea where that is, but I know it is not that far from here. He was the son of a formerly enslaved person and a white domestic servant living in the house of his former master. I do not know what that particular ancestry is, but it goes quite far back. Just because someone called Thomas Birch-Freeman, who was living in the UK and would be deemed British by this legislation, travelled to Ghana as a missionary and settled there, and that is where my lineage comes from, I am now treated differently under the law, despite, perhaps, having heritage that may be similar to that of the right hon. Gentleman.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady has made a very good point. My problem with this legislation is that it places a question mark over certain citizens. I am not suggesting that the legislation is on everyone’s lips every day, but when it is used with increasing frequency, it does place a question mark over people’s status as citizens of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, should be a matter of concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I rise to speak in favour of amendment 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who is definitely on the other side of the House but who I am very much allied with in seeing the clear flaws in this Bill. Like him, I remain uncomfortable about the Bill as a whole, which I am sure will come as no surprise to the Minister.

I was quite clear on Second Reading about my concerns, which unfortunately the Minister failed to adequately respond to. Under the Bill, someone who successfully appeals against an order taking their British citizenship away will not get it back until it is no longer possible for the Government to challenge that appeal. At present, the length of time is indefinite, making this a measure that is effectively designed to circumvent the judiciary, and I want to fully understand why.

On Second Reading, I repeatedly asked the Minister to specify what act a person must commit to fall into the particularly unique situation in which the Government would want to revoke their citizenship, and why there is no existing legislation that can be used to take criminal proceedings against, or imprison, them as someone who is extremely dangerous. I would really like him to give a clear example—beyond the one case that has sparked this knee-jerk response—of where this legislation would be required. He has to recognise that, once law, it can be used in more than one way and in more than one case, as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire has clearly laid out. Surely the Minister can understand the apprehension that many people will have if this legislation is being brought forward to address only one specific example, yet potentially has implications for dual nationals and for those with eligibility for citizenship elsewhere.

I mentioned on Second Reading that certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always—whether it is the stated intention or not—disproportionately impacts them. To be clear, I am talking about people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, and those with parents or grandparents who may have been born elsewhere; they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. Those of us who are entitled to citizenship of other countries for no other reason than where our parents or grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, know that we are at a higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. When such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens, and we have known that since the Shamima Begum case.

As far as I am concerned, this Bill goes beyond keeping people safe and beyond a technical adjustment. It sends a message that certain people and certain communities are forever second-class citizens, and that no matter how long someone has contributed to this country, their citizenship is conditional, revocable and disposable. It seems that we have learned nothing at all from the Windrush scandal, because we continue to go through this cycle of creating pieces of legislation that may impact certain communities, noticing that they may impact those communities and passing them anyway.

As far as I am concerned, the power to remove someone’s citizenship has its roots in colonial logic, whereby belonging is granted or revoked at the whim of empire, but there is no more empire. That logic has no place in a modern democratic society. Citizenship should never be a privilege to be granted or withdrawn based on the political agenda of the day. Citizenship is and should be a right, and it is the foundation of equality before the law; and even though this may not be the intention, the Bill undermines that right for some people while safeguarding it for others.

I am against this Bill not just because of what it does, but because of what it says. Why has the Minister not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment? I know the Bill has an incredibly narrow scope, but its potential implications are vast and the potential impact is limited to specific communities. Steps should have been taken to understand the impact that this legislation might have.

I hope the Government will consider amendment 1. We know that these cases are lengthy and can last several years; I point again to the Shamima Begum case as an example. Leaving somebody essentially stateless as the Government exhaust the appeals process risks their freedom and safety. Although the Government may wish to wash their hands of the individual whom they are seeking to deprive of citizenship—as evidenced by the very nature of appeal—that person and their safety is and absolutely ought to be, by law, the responsibility of their Government. If rendering them stateless throughout their appeal, regardless of whether it lasts a few months or a few years, risks harm to the individual, then it is only right that a judge can rule that the order does not continue to take effect until the appeals process is exhausted.

Ultimately, I believe that this legislation is reactionary and has been born out of frustration at the failures of the existing legislation. If someone is deemed to pose a severe threat to public safety and the existing legislation does not allow the Government to deal with the matter appropriately, we must amend the existing legislation.

As I said before, I am against this Bill not just because of what it does, but because of what it says about who we are and whose rights matter, and about whether justice in this country is truly blind or whether it sees skin colour and migration history before it sees the individual and the citizen. I genuinely do not believe that this knee-jerk approach is the answer. Creating second-class citizens is not the answer. There surely has to be another way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I have listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments this evening and on Second Reading, and I have a great deal of respect for him and the way he lays out his arguments. I am very much looking forward to the Minister’s comments from the Dispatch Box shortly.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Further to the intervention by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), is the hon. Member aware not only that Commonwealth countries allow people to claim citizenship from the birth of their parents or grandparents, but that some countries—notably Ghana and Kenya—specifically allow people to claim citizenship purely by being of African heritage, because they may not be able to trace their lineage due to enslavement?

[Lisa Smart]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for those comments. We Liberal Democrats believe that the whole deprivation of citizenship regime needs fundamentally looking at and reviewing, and we would welcome any co-operation across the House with hon. and right hon. Members who want to work with us on that.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that deprivation of citizenship must remain an absolute exception, and never be a routine tool of Government policy. New clause 1 would provide the necessary guardrails to help ensure this remains the case, even as further powers are placed in the Secretary of State’s hands. Ultimately, the integrity of British citizenship and our commitment to fundamental rights must never be compromised by practicality. New clause 1 would uphold those principles and ensure that such a grave power was exercised only with full accountability and the closest scrutiny of this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I have listened very carefully to this debate, and I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for the points they have made. As I have said in this Chamber many times, there is simply no greater priority than the safety of all those in the UK, and this Bill will help ensure the integrity of a vital tool in our ongoing efforts to protect the UK. As ever, I will endeavour to respond to the themes that have been raised.

I start with the Bill’s sole substantive clause. Clause 1 inserts into the British Nationality Act 1981 proposed new section 40A, which will prevent those who have been deprived of British citizenship from automatically regaining citizenship if their appeal is successful. This will be in effect until onward appeals have been determined, and that extends up to the Supreme Court. It replicates the approach taken on asylum and human rights appeals. If all appeals have been determined and the Government prove unsuccessful, British citizenship would be reinstated with immediate and retrospective effect.

This clause and the Bill in its entirety do not change any existing right of appeal or widen the reasons for which a person could be deprived of their citizenship. I also reassure the Committee that the Government have to demonstrate a genuine case for an appeal in order for courts to allow the appeal to proceed. The courts carefully assess whether any appellant has a reasonable prospect of success, or there exists some other compelling public interest, before granting permission. Rules of court exist to prevent superfluous or unfounded appeals being pursued.

Clause 2 is necessary to make the Bill operational. The provisions are retrospective and will come into effect on Royal Assent. This is necessary to mitigate effectively the risk of cases currently in the system. The Bill extends and applies to all of the UK, the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, and I am sure that hon. Members will be glad to know that we have engaged closely with colleagues in the devolved Governments, Crown dependencies and overseas territories.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

The Minister has made very clear exactly where the Bill will apply, but will he be clear about exactly who it will apply to? We have asked this question in different ways when talking about who we think will be disadvantaged, but can he be clear that those of British nationality who have no other claim to a nationality cannot be subject to such an order?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is right about that specific point, but I will return to the points she has raised once I have responded to amendment 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). I am genuinely grateful to him—he is looking a bit cynical as to the extent of my gratitude—for providing an opportunity to address the important issues, and they are important, he raised and for the considered, measured and thoughtful way in which he approached this debate and the Second Reading debate a couple of weeks ago.

The right hon. Gentleman made the case for his amendment in his own typically considered way. I listened very carefully to it, as I am sure did other hon. Members. He made the claim that the Bill will create a two-tier citizenship, and my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) reinforced that point. He claimed, I think somewhat unfairly, that the Government, through these measures, are seeking to undermine fairness. I say to him and to other hon. Members that we are not trying to do that. What we are trying to do, very simply, is ensure that the Government have the powers and the tools they need to keep the country safe. I know that he would acknowledge—I have made this point to him quite recently—that these are powers that existed under all 14 years of the previous Government. We are seeking to ensure that we have the same powers to be able to do what we need to do to keep the country safe.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that deprivation on conducive grounds is used very sparingly and against those who would pose a serious threat to the UK. It is essential that our legal framework protects our national security—I hope he would agree with that—but he made an interesting point about some of the fine balances and judgments that have to be made. I hope he would accept that, ultimately, deprivation of citizenship and matters relating to national security are matters for the Home Secretary.

The Supreme Court has been clear that the right to a fair hearing does not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public. I understand and respect the motivation behind the right hon. Member’s amendment, but it does not take into account the impact of the Court’s decision on national security. These are judgments and decisions that have to be taken by the Home Secretary. The fact that a court may have allowed an appeal against a deprivation decision does not mean that the person does not pose a threat to the UK, for example where the appeal is upheld on procedural issues. Furthermore, it is not controversial to delay the outcome of a lower court on a civil order while any further appeal is determined. It has nothing to do with being found guilty. As I mentioned earlier, the approach in the Bill is in line with the approach taken on asylum and human rights appeals.

Turning to the specific conditions set out in amendment 1, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that decisions to deprive are taken in accordance with our international obligations. It is also assessed whether deprivation would expose a person to a real risk of mistreatment, which would constitute a breach of articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights, were those articles to apply. Additionally, an appeal can already be paused until a person is in a position to effectively take part. The timings for appeals are agreed by both parties and the courts can order case management reviews to resolve disagreements between the parties. For the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I rise simply to ask the Minister if he might publish the assessment. He has said continuously that the Bill is fair, but I want to impress upon him that it cannot possibly be fair that should such orders be brought about, they would impact me and not him. I do not think that is fair at all.

I would also like the Minister to address his statement that the Bill is not discriminatory. He must understand that some communities may have these provisions applied against them more than others, even though they may be used sparingly, and that fact makes it discriminatory. He has to accept that.

I would also be grateful if the Minister thought specifically about the fact that no matter how sparingly the legislation is applied, it is being used more than in the past, and that is giving people much cause for concern. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) pointed out, the Minister and the Secretary of State may not always be in this place, and there may be others who wish to use the legislation in a way that is not intended. I would be very grateful if the Minister could address those points and see exactly where our concerns remain.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Decriminalising Abortion

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I am most grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the Petitions Committee for this crucial debate. I also thank Gemma, the thousands of people who have signed the petition and the hundreds of constituents who have contacted me over the years, adding their voices to the call to end the archaic law that sees women who access medical services given some of the harshest sentences that our criminal system doles out.

Despite the surrounding issues, we have to be clear that the debate today is not specifically about changing the laws around termination limits. It is not about changing the eligibility for legal abortions, nor is it about changing the requirements for administering abortions. This debate is about changing antiquated laws from a bygone era that are no longer fit for our modern understanding of women’s bodily autonomy or women’s health.

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

The Abortion Act 1967 is now almost 60 years old. There are many things that have changed in terms of women’s rights. In fact, it was not until 1991 that the idea that women could be raped by their husbands was accepted and the act was criminalised. This nearly 60-year-old law is in urgent need of updating so that it protects women and our right to bodily autonomy, rather than seeking to control it. Some of the other legislation that criminalises women for accessing healthcare dates from as early as the 1600s.

In 2020, I was pleased to join parliamentarians in voting to repeal legislation in Northern Ireland that prosecuted women for terminating their own pregnancies, yet in England, Scotland and Wales this type of legislation remains in place. The rest of the UK is dragging far behind the rest of the world: in England and Wales, we have the harshest criminalisation of abortion of any country in the world, and that includes countries that are actively anti-abortion, such as Poland and the USA. When President Trump announced his plans to criminalise women accessing abortion, he faced backlash from the Susan B. Anthony List, ardent anti-abortion campaigners.

In the past three years in England six women have appeared in court, charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancies. Abortion providers estimate that, for every woman who ends up in court, at least 10 others are subject to prolonged police investigations. When we talk about women being criminalised, we are not only referring to those who have accessed abortion beyond the legal term limit or even those suspected of doing so, but those women who have experienced miscarriages and stillbirths, who are being criminalised, investigated, and treated like criminals when they are going through a difficult and traumatic experience.

As someone who has experienced a stillbirth, I cannot express how traumatic it is. The idea that, during what can be the most difficult time in your life, you would be treated in that way—it just bears no understanding whatsoever. I remember that, very late on in my pregnancy, I was strongly advised—in fact, I felt under pressure—to terminate my pregnancy, and by doctors, not by anyone else. I was told that an injection could be given to stop my baby’s heart, but that I would still have to give birth because of how late it was.

I said no—but what I want to point out here is that it was my choice. It is very important to stress that it was my choice. We spend so much time fighting for abortion rights and the right to healthcare that we often have no time to make the point that this is all about the choice women are given.

So many people come at this issue from a point of faith. We need to understand that the right to exercise one’s faith in healthcare decisions is a human right. If that right is taken away and relinquished for one group of women who may choose to act for whatever reason, it is also relinquished for those who may choose not to move forward with an abortion. We have to keep stressing that: it is about choice. As a woman—as a black woman—I know that things have been done to our bodies for years without our consent. The rights we have now are about our autonomy, and we have to maintain them in whatever way we can.

It cannot be right that, while a woman is in this situation, the recent guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council includes instructions to search her home, internet history, text messages and even fertility tracking apps. That is awful. The guidance also, alarmingly, outlines ways in which the police can obtain abortion-related medical records from NHS providers, such as MSI Reproductive Choices UK, without a court order. Pregnancy loss is a devastating tragedy, and those who endure it deserve compassion and support—not criminalisation. It is grossly unacceptable to treat grieving parents as potential suspects in the loss of their child. This guidance risks compounding grief with the fear of prosecution, creating an effect that could deter women from seeking medical help or honest conversations with healthcare providers.

Equally, the decision to end a pregnancy can be devastating—a tragedy. Those who endure that also deserve compassion and support, not criminalisation. Access to healthcare should never be a criminal matter; making it so only puts lives at risk. Rather than targeting bereaved families, there should be a focus on improving maternal healthcare, addressing systemic failures, and ensuring that every parent receives the support they need during such a loss. As Louise McCudden, the head of external affairs at MSI Reproductive Choices UK, said:

“This guidance will be fuelling a culture of hostility and suspicion towards abortion and pregnancy.”

This policy is born out of a culture that demonises and criminalises women who access abortions, exercising their bodily autonomy, and it is sweeping up women who have seen their pregnancies come to an unplanned end. No one deserves to be investigated for ending their own pregnancy—and they certainly do not deserve it when they have lost their child. Those women and their partners need support during that time, but they will not get it if they are being treated like criminals. The continued criminalisation of abortion is antiquated, it lacks compassion and it needs to come to an end. This is about a choice, and every woman should be allowed to make that choice based on her views and beliefs. That is what our human rights are supposed to be about.

Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

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

This debate is tragically timely for women across my constituency, who will tomorrow mark the one-year anniversary of the murder of my constituent Sarah Everard at the hands of a serving police officer. As our prayers and thoughts go out to Sarah’s family, I remind everyone of their request for privacy, and particularly the media; given what the family have suffered, that is the least they can offer them. That murder shocked the nation and my constituents; it struck fear into the hearts of women across the country, but particularly women who walked around the same area, who contacted me saying that they no longer felt safe. No one should feel unsafe walking anywhere at any time.

I cannot raise that case without also mentioning the vigil that followed on Clapham Common and the conduct of the Metropolitan Police. Women present at the vigil were there to remember those who had lost their lives at the hands of male violence, and some were there to process their own trauma. They were forcibly kettled, manhandled and dispersed. The police response was called “controversial” at the time; I would say it was not merely controversial, but disgraceful.

There have also been great efforts to make it seem as though the murder’s happening at the hands of a serving police officer was a matter of one bad apple, but evidence has consistently revealed a deeply misogynistic culture in the Metropolitan Police. In the past 10 years, 750 Met police officers have faced sexual misconduct allegations, yet only 83 have been sacked.

We have heard tales of officers sharing inappropriate and offensive material and taking pictures of the dead bodies of women as a joke. The report into the vile misogyny and racism at the Charing Cross police station led the Home Secretary herself to declare that the Met had a “cultural and attitudinal” issue with misogyny. I do not say those things to berate the police, but because women need to be able to turn to the police to deliver justice and to prosecute the perpetrators of male violence. What confidence will they have in police forces that are known to do such things?

Since the murder in my constituency last year, a number of attacks have taken place in the area, leading to even more women being fearful of walking by themselves. Several of those attacks even happened during the day or in relatively open spaces. There is a culture of misogyny running rife through our society, and it is emboldening men to commit more heinous crimes against women in broad daylight. The systems in place to deliver justice for female victims continue to fail, as rape is effectively decriminalised.

One thing we must do is look at education and schools, teaching boys from a young age that as they grow up to become men, women should not be treated as objects or be spoken to or about in certain ways. That said, we must look to what they are seeing and hearing online, something hon. Members have frequently mentioned today, with the ever-growing presence of incels. We hope the online harms Bill will actively look at that and puts more responsibility on social media companies to take down some of that horrible content and make people realise that, as Mr Speaker has reminded us, words have consequences. It is not just banter or general viewing. It is not just a joke.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that social media is normalising hate speech—particularly aggressive hate speech directed towards women and girls—and that we must address that through the online safety Bill to ensure that the normal legal standards that exist offline are applied online and to create real responsibilities for companies such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok to ensure that they do that?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman—he is absolutely right. I wish more responsibility was placed on social media companies. There should even be a levy for them to pay for the perpetrating of the crimes that sometimes happen online but are not considered to be serious because they happen in a virtual space.

While it seems obvious to point out the impact of past cuts to police funding, it is important to make people realise that the ability to investigate crimes against women and girls is greatly impacted. The impact is not just in the lower numbers of police available, but in the cuts to police training and vetting. Between 2010 and 2018 the Met faced over £600 million in Government cuts, which saw a reduction in police posts and no doubt resulted in corner-cutting in training and vetting of officers. No wonder there are individuals who we know are clearly unfit to act as officers and have used their positions to commit heinous crimes against women and girls.

The answer to violence is not simply having more police on the streets, but they must be there, they must be appropriate and they must be vetted and we must ensure that, when dealing with cases of violence against women and girls, they take them seriously. If the police are to regain our trust in them to keep women and girls safe and tackle the spiralling issue of male violence against women and girls, they must first address the culture of impunity that allows violence against women and girls to thrive, by actively investigating these matters and taking them more seriously.

If the Government are to regain our trust in their commitment to tackling violence against women and girls, they need to assess and review all their cuts to services dealing with violence against women and girls right across the country. Those services have been cut in such a way that when women need support, there is hardly anybody to go to. We are talking about refuges and other services that have been cut right to the bone, and meanwhile the incidence of violence is increasing. If the Government are committed to tackling this issue, they must seriously look at the issue of funding, restore it where it has been cut and continue to work with those organisations that have done so much to end violence against women and girls.

LGBTQ+ Afghan Refugees

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this important debate. In this tragic chapter of warfare displacement and human suffering, it is our duty as one of the main occupying powers in Afghanistan to act responsibly and honour our humanitarian obligations.

LGBTQ+ Afghans are among the most vulnerable. They bear the brunt, not just in the aftermath of the conflict, but in the ongoing persecution that stems from the former Afghan Government, the current Taliban regime, the unsafe resettlement camps, the hostile neighbouring third countries and, perhaps most saddening, at times from their own families and communities.

The multiple threats to LGBTQ+ Afghans’ lives show that they have been disproportionately targeted. We have heard horrific stories of people being humiliated publicly on the streets, forced into marriage and tortured. As if that were not cruel enough, we have heard today both former and current regimes in the country advocating the death penalty. They suffer indignity and persecution just for loving someone of the same sex.

In the aftermath of war there will be an inevitable rise in the number of refugees and asylum seekers. That is why I support all the calls made today by Stonewall, Rainbow Migration and others for LGBTQ+ Afghan refugees to be given safe haven in the UK. Although I welcome the Government’s recent commitments to take in those refugees as part of the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme, it is hard to put faith in a Government who have deported 15,000 Afghans from the UK over the past decade. I understand that this particular circumstance has changed, but it is worth mentioning that, as recently as 2017, the Home Office stated that

“a practising gay man who would not attract or seek to cause public outrage would not face a real risk of persecution”.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Does the hon. Lady agree with me that the Minister might like to explain what that actually means to the Members here today?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Absolutely. I am hoping for that explanation at the end of the debate, because it is a disgrace that the Government, having said that, would give themselves credit for the inadequate support they continue to give to LGBTQ+ Afghans.

To make matters worse, the Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill will drastically limit the ability of those facing persecution to apply for asylum in the UK. It will only guarantee temporary protection for refugees travelling via a third country. Inhumane offshore accommodation conditions; raising the standard required for someone to prove they are LGBTQ+; not allowing adequate time for vulnerable LGBTQ+ applicants to present themselves to immigration officials: all of that is in this damning Bill, which is another indictment of the Government’s cruel and inhumane immigration system.

I want to highlight a letter to the Prime Minister from my local borough of Lambeth which states that

“the environment for LGBTQ+ people in Afghanistan is harsher at present than almost anywhere else in the world.”

It goes on to say:

“The actions you take to secure the human rights—and indeed the lives—of LGBTQ+ Afghans will speak volumes…I call on your Government to act quickly to protect the lives of all LGBTQ+ people in—and displaced from—Afghanistan.”

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the work that is taking place in Lambeth. I am her constituency neighbour, and only yesterday we opened the first LGBT+ retirement home in my Lambeth constituency. Can the Minister explain how we will continue to support LGBT people in this country and people who want to seek safe haven here?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I thank my constituency neighbour for her intervention, and I am sure she joins me in fully supporting the calls of the local council in our neighbouring constituencies to secure the protection of LGBTQ+ Afghans. What is left for this Government to do is heed that message of compassionate leadership and act quickly, act responsibly, and above all honour this country’s moral and legal obligations to some of the most vulnerable people in the world.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 2
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

The Government admit that there is a crisis in policing, the criminal justice system and courts, and the publication of such an interminably long Bill speaks to that. Members of the public may be left wondering, given that the Conservative party has been in office for well over 10 years now, who is responsible for the multiple crises. In that time, we have had innumerable pieces of legislation on these matters—on policing, criminal justice and courts—including statutory instruments. Logically, we can conclude that none of that legislation has dealt with the admitted problems, and may even have exacerbated them.

We should not expect the outcome of this Bill to be different, because it is designed not to address fundamental problems but to infringe on our civil liberties and prosecute culture wars, with more protection for a statue than for a woman and a longer sentence for damaging public property than for sexual assault. The Bill does not even attempt to address the crisis of plummeting conviction rates for some of the most serious crimes, including rape. Reported rapes are soaring; they almost reached 60,000 last year, but barely 2,000 resulted in prosecution. The Victims’ Commissioner has spoken of the effective decriminalisation of rape in this country.

Ministers are fooling no one when their default response is to talk about tougher sentences and more police. Tougher sentences are useless if the perpetrators can reasonably expect never to be convicted. More police on the streets are a waste of time if they are instructed to prioritise guarding statues. The Bill seeks to make that style of policing commonplace, with the major focus on powers to prevent non-violent protests, such as Saturday’s vigil in memory of Sarah Everard, whose family we continue to hold in our thoughts and prayers. It follows in rapid succession legislation that provides legal immunity for members of the armed forces and the police, even in cases of rape, torture and murder.

Historically, we have had policing by consent in this country. This Government seem to be intent on ending that, with more armed police and more random stop-and-search, despite the evidence of racist discrimination, ploughing on with the failed Prevent programme and the obvious demonisation and disproportionate impact on the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and now the suppression of peaceful gatherings and protests. This is draconian legislation. It will not make us safer. It should be opposed by everybody who believes in democracy.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising such a thoughtful point. That certainly is something we would be prepared to study and consider, because we are always keen to learn from other jurisdictions. We will be bringing forward wider measures as part of a counter-terrorism Bill in the next few months. One provision we have in mind is greatly extending licence periods following release, which is in the spirit of what she suggested, so I thank her for her constructive proposal.

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

I have heard Members throughout the debate talking about ending automatic release as if it was a new thing, but the Minister will be aware that the measure already exists in section 9 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. Is he confused, like me, as to why the change was not made retrospective then, because that legislation came in direct response to the terror attacks that happened throughout 2017? The Government could have made the change then, which Labour Members would have supported, as we did when they set up the Prevent review.

[Chris Philp]

Of course, the Government and Parliament think carefully about retrospection and rightly take a circumspect view. Several changes to sentencing have been made over the past five or 10 years, including the introduction of extended determinate sentences, whereby release at two thirds of the way through a sentence is a matter for the Parole Board following an assessment of dangerousness by the sentencing judge. Sentences for offenders of particular concern were extended a short time ago to include terrorist offenders who do not have an EDS or life sentence, and SOPCs include a Parole Board assessment at the halfway point. A great deal has been done in the past few years in this area, but the two recent cases, including, of course, the one in Streatham just a week and a half ago, underline the need to go even further than before, which is why this Bill is before the House today.

The number of offenders affected is small. As the Lord Chancellor said in his excellent introduction, only 50 offenders are involved, because all the rest are covered by other sentencing types. Even a small number of offenders, however, can cause a high level of harm, as we have seen, which is why it is important that we go further with today’s Bill. The next such offender is due for release by the end of the month, and that is why we are acting so quickly to ensure that legislation is in place prior to that release.

I thank Members from across the House, including the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), and the SNP spokesman, for the constructive and supportive tone of their speeches. This is a good example of Parliament working in a cross-party way in the national interest, and I am grateful for the approach they have taken today.

Some of the questions raised today touch on wider issues in this area, one of which is the question of resources, raised by the hon. Member for Torfaen in his opening speech. I confirm to the House once again that another £90 million will be spent on counter-terrorism policing next year, bringing the budget to £900 million. That very significant increase in resources was announced just a short time ago.

We clearly need to do more on the prison estate. Between 2017-18 and 2019-20, the prisons budget has increased from £2.55 billion to £2.9 billion, a 15% increase, and over the last three years there has been a welcome increase in the number of prison officers serving in our prison estate from 18,003 to 22,536.

Of course, we are also investing in the quality of the prison estate. The next financial year, which starts shortly, will see an extra £156 million invested in the prison estate’s physical condition, in addition to a £2.5 billion programme to build 10,000 additional prison places over and above the 3,500 currently under construction at Glen Parva, Wellingborough and Stocken.

Streatham Incident

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

May I join my hon. Friend in her tribute to everybody who did their utmost to try to save a life in what was a terrible tragic incident in her constituency? Sadly, it is an incident that is repeated far too often, and the scourge of knife crime is something that I think all of us in this House will have been touched by. The causes of it are complex. Some of the reasons are ones that we well understand—county lines, exploitation, and the use of knives as an enforcement weapon—but there are other reasons as well that we also need to understand. That is why I pay tribute to organisations such as the Ben Kinsella Trust and all those charities and groups that work so hard to educate young people about the dangers of knife crime. If I hear again the phrase, “I carry a knife for my own protection”, I think that I will scream. In so many cases that I have dealt with, that has been the cause of so much misery, injury and death.

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

The people of Streatham, as resilient and as united as they are, remain shaken by what happened yesterday. We are very grateful to the emergency services for their swift response and for the fact that they saved many lives. The Minister says that we are at the forefront of tackling terrorism and that we have robust measures in place, but those measures did not prevent what happened in my constituency yesterday. Although I note what he says about automatic release, the people of Streatham cannot fathom a situation in which somebody so dangerous who has to be under surveillance immediately after leaving prison is allowed to leave. Will the Minister assure me, and assure the people of Streatham, that there is no circumstance—no measure that could have been taken—that would have stopped this individual from being released from prison?

[Robert Buckland]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is representing her constituents fearlessly and well. I join her in the tribute to the people of Streatham who experienced not just the immediate horror, but the long aftermath of this terrible incident. I can assure her that the law had to apply in this case. This is the law that had been changed in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allowed automatic early release, and which meant that the Parole Board was not involved. There was no risk assessment as a prerequisite of release and therefore the automatic element of it meant that the particular situation that she described so well applied. It is something that I do not accept, which is why I have announced today that I will act and will deal with it in the form of emergency legislation, because I want to protect the public, the people of Streatham and the people of all our communities in our country. I thank the hon. Lady for her comments.