Points of Order
Debate between Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Caroline Nokes
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since the proscription of Palestine Action last year, I have received hundreds of emails from constituents concerned about the decision, arrests for actions as minor as holding up a sign, and the wider chilling effect on protest rights. I am on record as opposing the proscription. I was a Teller for the Noes, so my position is well documented. With the Court of Appeal upholding the ban this month, much more correspondence has followed. I am genuinely unsure whether I can even explain the view that I held at the time without breaking the law.
An answer to a written question that I tabled gave little clarity, simply citing the Terrorism Act 2000, which makes it an offence to express support for a proscribed organisation. If I write to a constituent, and they post my letter online, did I break the law? Did they break the law? Did we both break the law? There is something deeply wrong here. I can stand in this Chamber and say, or write in a letter, words that could get a constituent arrested, if they put them on a placard. If an MP cannot say with confidence what is lawful, what hope does a member of the public have? Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise on how MPs can get clear guidance on what we can and cannot say about Palestine Action, especially since the Secretary of State cannot seem to give that advice, particularly in my case, as I would simply be citing a matter of record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. The House will know that everything that hon. Members say in the course of proceedings in this House is protected by the privilege of freedom of speech set out in article 9 of the Bill of Rights. However, when it comes to what hon. Members say outside this place, that is a question of the operation of the law, and it is not a matter on which I can offer advice from the Chair.
Points of Order
Debate between Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Caroline Nokes
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He is quite right: I have had no notice of a statement on this issue. He can raise it at Health questions and with the Leader of the House. He has certainly done an excellent job of highlighting this matter, as he has done in debates that I have listened to. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard him.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Tomorrow is the UN’s international day of remembrance of the victims of slavery and the transatlantic slave trade. The Ghanaian Government’s resolution declaring the transatlantic slave trade a crime against humanity, which is backed by the African Union, the Caribbean Community and a growing global coalition, will be debated. Given our nation’s central role in the trafficking and enslavement of African peoples, a vote against that resolution would be a betrayal of every life it consumed. The House has never debated this. How can we be certain that our UN vote reflects the will of this Parliament and, more importantly, the will of this country? How can we ensure that decisions of such magnitude taken in our name receive the democratic consideration they deserve before a vote is cast?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. As she will know, the Government conduct diplomatic relations at the United Nations under Crown prerogative. Nevertheless, she has placed her concerns on the record, and those on the Front Bench will have heard them. As the House has not debated the issue, she might do well to apply for a Backbench Business debate or a Westminster Hall debate, or raise it with the Leader of the House at business questions.
Black Maternal Health Awareness Week 2022
Debate between Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Caroline Nokes(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I did not think he would be entirely able to resist speaking in the debate. He is right: policies must be data-driven and evidenced, but the evidence is there and has been for many years. We are augmenting and adding to that body of evidence the whole time.
I will not be entirely negative, because we have some great opportunities. I was pleased to see Dame Lesley Regan appointed women’s health ambassador earlier this year. I welcome, reinforce, champion and offer anything I can to help the women’s health strategy. Finally, we have one of those, and I pay tribute to the Minister who was instrumental in getting that published. What we now need from the strategy is outcomes. That has to be the focus. What is happening to drive outcomes, and to ensure that the disparities we know exist are recognised, acted on and reduced? Our goal has to be to reduce that horrendous figure of four times as many maternal deaths for black women. We have to improve the outcomes for black babies, so that there is not, as I think the hon. Member for Streatham said, a more than 100% likelihood of stillbirth—
Caroline Nokes
Increased risk. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight that as an imperative. We must ensure that we reduce the inequity, of which there are many drivers. She was with me when the Women and Equalities Committee took evidence from Professor Sir Michael Marmot, who talks so compellingly about health inequalities and their drivers.
I will not say that there is anything wrong with black women’s bodies—there is not—but we have to look at housing conditions, air quality and the areas where they live. Air quality is a significant driver of poor health outcomes. We have to look at what we are doing around smoking cessation, which is good for not just black women, but all women. We have to look at obesity, which is, again, a crucial factor for all women.
I look forward to seeing, in the remainder of this Parliament, focused and determined action around obesity, smoking cessation and air quality. There are targets on all those things, but—how can I put this gently?—there has been a little backsliding on some of them. Targets have been pushed into the dim and distant future, and there is less commitment around drives to reduce obesity and smoking, which are incredible drivers of poor health outcomes across the population. We should double down on our commitment to those targets.
I hope that in due course—I get fed up of saying “in due course”, which is a standard ministerial answer—to see a White Paper on health disparities. It is imperative that we get that done, and that the women’s health strategy is seen as a driver to ensure that we improve outcomes. First and foremost, I reiterate the calls from the hon. Member for Streatham for targets. I am never a great fan of targets if they are just there for the collection of targets, but if they work, and we see that in many instances they do, we should have them.
We should have time-limited targets, so that in maybe three years we can look and say, “Nothing has changed.” Looking at the data and the evidence from campaign groups, I see that over 20 years, nothing has changed. I do not want to be here in 20 years’ time giving the same speech on this important issue, feeling that nothing has changed. I look forward to the Minister’s comments, and reiterate my congratulations to the hon. Member for Streatham on calling for today’s debate.