Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Public services are on the verge of collapse, the gap between rich and poor has widened, and we are slipping back into the Victorian era. Food bank use is at an all-time high, and workers have not had a decent pay rise in 15 years. But we are not here today to talk about those things—in fact, we are barely ever here to talk about them in any meaningful way. We are here to legislate on the dog-whistle, fantasist policies of the Conservative party, who are electioneering when they should be governing, not offering any real solutions to problems and attempting to divert attention from their own failings as a Government. They are wasting the time of this House and squandering the good will of the people of this country.

We keep going round and round on this matter. Our Supreme Court has ruled on it: it found Rwanda to be unsafe, a ruling that was based on evidence. Legislating the opposite is not going to rid us of the facts. This is not an exercise in parliamentary sovereignty, but an abuse of this Parliament’s functions. It undermines the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers. Yes, we are lawmakers and we can make and change the law, but the law cannot be used to change the facts.

Another fact is that the treaty with Rwanda, coupled with the Bill, breaches many of our obligations under international law. If that were in doubt in any way, the Government have helpfully outlined that fact throughout the entire Bill. Clause 3, for example, disapplies key sections of the Human Rights Act. It directly prevents the courts from applying the Bill in a way that is compatible with convention rights, it prevents any consideration of previous rulings of the European Court of Human Rights that have found Rwanda to be unsafe, and it removes human rights obligations from public bodies, including courts. The Bill would place an obligation on every single decision maker who has found Rwanda unsafe to simply rule it as safe. It restricts the courts’ ability to protect people who are at risk of harm, and it restricts individual legal protections. Do the Government fully understand what that means? Do they see how far they have sunk? Are they so fanatical about this flawed policy that they would bar courts from considering the very reasons why Rwanda might be unsafe, stripping people of individual legal protections?

From the very outset, this Bill has been ridiculous. Conservative Members would do well to note that there is no more empire. International law is not whatever we say it is; it is comprised of agreements and treaties adopted by Members of this House, and to dismiss them as the rules of foreign courts is as irresponsible as it is untrue. We signed up to those solemn and binding rules, so the Bill risks our international reputation and makes us hypocrites. How dare we condemn other countries that do not uphold international law, and how dare we preach to them, when we would undermine the rule of law ourselves? This Government do not really care about that, though. They care more about the squabbles of the Conservative party than our standing as a country.

If this Government were serious about resolving the issues surrounding small boats, they would do more to target people traffickers, and they would provide safe and legal routes. People do not take those perilous journeys for fun: they are often fleeing some of the worst persecution. They are some of the most vulnerable people in the world, not the Conservative party’s scapegoats. As has already been said, those who seek asylum from countries such as Ukraine and Hong Kong do not have to come by unconventional means because the Government have given them the ability to come by other means. The Government need to stop misleading the public with their use of the word “illegal”, because seeking asylum in this country is not illegal; it is not against any of our laws, domestic or international.

It is the Government who have exacerbated the problems in the asylum system, not the vulnerable people who are seeking asylum. We know this because the vast majority of claims are justified. After lengthy delays, three quarters of applications are accepted. The longer these processes drag on, the longer refugees and asylum seekers are prevented from rebuilding their lives in this country, and from working and contributing to our economy.

This Government have already spent hundreds of millions of pounds on a policy that is as crap as it is unworkable. [Interruption.] There is nothing more telling than the fact that the Secretary of State has been unable to make a section 19 statement. He could not say that this Bill was compatible with the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary means to take us all for fools. For the second time this year, he cannot say that his plans for removing asylum seekers to Rwanda will not break international law. The Rwandan Government have been very clear. They have said that they will not continue with this deal if it does not meet the highest standards of international law. This Bill does not do that. This Government are wasting our time. This is not going to work, and I am not even sure it was meant to.

I am sick and tired of being dragged to this House to approve legislation that does nothing to improve the lives of my constituents or uphold the values of our society. This Bill should simply not be allowed to go any further.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am sure that when Members rush to read Hansard tomorrow, they will read the word “crass”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, and I am sure that Hansard will have taken note of that.

Stop and Search

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point. One of the big programmes of work that I am leading at the Home Office relates to freeing up police time and reducing bureaucracy, so that police officers are unencumbered to fight crime and respond to the public’s priorities. That is why we have announced changes to the way police officers will interact with health partners when it comes to mental health incidents. We are reforming the Home Office counting rules, which will save thousands of hours in avoiding duplicative or unnecessary recording of crime. We have a programme of reform to help to empower the police so that they can better respond to the priorities that the British people have.

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

The Minister talked about common-sense policing, but I have to ask what sense she applied when making a statement about suspicionless stop and search while making no reference to the well-evidenced racist discriminatory use of it. Does she not think we should be focusing on solutions that would actually make communities like mine safer, like reversing education cuts, ending school exclusions, improving mental health services and taking people out of poverty? If she has already said that the police have the powers necessary, why is she arguing that they have greater powers for this particular practice, which actually leads to less confidence in policing?

[Suella Braverman]

I do not consider the use of stop and search, when done lawfully, to be racist. What I do consider to be disproportionate and unjustifiable is that black people are four times more likely to be murdered than white people and that young black men are more likely to be victims of crime than young white men. That is the disproportionality, that is the disparity I am working to stop.

Metropolitan Police: Casey Review

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

As Baroness Casey accepted, the vast majority of police officers uphold the highest professional standards, and I pay tribute to them for their everyday bravery in keeping Londoners safe. We must make sure that the Met continues to attract the best and brightest people from all walks of life so that they can bring diversity, expertise, experience and skills to ensure that it is the best force that we can have.

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

I represent a constituency in Lambeth, where trust in policing is at the lowest level of anywhere in London. Instead of addressing the abuses of existing police powers, the Government seem to be creating new unaccountable powers. My constituency has sadly seen the death of two young people at the hands of police officers in the past two years alone, with the tragic murder of Sarah Everard in March 2021 and the fatal shooting of Chris Kaba in September 2022. This report is not the first to highlight institutional racism, sexism and homophobia, which the Home Secretary seems unwilling to accept.

We have to undergo a security check, including police checks, to work in this House. How hard is it to ensure that every single officer is run through a similar check? Will the Home Secretary commit today to doing that? I asked the new commissioner who is responsible for suspending officers for misconduct, and he said that, under the law, it is the Home Secretary’s responsibility. In November 2022, a response from the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire said it was the commissioner’s responsibility. The Home Secretary has said today that there are impediments and that she could potentially change the law to make sure that this happens. Can she please explain who is in charge and exactly what is going on?

[Suella Braverman]

I have taken action by consulting on the disciplinary process. Vetting standards are set by the College of Policing, via its statutory code of practice and its authorised professional practice guidance on vetting, to ensure that standards are improved. I asked the inspectorate to conduct a rapid review of all forces and their responses to the report’s findings. The Policing Minister has led a lot of work with the College of Policing to strengthen its statutory code of practice for police vetting, making the obligations that all forces must legally follow stricter and clearer. We are doing work in the Home Office, but I am afraid that, ultimately, political accountability lies with the Mayor of London.

Illegal Migration Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The important point that the former Prime Minister addresses is that in the late ’90s there was an issue about what had happened with the Bosnian refugee crisis and many others. In fact, it was the action that the last Labour Government took that got a grip of the system and addressed some of the challenges. We took action to make sure that we could have both border security and a system that provided for refugees and those in need of asylum. The former Home Secretary will also know, because she was responsible for introducing the modern slavery law, which I support, that the Bill rips up many of the provisions at the heart of that legislation. I hope that she and I would agree that it should be possible for our country to have strong border security, and to have strong, fast, and effective measures, which, at the moment, the Government do not have, to deal with asylum cases swiftly and speedily, but also to make provision for those who have fled persecution and conflict, and provide support for those who have been trafficked and those who are the victims of modern slavery. I hope that she agrees with me that the Bill does the total opposite.

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

Does my right hon. Friend, like me, get really annoyed when she hears Government Members talk about a Labour Government 13 years ago? Does she, like me, wonder why the Government, having been in charge continuously for 13 years, like to look all the way back, rather than address their own failures?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that the Conservatives have to take responsibility for 13 years in government—13 years in which we have seen refugees left in limbo, even though they have fled persecution and conflict. Those who are not refugees and have no right to be here are never returned; there has been an 80% drop in returns of unsuccessful asylum seekers. At the same time, there has been a 40% drop in refugee family reunion visas, the Afghan resettlement scheme has been shamefully frozen and children are left with no way to rejoin family. Time and again, Ministers just want to blame someone else. All the Conservative Members just want to blame someone else, but they have been in charge for the last 13 years. They keep telling us the asylum system is broken—well, seriously, who broke it?

We need urgent action to stop the dangerous boat crossings that are putting lives at risk and undermining our border security. This Bill is a con that makes the chaos worse. It will not do the things the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have promised. It will not stop the criminal gangs or dangerous crossings; in fact, it makes it easier for those gangs. It will not return everyone; in fact, it makes it harder to get return agreements. It will not clear the asylum backlog; in fact, it will mean tens of thousands more people in asylum accommodation and hotels. It will not deliver controlled and managed safe alternatives; instead, it will cut them back.

The Bill will also rip up our long-standing commitment to international law. It will lock up children, remove support and safe refuges from women who have been trafficked, and deny citizenship to people like Mo Farah. The last law the Government passed on this subject, just nine months ago, made everything worse—dangerous crossings went up, delays went up—and now they seriously expect us to do all the same things again.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Government and their immediate predecessor have not tried to formulate workable policy on this issue, which was evident from the Home Secretary’s bizarre and unconvincing opening speech. They are trying to keep the European Research Group and other agitators onside—grubby politicking by using the most vulnerable people, often fleeing the effects of our wars, or persecution or reprisals, as collateral damage. The reality is that most asylum applications are fully justified. In the end, after long and unnecessary delays, three quarters of applications are granted, yet these are the people the Government want to deny entry, not because of their circumstances but because of how they arrived.

We now have the abject sight of Ministers putting out propaganda that boasts that anyone arriving by small boat will not be offered the protections of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Ministers are actually saying that they will refuse protections to people being trafficked and used as modern slaves, making the policy a charter for people trafficking. They cannot say that they are combating people smuggling if all they are doing is putting policies in place that encourage it.

One of the arguments that is often used, especially in relation to France, is that it is a safe space. I was in Calais earlier this year, and I can tell Members that it is anything but safe for refugees, particularly children. In fact, our Government are paying more and more money to make it more hostile and unsafe for the vulnerable people who go there. [Interruption.] They absolutely are.

The Bill does not address any of the issues when it comes to the need for humanity, but there is an alternative, and it is a policy that is supported by all the experts in the field. We could establish safe and legal routes—not the mythical routes that the Home Secretary does not seem able to name; she does not seem able to give a single indication as to what they are. There could be a number of processing centres close to the French coast. Residence visas could be issued to all those entitled to be here. They could be transported here safely, with no excuse for maintaining appalling immigration detention centres. If the argument of humanity does not appeal to Government Members, they could think about the millions of pounds that would be saved. Companies such as Serco, Mears, G4S and Clearsprings—the big winners in the immigration detention estate—would lose some money, and the tabloids would have to find someone else to attack. Government Ministers would have to find a new enemy to distract people from their spectacular economic failures. We would not be breaking international law, demonising vulnerable people or falling out again with our closest neighbours.

This legislation should not have seen the light of day. There is nothing worth retaining, which is why I was pleased to table a cross-party amendment. I am pleased to support the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. If Government Members are as disturbed as they say they are, they should do the right thing, walk through the Lobby with us and vote against the Bill.

Immigration Fees for Healthcare Workers

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on the way she laid out the debate.

Everybody should realise that the NHS has always relied on staff from all over the world. It literally would not exist without the contribution of doctors, nurses and NHS staff from outside the UK, starting with the Windrush generation, who were also treated terribly by this Government’s Home Office.

The NHS is currently in a dire state, and the industrial action being taken by care workers is a clear example of that. At the heart of the crisis facing our health service is the struggle to recruit and retain healthcare staff, and the cost of living makes that even worse. Some healthcare workers who are paid less are having to use food banks, and in-work poverty is even greater for migrant workers due to the cost of living.

Reducing the cost of visa applications for overseas healthcare workers seeking indefinite leave to remain is not only just and fair, particularly for their families, but it would address the recruitment and retention crisis in the NHS by encouraging overseas workers to remain in the profession. It lacks humanity and economic sense to leave those key workers living in perpetual uncertainty about whether they can remain in the UK. They have to pay extortionate fees to do so, but they are working and contributing to the economy of this country.

The Government have repeatedly argued—the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) said this too—that not giving special treatment to NHS workers is about creating a level immigration system, but our immigration system has never been equal and the people making applications have never been treated the same. That is reinforced by the Government’s points-based system. A millionaire who wants permanent residency in the UK can move things along a lot faster just by putting millions in a bank account in the UK. There is a shortage occupation list. There are thresholds for being able to bring family members over. We differentiate between people who have ILR and certain visas on the basis of whether children they have here are automatically granted British citizenship. We have never treated everybody equally, and on top of that we charge some the immigration health surcharge—even NHS workers.

Several healthcare professionals from across the country, both from migrant backgrounds and not, support this petition. I will talk about what one of them said to me. It costs £2,400 for an ILR visa, but he is being asked to pay 10 times more for his family. That family of four is being asked to pay £12,000 just to have indefinite leave to remain. He said:

“NHS staff get recruited to work in terrible conditions. We can’t pay our bills, and then we’re charged thousands of pounds just to stay here and work. Given the terrible NHS staff shortages, this policy reaches next-level stupidity.”

I agree with that doctor. We cannot afford to lose doctors such as him, especially when other countries are taking steps to attract them. We have already heard about how some people are leaving us. Given the shortages of NHS staff in this country, we simply cannot afford that. We will tackle the chronic shortages only by treating all staff decently.

The Government have explained again that they are maintaining their hostile environment—I know they call it something else—to make the country less attractive to people who want to enter it illegally. Obviously, I take issue with the people they term “illegal”, but they are also making it hostile for people who, by their own definition, are legal. How does that make any sense? Those people have been asked to come here to support our services. We are not talking about people who are visitors, or who want to take from our country. We are talking about people who are saving people’s lives—who are working in our NHS daily, who saw us right through the pandemic. Those people have left their own countries to come and serve ours, and they are doing a fantastic job.

[Janet Daby]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that the Government are behaving in a rather ironic way by encouraging people from skilled professions and backgrounds to come to our country to work, but then making it very difficult for them to settle?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Why are we making overtures to people in other countries and waiting for them to come here, only to treat them with complete contempt and disrespect and leave them in really serious situations where they are trying to support their families, and also making it difficult for their families to remain here? We all understand how important it is to have our families around us, but as we have already heard, some people have to leave their families behind and then face unreasonable barriers to bringing them into the country.

These people are doing so much for us, coming to our country to serve us as NHS workers at all levels: doctors, nurses, cleaners and porters, and let us not forget our social care workers. We need to make sure that we are treating them with the respect they deserve, no matter where they happen to have been born.

Asylum Seekers Accommodation and Safeguarding

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I thank my hon. Friend, who raised this issue with me immediately when it came to her attention, just as I did with officials when I learned of it. We have in recent times occasionally used a procedure whereby asylum seekers are asked whether they have a home of a friend or relative where they could stay, and if that is the case, they are bailed to that address. On balance that is the right approach, because it ensures that the taxpayer does not have to pay for them to stay in hotels, but we must get it right. In this case it appears that a small number of individuals were left at Victoria station due to a miscommunication. They were later taken to hotels, in Norfolk I believe, and are being cared for appropriately.

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

My constituency hosts some of the hotels that are currently housing refugees and asylum seekers, and I have dealt with a number of cases specifically regarding the conditions there. Earlier, the Minister described such hotels as “luxurious”, and I have to ask whether he has ever been to one and seen what I have seen, which is whole families living in cramped conditions, given food so bad that it makes them sick, and having to deal with infestations of bedbugs and other things that are making them ill. These hotels are dire. They are not secure or safe, and they are certainly not suitable for vulnerable children. Will the Minister admit that the Home Office has received a number of complaints about that, and agree to review and assess conditions in those hotels?

[Robert Jenrick]

If the hon. Lady has specific allegations, I suggest she brings those to me and I will happily look into them. I have visited hotels, and in general I have been reassured that they meet the right standard of decency. As I said earlier, it is not appropriate that we are putting up asylum seekers in luxurious hotels, and numerous examples in the press of accommodation that is not appropriate have been brought to my attention since I took this role. We have to respect the taxpayer and ensure that we put up asylum seekers in sensible accommodation. Decency is important and will be a watchword for us, but deterrence must also be suffused through our approach. We do not want to create a further pull factor for individuals to make that perilous crossing across the channel, and we must make the UK significantly less attractive to illegal immigration than our EU neighbours.

Public Order Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Charles Walker]

The Conservative party is the architect of its own misfortune, and we must deal with that and respond to it, so I will not be tempted down that track by the hon. Gentleman. All I will say is that this is as unconservative as our Budget a few weeks ago. This is not what the Conservative party does. We believe in proportionate laws, like we used to believe in sound money. I will therefore be joining hon. Members from across the House in voting against this piece of legislation.

As I said a moment ago, I warned, over a pint of milk—the metaphor that I used—that our right to protest was being eroded. Now, we are crying over spilt milk.

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

I rise to speak to the new clauses tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) as well as all those amendments that stand against this fundamentally flawed Bill.

One of my motivations for my new clauses was the fatal police shooting in my constituency of Chris Kaba, an unarmed black man, which sent shockwaves through a traumatised community. I offer my condolences to the Kaba family, his friends and his community. I will not say more for risk of sub judice, especially since an inquest is ongoing and the Independent office for Police Conduct is conducting a homicide investigation and considering whether race was a factor in his shooting. I am sure that everybody across the whole House will agree that a just society is one in which your race does not determine whether or not you are over-policed as a citizen and under-policed as a victim. But with a Government who seem hellbent on ramping up policing powers and presiding over worsening inequalities, it is clear that there will be an uphill struggle to realise that vision.

The Bill contains a significant expansion of police powers, including measures that the Government already attempted to put into the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Those measures were opposed in the other place, so I do not understand why they are trying to bring them back. That is one reason why new clause 15 states that there must be a public inquiry into the policing of black, Asian and minority ethnic people. New clause 16 would require an equality impact assessment of the Bill. Yet again, we are having to ask that the Government respect that equality is the law and do not propose legislation that clearly infringes on the rights of minoritised groups.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

We hear figures from Wales that eight out of every 1,000 white people are stopped and searched. When we compare that with a rate of 56 per 1,000 black people, we see that there is something appalling in the state of stop and search across the United Kingdom—this legislation relates to England and Wales—and that there is something particular in Wales for which we need a Wales-specific justice impact assessment to understand and get to the root of why the figures are so extreme.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right. That is why I support new clauses 9 and 10 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea on the use of stop-and-search powers. In them, she attempts to consult civil society organisations and consider the impact on groups with protected characteristics, as has been mentioned. That should clearly be done by the Government each and every single time they propose legislation, but they do not do it at all.

In this Black History Month, when we talk about some of the civil rights struggles of black people in this country, it is particularly offensive that, instead of reacting to them by bringing about change, the Government are attempting to provide police with even more unaccountable powers. Those are the same police who currently have extremely low trust and confidence among black communities, not least following the recent case of Ian Taylor, who died in police custody in the borough in which my constituency sits, the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer, also in my constituency, the disproportionate levels of stop and search, and the treatment of Child Q and other children who have been strip-searched, as well as extensive evidence of institutionalised racism and misogyny in the police.

Just this week, Baroness Casey’s report found that many claims of sexual misconduct, misogyny, racism and homophobia were badly mishandled. These are

“patterns of unacceptable discrimination that clearly amount to systemic bias”,

and they cannot continue. Those are not my words but those of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley.

We know that our criminal justice system continues to be held back by institutional racism—well, at least Opposition Members know that. We have heard about institutional racism in the policing of black communities in every single review—from Macpherson to Lammy—except the Government’s recent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, which claimed that it did not exist at all.

Not only is the Bill a missed opportunity to remedy all of that profound injustice; it will only exacerbate the racial bias and the discrimination that continues to persist. That is part of the reason why I will speak in favour of a range of civil liberties amendments that seek to ensure human rights for all our citizens. I turn to new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I am a person of faith, and I believe that our human rights should be universal, but when a person exercising their rights begins to infringe on somebody else’s rights, that is the point at which we know that that right is wrong. We legislate on these things in this House again and again. The idea that we could use the right to free speech to infringe on someone else’s right to get healthcare is absolutely wrong, so I am pleased to support that new clause.

The Bill continues to follow a pattern from a Government who voice support for protests all around the world but want to crack down on the right to speak up here at home. Protest is an important part of a democratic country because it is one of the driving factors that allows individuals to exercise their rights to free speech and speak up against an unfair and unjust Government—like this Government—and their laws. That is why I tabled new clause 17, which sets out that there must be a public inquiry into the policing of protest, which would address: the use of force; kettling; the deployment of horses; and the new policing powers contained in the Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. I have also signed a range of amendments and new clauses that would seek to protect our civil liberties and trade union rights, including addressing those recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and those supported by Liberty, Amnesty and others.

I draw colleagues’ attention to amendment 36, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, about the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” or that an act was part of a trade dispute away from the defendant and making it an element of the offence. The Government are not even attempting to sugar-coat the aim of that measure, which is trade unions. I see trade unions as our last line of defence against the relentless and accelerating attack that we see on the living standards of the working-class. The Government know that their economic policies are unpopular and cause suffering, so they want to remove everybody’s right to resist and fight back.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She is making a very powerful speech in support of her amendments. I was with her at the demonstration outside New Scotland Yard following the death of Chris Kaba. It was an emotional and passionate occasion. Everyone there was looking for justice and looking for knowledge and an inquiry. Does she support more pressure on the Home Office to hurry it up, so that we can get some closure on that terrible loss of life and the pain that goes with it? The beautiful way in which his cousin spoke at that demonstration will stay with me for ever.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. Far too often, families like the Kaba family have to spend months, even years, seeking answers and justice for their loved ones. I hope that in the years to come, the Independent Office for Police Conduct quickly begins to look at measures to speed up the investigations that give family members answers about why they have died. We have to remember that around the time Chris Kaba died, not to mention him too much, he was one of two men who had been killed following contact with police, and one of over 1,000 who have died in police custody or following contact with police since 1990. Since that time, only one police officer has ever been prosecuted. That absolutely needs to change.

In conclusion, the Public Order Bill is a continuation of the Government’s assault on the right to protest, further criminalising people who call for the change we need and ramping up police powers to restrict demonstrations. It could also have a very negative impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. It is authoritarian and disadvantages the poorest and most marginalised communities. Unless it is fundamentally amended, I believe it must be opposed.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am surprised we are debating this again. It was only in 2018 when the Home Office concluded there was no need to introduce so-called buffer zones. I am referring here to new clause 11. Buffer zones are disproportionate in the restrictions they impose on freedom of expression, and unnecessary in that there remains a lack of evidence that they are needed. The Government have recently affirmed this position, and rightly so given that existing laws enable the police and local authorities to deal with protests that are harmful. Before we rush to create new laws, it is only right that the Government expect the police and local authorities to use their current powers appropriately and where necessary.

The 2018 review showed that

“it would not be proportionate to introduce a blanket ban”

as the evidence found that protests occurred at less than 10% of abortion clinics. That is a very small number. Of course—we emphasise this point—any kind of harassment is absolutely wrong. It should be dealt with by the law and can be dealt with by existing laws. We have heard much in the debate about how we should turn to existing laws, rather than create new ones. Any remedy must be proportionate to the problem. The review—not my review, but an objective Government review—concluded that most of the activities during these protests were passive in nature. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), in a very powerful speech, described just how passive they can be. They can be standing there and praying silently, not even holding up a banner of any nature or saying anything. It could include praying or handing out leaflets. The review found that disruptive or aggressive behaviour was the exception, not the norm. Crucially, it also confirmed that the police have the necessary powers already to take action and protect the public when protests become harmful or disruptive. A blanket ban of the kind proposed in new clause 11 would be disproportionate in the face of those facts. The law must be proportionate.

To be clear, the people this amendment targets are peaceful protestors, often elderly grandmothers, frankly, who are entirely peaceful. They politely pray and hand out leaflets. The contrast could not be greater between those protestors and those of the likes of Just Stop Oil, who glue themselves to roads and create human blockades that are disruptive and obstructionist. If any so-called protesters at abortion clinics did anything like that, they would be immediately arrested. While the police have the powers to take action so that ordinary people can go about their daily lives, they will not stop Just Stop Oil protests.

Are we in this House really going to criminalise people who are peacefully trying to raise awareness about support available? This is the point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We do have Ministers who are joint between the Home Office and the MOJ, which means that we have been able to look at some of these issues in the round. What I hope can give him some reassurance is the fact that, through serious violence reduction orders, which we are introducing through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, we are seeing a greater likelihood of people being caught, of being before the court and of receiving a custodial sentence. I think the whole House can welcome that.

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

It was alarming enough to find out that foreign intelligence played a role in the trafficking of Shamima Begum and other British children to ISIS, but to find out that our Government were aware of this is incredibly disturbing and raises questions on the decision to revoke her citizenship. So will the Home Secretary tell us exactly when—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sorry, but that is not linked to the question; this one is on knife crime.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I was not asking about knife crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I know. That is why you cannot ask the question. In which case, I will now call the shadow Minister, Sarah Jones.

Windrush Review

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) on securing this vital debate. The Windrush generation have given the UK so much. When they docked in Tilbury, they brought not just extra hands to rebuild this country, but dance, art, writing, cuisine and music, which transformed British culture. Areas across the UK such as Brixton, which partly falls in my constituency, were completely reshaped by the Windrush generation and became central hubs of British culture.

For the past five years we have had the opportunity to celebrate Windrush Day and recognise the contributions of that community up and down the country. Next year, when we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the docking of the Empire Windrush, I sincerely hope the Government will plan nationwide celebrations that are suitable for the commemoration of a day of such national significance.

I also sincerely hope that those celebrations will be a vast improvement on the £1 million act of gesture politics that was unveiled at Waterloo station this year. Although I commend Basil Watson’s artistry, it would have been nice if the Government had properly consulted Windrush campaigners and organisations, including the Windrush Foundation, to discuss its design and location. If the Government truly intend to honour the Windrush generation, they will take meaningful steps to fix the Windrush compensation scheme. The Government estimate that there are up to 15,000 people eligible to claim Windrush compensation. More than three years after the launch of the scheme, just 26% of that number have applied and only 11% have received compensation. At least 23 people have died waiting.

The compensation scheme is a scandal in itself, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton outlined. The Government’s failure to deliver compensation to victims of the Windrush scandal shows that it was a mistake to entrust the scheme to the Department that administered the Windrush generation’s suffering in the first place. The Windrush monument is a nice gesture, but an even nicer one would be justice. Take the scheme out of the Home Office’s hands and transfer it to an independent organisation that will properly deliver the compensation that those people deserve.

It adds insult to injury that the Government continue to deny the existence of institutional racism, which members of the Windrush generation and their descendants continue to experience. If the Government really want to honour the Windrush generation, they ought to complement that, starting with just immigration policies. Instead, they choose to push on with their hostile environment and the shameful Nationality and Borders Act 2022, as if they have learned nothing from the Windrush scandal.

A leaked Home Office report concluded recently that the deep-rooted racism of the Windrush scandal lies in the fact that between 1950 and 1981, every single piece of immigration or citizenship legislation was designed at least in part to reduce the number of people with black or brown skin who were permitted to live and work in the UK. That was an assessment of immigration policy from 50 years ago, but it feels like a similar assessment could be made of immigration policies today.

Wendy Williams boils down the 30 recommendations in her “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” to three main factors, one of which is that the Home Office must recognise that migration and wider Home Office policy are about people, and that, whatever the objective, they should be rooted in humanity. What part of the Rwanda policy would the Minister say is rooted in humanity? What part of splitting up families would the Minister say is rooted in humanity? What part of the recently announced deportation flights to Nigeria and Ghana, which, during Pride month, will attempt to deport LGBT asylum seekers, is rooted in humanity? Attempting to deport mothers and grandmothers of people who are British citizens and have been in this country for over 25 years—what part of that is rooted in humanity? It is only recently that the Government have changed their rules on citizenship fees for children who were born in this country or have lived here their entire life. The fees have now been reduced for those who cannot afford them, but what part of denying people who were born here access to the rights they deserve was rooted in humanity?

It seems that the Home Office, rather than enacting genuine change to apologise and atone for the Windrush scandal, would rather gesture towards change but continue with the same culture and practices. If it was serious about its commitment to change, it would enact in full the recommendations of the lessons learned review, it would invite Wendy Williams back in 18 months’ time to reassess its progress against those recommendations, and it would do more to implement change.

One of the clear recommendations, already mentioned today, is not deporting people who came here at a very young age. The Government repeatedly do that. They even want to do that to people who have been born here but do not have a certain type of immigration status at the time of being accused of a crime. When people have been here since a young age, no matter what offence they may have committed, the reality is that they are a product of British society. Where on earth are we sending them if they have already paid their dues in prison?

I put it to the Minister that there are some people among us—I will name the Prime Minister again—who were not born in this country. The Prime Minister has committed an offence, I would say. Should he be deported if he was somebody who needed to register for citizenship here? The Government have at times stated that they would want to do that—to see anyone who has committed some sort of offence removed from this country. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. The Government must implement Wendy Williams’s review in full if they want to move past the Windrush scandal.

Metropolitan Police Service

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend raises some interesting questions, but I believe that the Metropolitan police as currently constructed is capable of policing London appropriately and can and does show some astonishing performance in some particular areas of its activity. Certainly the work we have been doing, for example, on violence and knife crime, where we have been leaning in and providing significant extra resource, will I hope pay dividends over the years to come. We should all constantly pay attention to the structure and effectiveness of those police forces, and I am afraid that the report we have seen today tells us that there is room for improvement.

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

Policing confidence is at an all-time low under this Government. The Minister may say that the Mayor of London should consider his position, but perhaps the Government should consider theirs. As he says, this is the first time that the Metropolitan police has been under special measures, and that has been under the Government’s leadership. We on this side of the House have consistently called for reform and an overhaul of the vetting and training of officers, and the Government do not listen. At what point will they accept responsibility for their failures?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am absolutely willing to accept responsibility for systemic failures across the whole of policing where they occur. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was in the House at the time, but she will have heard me apologise profoundly for the problems we have seen in rape investigation over the past decade, for example, and put a plan in place to sort that out. Happily, that plan is showing early signs of improvement.

What is really depressing about this exchange is the unwillingness of the Opposition to accept that even a shred of responsibility or accountability should attach to City Hall, notwithstanding the fact that in law and in truth the Mayor of London is the primary accountability mechanism.