To match an exact phrase, use quotation marks around the search term. eg. "Parliamentary Estate". Use "OR" or "AND" as link words to form more complex queries.


Keep yourself up-to-date with the latest developments by exploring our subscription options to receive notifications direct to your inbox

Division Vote (Commons)
29 Oct 2025 - Sentencing Bill - View Vote Context
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 300 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 182 Noes - 311
Division Vote (Commons)
29 Oct 2025 - Sentencing Bill - View Vote Context
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 306 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 170 Noes - 328
Division Vote (Commons)
29 Oct 2025 - Sentencing Bill - View Vote Context
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 301 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 82 Noes - 314
Division Vote (Commons)
29 Oct 2025 - European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal) - View Vote Context
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 63 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 96 Noes - 154
Division Vote (Commons)
29 Oct 2025 - Sentencing Bill - View Vote Context
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Lab) voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 298 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 321 Noes - 103
Division Vote (Commons)
28 Oct 2025 - China Spying Case - View Vote Context
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 318 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 174 Noes - 327
Division Vote (Commons)
28 Oct 2025 - Stamp Duty Land Tax - View Vote Context
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Lab) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 313 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 103 Noes - 329
Written Question
Police: Misconduct
Tuesday 28th October 2025

Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of mechanisms for sharing police misconduct data between forces.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The British tradition of policing by consent relies on mutual bonds of trust between the public and the police, and where police officers fall below the high standards the public rightly expects of them, it is crucial they are held to account.

Since 2015, there has been a presumption that all police misconduct hearings are made public, bar in exceptional circumstances. There is a statutory requirement for forces to publish the outcomes of misconduct hearings, unless preventing disclosure is considered necessary (e.g. in the interests of national security), for a period of at least 28 days. Members of the public can access published police misconduct outcomes via the website of the relevant police force.

There are processes in place for the collection and publication of police misconduct data. The Home Office publishes data on the number of police officers subject to misconduct investigations, including breakdowns by outcome and misconduct finding level, as part of the annual Police Misconduct, England and Wales statistical series, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics

Officers and staff moving from one force to another must obtain a new vetting clearance from the force they are transferring to before they are confirmed. In accordance with the College of Policing’s vetting authorised professional practice (APP), the parent force’s professional standards department (PSD) must provide a full complaint and misconduct history and any counter corruption intelligence relating to the officer concerned to the receiving force.

In addition, the Police Barred List prevents those dismissed for gross misconduct and gross incompetence from re-joining policing. Forces must check whether a proposed employee or appointee is on the barred list before hiring them.


Written Question
Police: Misconduct
Tuesday 28th October 2025

Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of establishing an independent National Police Misconduct Body to (a) collect and (b) publish data on police misconduct findings.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The British tradition of policing by consent relies on mutual bonds of trust between the public and the police, and where police officers fall below the high standards the public rightly expects of them, it is crucial they are held to account.

Since 2015, there has been a presumption that all police misconduct hearings are made public, bar in exceptional circumstances. There is a statutory requirement for forces to publish the outcomes of misconduct hearings, unless preventing disclosure is considered necessary (e.g. in the interests of national security), for a period of at least 28 days. Members of the public can access published police misconduct outcomes via the website of the relevant police force.

There are processes in place for the collection and publication of police misconduct data. The Home Office publishes data on the number of police officers subject to misconduct investigations, including breakdowns by outcome and misconduct finding level, as part of the annual Police Misconduct, England and Wales statistical series, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics

Officers and staff moving from one force to another must obtain a new vetting clearance from the force they are transferring to before they are confirmed. In accordance with the College of Policing’s vetting authorised professional practice (APP), the parent force’s professional standards department (PSD) must provide a full complaint and misconduct history and any counter corruption intelligence relating to the officer concerned to the receiving force.

In addition, the Police Barred List prevents those dismissed for gross misconduct and gross incompetence from re-joining policing. Forces must check whether a proposed employee or appointee is on the barred list before hiring them.


Written Question
Police: Misconduct
Tuesday 28th October 2025

Asked by: Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour - Clapham and Brixton Hill)

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she plans to introduce a statutory right for members of the public to access substantiated police misconduct findings.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The British tradition of policing by consent relies on mutual bonds of trust between the public and the police, and where police officers fall below the high standards the public rightly expects of them, it is crucial they are held to account.

Since 2015, there has been a presumption that all police misconduct hearings are made public, bar in exceptional circumstances. There is a statutory requirement for forces to publish the outcomes of misconduct hearings, unless preventing disclosure is considered necessary (e.g. in the interests of national security), for a period of at least 28 days. Members of the public can access published police misconduct outcomes via the website of the relevant police force.

There are processes in place for the collection and publication of police misconduct data. The Home Office publishes data on the number of police officers subject to misconduct investigations, including breakdowns by outcome and misconduct finding level, as part of the annual Police Misconduct, England and Wales statistical series, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics

Officers and staff moving from one force to another must obtain a new vetting clearance from the force they are transferring to before they are confirmed. In accordance with the College of Policing’s vetting authorised professional practice (APP), the parent force’s professional standards department (PSD) must provide a full complaint and misconduct history and any counter corruption intelligence relating to the officer concerned to the receiving force.

In addition, the Police Barred List prevents those dismissed for gross misconduct and gross incompetence from re-joining policing. Forces must check whether a proposed employee or appointee is on the barred list before hiring them.