Bell Ribeiro-Addy
MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill · Labour · United Kingdom
“The hon. Member will know that, with the extreme heat and reduced rainfall, a lot of water companies are introducing hosepipe bans to mitigate the risk of drought. Does he agree that that seems a bit redundant, given that artificial intelligence data centres use between 11 million and 19 million litres of water a day?”
“This Bill seems inspired by the belief that hostility towards asylum seekers will deter them, whereas hostility towards migrants will not deter those we need economically, but we cannot have it both ways. There is a deeper problem with the Bill’s logic on citizenship provisions.”
“This appears to be blurred with a separate Bill that stops citizenship being restored after the first successful appeal, letting this Government sound tougher than they are while avoiding scrutiny of a power that is already used disproportionately against black, Asian and migrant-heritage citizens.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. First, I will acknowledge that although I disagree with the premise of this petition, I recognise the strength of feeling among the hundreds of thousands of people who signed it.”
“The petition that we are debating today raises the issue of asylum seekers being held in hotels and temporary accommodation. I certainly agree that that is unacceptable; I have seen for myself the diabolical conditions in such accommodation.”
“Automatic deportation for custodial sentences introduces double jeopardy; a wrongful sentence can now also mean unjust deportation. The deportation system is already a mess and is run by the Home Office, which is now asking for sole control of it, without oversight.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Bell Ribeiro-Addy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“We pass around tampons and pads as if they are some sort of contraband that no one should see. That evasion is not accidental: it is the product of centuries of conditioning that told women their bodies were problems to be managed in silence and shame. Listening to my fellow hon. Friends speaking about their own experience, all I keep thinking is that, if young women had been flagged when they had painful periods, things would have been different for a lot of the conditions we are talking about, certainly in terms of the length of time to diagnosis. I am really pleased to contribute to this debate and support statutory menstrual leave, not as a radical policy but as a practical, compassionate and long-overdue step towards a fairer and healthier working society.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for his opening remarks, and for his compassion and solidarity. He is absolutely right that every man should have a say in these issues and challenge them. As well as the fact that nearly half the global population will menstruate at some point in their lifetime, and on any given day 850 million people across the world are menstruating, we are all here because a woman somewhere had a menstrual cycle, so it is a concern for absolutely everybody. For something so universal, menstruation remains shrouded in coded language, embarrassment and unnecessary shame. We call it “the time of month”, “the painters are in”, “my cousin has come to stay”—anything but what it actually is.”
“In every case, the answer was not to abandon the protection, but to make the legal framework strong enough to prevent the discrimination. That is what we have to do here too. The ultimate goal is job security, wellbeing and genuine equality. Menstrual leave alone will not get us all the way there, but it is a serious, evidence-backed and compassionate step in the right direction. I urge this House to take it.”
“The policy also offers vital protection for those who are too often overlooked, including transgender men and non-binary and gender-diverse people who menstruate. For many, disclosure of menstrual status can expose them to discrimination or worse. A clear statutory framework would provide safety, privacy and the reassurance that their needs were seen and protected by law. There are those who argue that menstrual leave would undermine women in the workplace, and that employers would discriminate against people who menstruate when hiring. I take that concern seriously, but that argument has been made against every single piece of workplace equality legislation in history: it was made against maternity leave, it was made against equal pay, and it was made against flexible working.”
“Crucially, it would also begin to normalise the conversation and to challenge the stigma rather than reinforce it, because the answer to workplace discrimination is never to remain invisible. As we have heard, menstrual leave policies already exist across the globe: in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Indonesia, Zambia, Mexico and, most recently, Portugal. They are not fringe experiments, but functioning workplace policies in countries with vastly different cultures and economies. The evidence that this is workable is already there. Here at home, our Employment Rights Act has introduced major reforms, including a day one right to sick pay. Menstrual leave would sit naturally alongside those changes if we were to implement it; it is consistent with the direction of travel and is the next logical step.”
“Everyone should look at them when they can; they are shocking in comparison with what is spent on certain things in men’s and women’s health. Let us be honest about what that under-investment has cost us: endometriosis alone affects around 1.5 million people in the UK, taking an average of nearly nine years to diagnose, as we have heard. That is not a gap in the system, but a failure of the system; it is a failure rooted in a long-standing tendency to deprioritise women’s pain. Statutory menstrual leave would allow someone to take time off when they were genuinely unable to work due to menstruation, without fear of judgment, without risking their job security and without having to lie about why they are absent.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I say that as someone who lives with endometriosis and constantly experiences that pain, thinking about what I can and cannot do, and what I will be able to manage this week or that week. I know what it is to sit in a meeting, stand through our many votes and carry on a role that demands my full presence when my body is screaming otherwise. I know from listening to other Members and so many different women speaking about it that I am far from alone. It is not a competition of who receives more health funding, but we have to say that men have won consistently. When my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) was speaking, I looked up some figures for the amount of investment into things such as Viagra.”
“Inter-city rail fares in England remain eye-watering. London to Birmingham costs £72 on the day, London to Manchester £172 and London to Liverpool £179, but flying the same route can cost as little as £80. In Spain, rail reform drove up passenger numbers by 107% on comparable routes, with tickets as low as €12. The rail fare freeze is welcome, but fares remain unaffordable for many people. The Railways Bill promises powers to regulate fares, so how will the “reasonable” criteria be defined and enforced?”
“The Good Friday agreement recognised the importance of addressing the suffering of victims of the troubles. Legislating for that remains unfinished business, as does the implementation of a border poll, for which there is significant support in the north. As we approach the anniversary of the agreement, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to take action on both of those?”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to issue a full and meaningful apology, on behalf of the UK government, for Britain’s role in African chattel enslavement and colonialism, and establish an All-Party Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry for Truth & Reparatory Justice. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003179]”
“And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom Declares that the Houses of Parliament and the UK government have not yet apologised for Britain’s role in African chattel enslavement and colonialism; further declares that the “deep sorrow and regret for our nation’s role in the slave trade” as has been previously expressed by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, does not constitute a meaningful apology for the enslavement, trafficking, genocide and extensive colonial crimes that our country engaged in; further declares that an official apology in our country’s name and the establishment of an All-Party Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry for Truth & Reparatory Justice can be the beginning of action to address its legacy; and further declares that once an apology has been offered, the UK can begin to engage with those nations and communities affected on discussions of reparatory justice, which can extend beyond monetary payment.”
“Expressions of sorrow and regret are not an apology; nor are they befitting the crimes committed or Britain’s role in one of the gravest crimes in human history. We cannot begin to address the legacy of this injustice without first having the courage to acknowledge it. Atonement must start with truth. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to issue a full and meaningful apology, on behalf of the UK government, for Britain’s role in African chattel enslavement and colonialism, and establish an All-Party Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry for Truth & Reparatory Justice.”
“I rise very deliberately today, on 25 March, as it is the UN’s International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, and the very day on which a UN resolution formally declaring that slave trade is a crime against humanity is being debated. It is yet to be confirmed whether the UK will support that resolution. Further to the online petition of the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations, which has received almost 2,000 signatures, I present a petition on behalf of British residents who are outraged that the Government have never issued an unequivocal apology for Britain’s central role in African chattel enslavement and colonialism.”
“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?”
“They put down roots based on the rules that they are given when they apply. Those families are attempting to live and work in this country based on the promises that were made. We will drag people into an endless cycle of visa applications and unpredictable fees, sitting alongside an asylum and accommodation system where private providers make millions from Government contracts despite repeated reports of mismanagement, abuse and dangerous conditions. In turn, we turn around and blame those who are the most vulnerable—those seeking asylum—and change their conditions.”
“The fee is not an administrative cost; it is a revenue-raising exercise targeted at children, and it results in tens of thousands of children who have a legal right to British citizenship being priced out of it. They do not discover the consequences of that until later in life. Members may be wondering why I am still talking about this issue, given that the Government made a commitment in the House to reduce the financial burden on families and to address the issue specifically, but in all the proposals, I have not heard anything about it, and the fee remains the highest in Europe. The Government are also proposing to double the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain. The idea that we would apply it retrospectively undermines the foundation of trust on which people make decisions when they come to work in the UK.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for leading this debate. My Government came to power promising a fairer Britain, so I have to ask plainly, who exactly are all these immigration proposals for? They are not designed for the people I represent, who help to keep this country running. I want to start with the thousands of children and young people who have grown up in the UK and who are being pushed to the margins of the immigration system. They are being made to pay child citizenship fees of £1,214 to register as a British citizen. The Home Office’s own figures show that it makes a profit of £840 on each application.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. How far have we fallen if we renege on those commitments that we have made, particularly those under the refugee convention? Removing such status or forcibly removing people who have lived here lawfully for a number of years would be in direct contravention of our values as a country. The Government cannot claim to support integration while pricing children out of citizenship. They cannot talk about fairness while extending the ILR pathway. They cannot promise compassion while allowing profiteering in the immigration system, while reneging on commitments and demonising asylum seekers. We need to build an immigration system that reflects not just our economic priorities, but our values as a country. These reforms do neither.”
“The Trussell Trust’s recent “Hunger in the UK” report highlights the startling reality of food insecurity. It has found that rates are higher for private renters in receipt of housing benefit, either through local housing allowance or through the housing element of universal credit. Private renters on the lowest incomes cannot keep up with the rising cost of living, and maintaining the freeze on local housing allowance risks driving even more people into hunger and homelessness, because private renters receiving LHA will likely see an average shortfall of £243 a month. The Government have taken meaningful steps towards tackling food insecurity, but will the Chancellor build on this by lifting the freeze on local housing allowance?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that after enduring 14 years of Conservative government, now is the opportunity to implement the Lammy review in full?”
“As learned Friends know, courts could be instructed to prioritise rape cases and have them heard in a set period of time, such as six months. As my brave hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) asked, where are the specialist courts? None of these things require legislation. We need to address the backlog in our criminal courts, but any steps taken should never jeopardise equality or access to justice.”
“While there is lots to welcome in the Bill, I fear it has been completely overshadowed by plans to restrict jury trials. This is not what victims are asking for—they need changes that are backed by evidence and that will result in genuine improvements to the criminal justice system. Jury trials are not what has led to the backlog, and these reforms will not reduce it. I have a close friend who is a survivor of rape, and she is alarmed by this proposal. After a three and a half year wait for her trial, the delay made her suicidal. She desperately wants action on court backlogs, but she opposes these plans and is outraged that her trauma and that of thousands of survivors is being used to justify what she sees as effectively a cost-cutting exercise.”
“To quote Ife Thompson, one of the brilliant lawyers who was protesting outside Parliament today, “In a justice system that already produces racially discriminatory outcomes, removing juries means removing one of the few spaces where ordinary people and some real diversity still exist in the courtroom.” We all have to have red lines, and racism in our justice system has ruined so many lives in our communities. I cannot support this measure, and if it is not removed from the legislation, I will not be supporting this Bill.”
“The wholesale change that we ought to be considering today is the complete reversal of the austerity measures introduced by the coalition Government, which led to this mess, but that has been overshadowed by the proposal to restrict jury trials. Finally, racial bias in our criminal justice system is well documented. Any reforms should address this head-on, but to conduct a post-legislative review on discrimination is deeply insulting to those communities that are impacted. As I said earlier, this Bill was our opportunity to fully implement the Lammy review; instead, we will have a situation where there is no automatic right to appeal, when black women are 22% more likely to be convicted.”
“We should provide greater flexibility for hearings and allow virtual courts, so that more cases are heard; permit all available judges, including those who have retired but are below the age of 75, to sit as many days as they are available; invest in more court staff and support; and list trials from Monday to Thursday, so that all short matters can be dealt with on one day—namely, Friday—minimising disruption for all other court users, such as jurors, witnesses and defendants. These are all simple changes that would significantly maximise sittings while preserving the basic foundations of our criminal justice system.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She will have heard people talk many times in this Chamber about the lack of diversity in our judicial system. Last July, I met the Bar Council, because when a sector has issues we should talk to the workers—more often than not, they have the solutions. In my view, that has always been the Labour way. They had a number of recommendations that should be considered—for example, that defendants who are awaiting trial should be remanded at a conveniently located prison close to the court, because Serco, the company tasked with prisoner transportation, persistently fails to transport prisoners in good time. This wastes the court’s time and results in a new court date having to be set. We should end that privatisation and bring prisoner transportation back in-house.”
“I welcome the Foreign Office’s preparation for a potential evacuation of Britons currently in the middle east and the Prime Minister’s commitment to their safety. However, among them will be a number of British residents who may have gone there for work or leisure—I have not heard them mentioned specifically today—who live their whole lives here and have their families here, like many of the 12,000 non-UK Commonwealth citizens who currently serve in our armed forces. People are concerned given the negative rhetoric surrounding those with indefinite leave to remain at the moment. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm that all UK residents, and not just citizens, will be included in any evacuation? They are our people, too.”
“This is the Representation of the People Bill; it should seek to strengthen and improve the representation of British people by giving the electorate greater power to hold their MPs to account. The Bill is a great starting point for strengthening our democracy, and I hope the Government will not shy away from going further.”
“That can take years, and during that time their constituents are not getting the representation they deserve. Unlike recall procedures in other countries, the Recall of MPs Act 2015 does not allow constituents to initiate proceedings, instead relying on criminal criteria being met. Even then, a high threshold of petitioners is needed for a by-election to be triggered. Over a number of years, MPs have been investigated for criminal offences or gross misconduct, and Members have failed to behave in a standard that is befitting of an MP. They have disgraced themselves, our profession and this House and, most importantly, they have failed their constituents. With trust in politicians at an all-time low, we need to show that we are willing to put it right.”
“I ask the Minister when they respond to outline what the Government have planned. I very much welcome the provisions in the Bill that will introduce automatic voter registration, which is an important step to improve voter turnout. I would also like to see the Bill go the way of Australia, where everybody who is eligible to vote has a legal obligation to do so. Finally, I would like to see the Bill offer more power to the electorate to recall their Members of Parliament—yes, you heard that right. I suspect this is not a suggestion that will make me popular with my colleagues, but I think we should all be more concerned about what our constituents think. At the moment, for an MP to be recalled, they must be convicted of a criminal offence that makes them eligible and they must have exhausted the appeals process.”
“I regularly visit schools in my constituency and experience at first hand the political intelligence and impressive cross-examination of young people there. Last summer, I was pleased to host my first activism academy, inviting 16 to 18-year-olds to a three-day learning programme to understand what MPs do, how Parliament works, and the ways in which they can get involved. Our young people are politically engaged and understand the weight of the right they are being granted. While I welcome the change, I am disappointed that it has not been coupled with a robust programme of civic education. While many 16 to 18-year-olds have a firm understanding of politics, without comprehensive political education, those who want more information are forced to seek it elsewhere and will likely resort to social media, which is riddled with fake news.”
“We know that to sustain a healthy democracy, we have to always look at ways to strengthen it. This Bill seeks to do just that, so I am pleased that the Government have brought it forward. By lowering the voting age to 16, we are expanding democratic participation and taking a vital step to strengthen and renew our democracy. I have often been sceptical of those who say that young people are not interested in politics or do not understand it enough to vote. To Members of this House who suggest that, I simply ask them how often they visit schools in their constituencies. I have encountered students far younger than 16 who have shown more than a basic understanding of our political system.”
“As for the decision to freeze the repayment threshold, it is a one-sided breach of contractual terms. We need a more equitable approach to higher education funding overall.”
“Like so many, I have had a number of constituents on plan 2 student loans contact me to say that they have been working ever since they left university, and have consistently made payments to their loan, yet they have not once seen their total loan decrease; in fact, they have increased by substantial amounts. That is happening to so many young people. Many of us have staff in that situation. Some are calling it a graduate tax, and others are even using that phrase to assert the fairness of this loan system, but that is, frankly, an insult to graduates who are already paying taxes on their income. The terms of the plan 2 student loan make it more comparable to something that a loan shark would offer. It is not a graduate tax, and it is just not fair.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for introducing this crucial debate. I want to start by saying, on the record, that I do not agree with tuition fees, and I do not support the decision to raise them. If there is still an MP in this House who voted to bring in tuition fees in the first place, they should be deeply ashamed of themselves for pulling up the drawbridge behind them. As someone whose entire undergraduate degree cost less than what a current student can expect to pay for a year, it is only right that I advocate for current and future students.”
“I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her excellent report. Does she agree that housing associations sometimes try to get the heat taken off them by employing managing agents? When constituents approach them for repairs and so on, they are often sent back from one to the other. I have had particular incidents at the Darcus Howe apartments on Brixton Hill, where Notting Hill Genesis, which is the housing association, and Crabtree keep shirking the responsibility for providing some vital changes. For example, people could not get heating between November and January, the coldest months. Does my hon. Friend think that more should be done? Perhaps we should be better able to hold people criminally liable for the situations in which they put our constituents.”
“These practices do nothing to make a person straight or cisgender; in fact, all they do is cause immense psychological and physical harm. For every day that the legislation is delayed, these vile conversion practices continue, and LGBT+ people are at risk of having them offered to them or forced on them. The previous Government promised to bring in a ban, but they delayed and U-turned and, ultimately, failed to introduce one. I am sure it is not a spoiler to say that I am sure the Government will deliver on their manifesto commitment, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate, particularly because I know that she has long campaigned on these issues, but the urgent question that I would like her to answer is: when?”
“It is not uncommon for individuals to question or explore their sexual orientation or gender identity and seek guidance and support from their friends, family or even religious leaders, but it has always irked me when people attempt to use faith in these arguments, especially when I think of Jesus’s final commandment: quite simply, to love one another. I have never understood how you can love someone while at the same time discriminating against them. Conversion therapy is not supportive, not affirming and not therapeutic. It is a one-directional practice that seeks to force LGBT+ people to change their sexual orientation or gender identity through pseudoscientific counselling sessions, threats, corrective rape, being prayed over as a form of “healing”, and even exorcisms.”
“A person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is not something that needs to be cured, nor should it be suppressed. There is nothing wrong with being lesbian, gay, bi, trans or queer, or identifying in any other way that comes under the LGBT+ umbrella. It seems like we are taking steps back on equality when we have to state that in 2026, but it is necessary because conversion practices have not been banned in their entirety, and those undertaking them seek to say otherwise. They seek to tell LGBT+ people that their identity is wrong when that is simply untrue.”
“We said: “So-called conversion therapy is abuse—there is no other word for it—so Labour will finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity.” I was pleased to take those words in our 2024 manifesto to the electorate, and I was proud to hear the promise reiterated in the King’s Speech, yet almost two years on, we are still awaiting the draft conversion practices Bill. For every day that the legislation is delayed, LGBT+ people are subjected to medical, psychiatric, psychological, religious and cultural and other abusive interventions that seek to change, “cure” or suppress their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.”
“Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East on her victory at the Council of Europe in passing the report on banning conversion therapy, because one step to end discrimination that the previous Government—and, so far, this Government—have failed to take is the introduction of a complete trans-inclusive ban on LGBT+ conversion therapy, a vile practice better described as a form of torture of LGBT+ people.”
“I start by congratulating my faves, my formidable hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne), on securing this vital debate and on their brilliant speeches. I know that this debate means a lot to members of the LGBT+ community in my constituency and across the UK. I am pleased to hear the reflections on and recognition of the incredible achievements of LGBT+ people throughout history, and about the remarkable fight for equality and an end to discrimination. Sadly, we all know that that fight is not yet over and there is still a substantial way to go before LGBT+ people are free to live and love without prejudice. I also congratulate my hon.”
“My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour in Lambeth is making an excellent speech. The arbitrary cap, which I believe was initially created in the fair funding review, created the unintended consequence of leaving Lambeth missing out on the funding that it would have otherwise received. That means that Lambeth has lost out on £47.5 million over three years. As she knows, that money is urgently needed to protect our local services. Although, like me, I am sure that she welcomes the uplift to the recovery grant that was announced yesterday, does she agree that it is not enough to meet the needs of our constituents and our local authority with its ever-growing costs?”
“It is our moral duty, as a nation with historical responsibility in the region, and as advocates for human rights, to ensure that the Palestinian people are granted the justice, freedom and dignity they deserve.”
“The questions that future historians will ask are, “Why did the international community fail to recognise it? Why did we do nothing to stop it?” There is a growing body of evidence and a clear consensus among UN experts, human rights organisations and genocide scholars that Israel has committed and continues to commit acts of genocide. The UK has a legal obligation not to aid or assist violations of international law, including a duty to take all possible measures to prevent genocide once a risk has been identified, yet we continue to sell arms to Israel that are undoubtedly being used to attack civilians. I therefore hope that, when the Minister responds, he will explain why the Government believe that it is acceptable to continue the sale and trade of arms that aid Israel’s actions, including with illegal settlements.”
“Since the ceasefire was announced in October, hundreds more Palestinians have been killed. Aid continues to be blocked from entering the region, and there are severe restrictions on the number of sick and wounded people permitted to leave for medical care. Let me be clear: even if Israel had fully complied with the ceasefire agreement, ceased all attacks today and allowed the unconditional flow of aid into Gaza, none of that would undo the suffering already inflicted on the Palestinian people or negate the fact that what has taken place constitutes a genocide. It is vital that we use the correct language. History will not describe what is unfolding in Palestine as a war, an invasion or just an occupation; it will describe it as a genocide.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) for bringing forward this vital debate. To many of us, it has always been abundantly clear that what is taking place in Palestine does indeed constitute a genocide. Since the Israeli attacks began in 2023, more than 70,000 people have been killed and entire bloodlines have been wiped out. We have witnessed targeted attacks on civilians and journalists, the forced displacement of people from their homes, the obstruction of humanitarian aid, the weaponisation of starvation and the destruction of vital civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools and universities. Taken together, those actions demonstrate a clear and deliberate attempt by the Israeli Government to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land.”
“I believe there is universal agreement across the House that the sale of human remains, particularly where their origin, age and acquisition are unverified, should not be allowed to continue. Although import and export restrictions exist, legislative oversight has allowed domestic sale to remain perfectly legal. This Bill corrects that oversight, and I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Siân Berry, Carla Denyer, Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Diane Abbott, Apsana Begum, Dawn Butler, Zarah Sultana and Clive Lewis present the Bill. Bell Ribeiro-Addy accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 379).”
“Labelling them as antiques does not make it so, and serious questions remain about provenance. A case currently before the US courts involves a man accused of grave-robbing and selling remains online. While we have not seen such a case here, it would be naive to assume that similar practices could not be taking place. I should be clear that there are legitimate circumstances that the Bill would not prohibit. For example, cost recovery for medical research, teaching and scientific use would remain regulated through existing licensing and ethical frameworks. Nor would it outlaw respectful bereavement practices, such as memorial jewellery containing a lock of hair, where consent is clear. The Bill carefully distinguishes between consented memorial items and the commercial sale of unprovenanced remains.”
“I have been informed that the underground trade continues. Imagine seeing your ancestor’s body parts listed at auction as decorative objects. That was the case for some when the skull of a tribesman from Nagaland was auctioned online in the UK as part of a “curious collector sale”—one of thousands of items taken by British colonial administrators. In fact, that has been the case for many African and Asian remains, as is outlined in the “Laying Ancestors to Rest” report. Long after colonial rule and our acceptance that racism is wrong, we continue to deny the people affected dignity, even in death. Some may argue that remains that are hundreds of years old raise fewer concerns, yet there is good reason to believe that some remains being sold are far more recent than is claimed.”