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 7 of 12.
“I would also like to see my Government revisit the proposals to ensure that individuals donors are registered electors and that companies that donate are owned by people who live in Britain and pay their fair share of tax here. That is extremely important. Political funding is not the only way that the very rich are able to exert undue influence. However, it is the most obvious place where we can take decisive action now. After a decade in which billionaire donors more than trebled their wealth and working people saw the biggest pay squeeze since the Napoleonic wars, we absolutely need change.”
“This exemplifies why we need to get big money out of our politics and protect it from the undue influence of the super-rich. The Institute for Public Policy Research has recommended capping individual and corporate donations to political parties at £100,000 a year. That seems like a modest starting point. We need a crackdown on dark money entering via shell companies that have never turned a profit in the UK and through unincorporated associations with no legal requirement to disclose their funders. We should also reinstate the Electoral Commission’s ability to monitor and prosecute offences and put the resources it needs behind that—nothing hon. Members have not already heard today.”
“While I am pleased that my party in government has introduced the foreign influence registration scheme, I am concerned by reports that we may have not moved further on plans to ban any foreign political donations. This should not be a left or right issue—it just has to be based on the idea that every vote is worth the same. It goes without saying that people like the owner of the social media website that I will only ever call Twitter, who is not even registered to vote in the UK, does not own companies incorporated in the UK and invariably avoids paying his full share of tax in the UK, should not be free to throw money at our politics, but here we are. The wealthiest man in the world could conceivably shower huge sums on any party that will help him to advance his divide and rule politics, which are designed to protect his vast wealth.”
“We have to be a little more clear-sighted about the reality: first, because of the size and scale of these donations; and secondly, because if we follow the money, we notice a pattern of some people suspiciously changing teams whenever we are about to see a changing of the guard. It would be naive to suggest that large donors are doing this purely out of the goodness of their own hearts. I was alarmed to read the recent report by Transparency International, which found that 10% of all UK political donations originate from dubious sources. That is because it suited the last Government to allow front companies, which are set up for the sole purpose of laundering money. I was unsurprised to read that two thirds of that dark money went to the Conservative party.”
“The last Government stripped the Electoral Commission of its ability to prosecute criminal offences and placed it under ministerial control—hardly impartial. As well as manoeuvring the electoral system further in their favour, the last Government quietly passed a statutory instrument to raise campaign spending limits. National election spending caps rose by 80%, and the amount of money that an individual can donate to a party without declaring who donated it rose from £7,500 to £11,180. I am sure that there will be some Members who think that there is nothing wrong with very wealthy people putting their money behind a party that reflects their principles, but why should we not know who they are?”
“I remember a visit I took with you, Mrs Harris, on an international delegation, during which I spoke to a Member of Parliament from another country, which I will not name. We got talking about election spending limits for individual candidates. When I told them what it was in the UK, they turned to me and said, “What are you going to buy with that?” But just because we are not as bad as some does not mean that we cannot do better—and we have to do better, because public confidence in the financial transparency of our system has plummeted. Just 15% of Brits surveyed by the Electoral Commission last year believed that spending and funding is transparent in our system. Sadly, the evidence shows that this is a problem of trust, as big money continues to have a corrosive influence on our politics.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am proud to declare my membership of Unite the union. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for support I have received from other unions, because trade union money is the cleanest money in politics; we know exactly where it comes from. We all know the saying, “Money is power,” and I would hope that none of us are naive enough to think that this does not apply to the UK. If we want to create a democratic system where everyone’s vote has equal value, we need strong protections in place to prevent the very richest individuals in our society from warping our democracy. As we heard today, we are not the worst in the world.”
“I thank my hon. Friend and her Committee for a fantastic report. Will she join me in congratulating disability rights activists such as my former constituent, Sam Jennings, who I know is thrilled by the report, which I hope my hon. Friend would be happy to hear? It is important that we congratulate these activists, who have been looking for a report like this for a long time. Sam certainly opened my eyes to a number of different issues. If the Government accept these recommendations, which they should, it will be due to their fantastic activism.”
“It takes a public health approach to violence reduction, focusing on prevention, early intervention and community-led solutions. It prioritises targeted outreach, family support and investment in community initiatives. It is obviously woefully under-resourced, but it is the sort of initiative and community-driven approach that should be rolled out nationwide. There is no single solution to this crisis, but we can begin to address it by ensuring that young people have the wraparound services that we know prevent them from being involved in, or the victim of, crime.”
“Gangs step in where the state has stepped back. It is no coincidence that as these services have disappeared, knife crime has risen. Conservative Members cannot ignore the direct correlation between austerity and serious youth violence, but equally Labour Members cannot either. If we maintain the cuts or extend them even further, that is the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. As a starting point for tackling youth violence and knife crime, I strongly urge the Government to look at reversing the cuts and investing in youth services. I also urge the Government to look at how local councils tackle the issue. I point to my council in the borough of Lambeth. Lambeth Made Safer was launched in 2021 by Councillor Jacqui Dyer.”
“Funding for Sure Start children’s centres, which provided early intervention and family support, has been decimated. Funding for police community support officers, who play a vital role in building trust between police and young people, has been drastically reduced. School budget cuts have squeezed pastoral support, mental health provision and behavioural interventions, increasing exclusions overall. The link between school exclusions and serious violence is well known. Excluded children often fall through the cracks. Many enter pupil referral units where gangs recruit vulnerable young people. Others disengage entirely, making them more susceptible to criminal activity. Those cuts have consequences, and when young people lack support, opportunity or hope, they become vulnerable to criminal exploitation.”
“I know Conservative Members do not particularly enjoy our pointing out their record in government, but we cannot let this debate go by without mentioning the impact of the past 14 years. This is not a political point but a factual one, because over that time we saw the systematic dismantling of the support systems that helped keep young people away from crime. Research from the YMCA showed that youth services have been cut by 73% since 2010, with over 750 youth centres closed and the number of youth workers falling by a third to 1,662 full-time equivalent roles. The result has been fewer spaces, mentors and positive role models for young people. A recent Unison report revealed that in England 1,036 council-run youth centres were closed between 2010 and 2023, and only 480 remained open in April 2023.”
“Indeed, successive Governments, including this one, have introduced measures along those lines to tackle the surge in knife crime. I certainly will not stand here and argue that we do not need to review how we police the issue, although I believe that increased policing measures such as stop and search need to be thoroughly thought-through and must be intelligence-led. Increased policing and sentencing are not the only solution and cannot work on their own. Youth and knife crime are a wider societal issue that require a holistic approach. If tougher sentencing and more stop and search powers were all it took, we would have solved this crisis a long time ago. We cannot take reactive steps alone; we have to take preventive ones.”
“It is a tragedy, but even more sadly, it is a tragedy that we hear far too often. The latest figures show that there were more than 50,000 knife-related offences in England and Wales last year. Alarmingly, around one in five knife possessions involved young people under the age of 18. In 2023-24, there were 53 records of homicides using a sharp instrument where the victim was aged between 13 and 19 years. Though those statistics are alarming, we have to remember that they are not just numbers but young lives that are being lost, and with each one comes a family that will be left grieving and a community that is scarred. I know that many hon. Members will point to the need for more policing, increased stop and search and harsher sentencing, and restrictions on who can buy a knife as solutions.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on knife crime among children and young people, an issue that continues to devastate communities across the country. I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing the debate. Very few people can say that they are not deeply concerned about the rising levels of knife crime, particularly among children and young people. As has been heard from my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), in the early hours of this morning a young man was stabbed and killed in Brixton, a town centre that we share along with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). Our thoughts go to the young man and his family at this time.”
“It is about people feeling criminalised simply as they walk down the street and go about their business. It is about communities feeling that the police are there not to protect them but to harass them. Policing by consent is a fundamental principle of British policing. The relationship between the police and the public should be built on trust, respect and co-operation. Random, unjustified stop and searches undermine that principle entirely. That is why I have been steadfast in calling for the abolition of section 60 stop-and-search powers. To be clear—I want to be absolutely clear on this—intelligence-based stop and search can be, has been and will continue to be a useful tool to tackle crime.”
“Yet they are more likely to be stopped and searched, and it is for this reason they are more likely to appear in criminal statistics. The disproportionate use of stop and search has a severe impact on community trust in the police, which is at an all-time low, particularly in boroughs like Lambeth, which already has the lowest trust in policing across London, according to the Mayor of London’s most recent data. Many people simply do not believe officers will treat them fairly, because the reality is that they do not, and that lack of confidence makes community policing far less effective. This is not just a question of numbers: it is about lived experiences. It is about young black men being stopped multiple times a week for no good reason.”
“That means that black people are over four times more likely to be stopped and searched. Report after report reveals the severe problem of institutional racism in the Metropolitan police. The overuse of stop and search to target black and ethnic minority communities is stark evidence of that. It has resulted in entire communities feeling unfairly targeted, over-policed and alienated from law enforcement, and this does not serve anybody. Black and ethnic minority people are no more likely to commit crimes than their white counterparts. I repeat that: black and ethnic minority people are no more likely to commit crimes than their white counterparts. They are also no more likely to be in possession of illegal substances or objects than their white counterparts.”
“Secondly, and unfortunately, my constituency experiences high levels of gang violence, drug dealing and antisocial behaviour more generally, which creates serious issues for the area. My remarks today will address those two points. First, on the disproportionate use of police stop and search on black, Asian and ethnic minority communities, the evidence is clear. According to the latest Government data, in the year ending 31 March 2023, some 529,474 stop and searches were conducted in England and Wales, equating to 8.9 stop and searches per 1,000 individuals. However, when the figures are disaggregated by ethnicity, we see that black people were subject to 24.5 stop and searches per 1,000 people, Asian people 8.5 stop and searches per 1,000 people and white people 5.9 stop and searches per 1,000 people.”
“It is always a relief to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing this debate, which comes at a crucial time as we discuss the new Government’s Crime and Policing Bill. When we legislate to give the police more powers, it is important that we properly assess the powers they currently have and how they are already being used. Police stop and search is an issue of serious importance for my constituents. The reason is twofold. First, my constituency of Clapham and Brixton Hill has a high proportion of young black and ethnic minority men, who we know are disproportionately targeted for random stop and search.”
“Rather than creating new police powers, which is the current trend, we ought to look at how the police are using the powers they have and how they can use them more effectively. If people are going to trust the police, there has to be genuine transparency and accountability around their powers, and that has include stop and search. Stop and search has to be evidence-led, and to tackle crime the police have to work with the communities they serve.”
“In areas such as Brixton, known drug dealers and criminals are often not targeted with stop and search, while young black men with no criminal records are repeatedly stopped. This selective approach raises concerns about policing priorities, and about whether the police are focused on reducing crime or on maintaining control over certain communities. When I raise the issue of known offenders not being searched, I am often told that the police do not currently have the powers to intervene. I find that incomprehensible. It cannot be true: the police arguably have more powers now than they have had in a very long time, so I cannot begin to imagine what more powers they could possibly need to carry out their work. Things may need to be done to increase their confidence, but they certainly do not need more powers.”
“The reason why I point to intelligence-led policing is that if police are able to work with the people in their communities and they are able to trust the police, they can often be the ones to provide the intelligence that helps to prevent other crimes. But if they feel like they are being impacted by stops and searches, they see the police as an enemy. I want them to see the police for who they are meant to be—the people who keep them safe. The second point I want to raise is about increased gang crime, drug dealing and overall antisocial behaviour in Clapham and Brixton Hill. As I have said, effective, intelligence-led stop and search could help to clamp down on that, but its inconsistent application is undermining police efforts.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, but the figures are absolutely clear. Although I get what he says about the proportion of black people across the country, I am talking about lived experiences. I am talking about the experiences of people who live in my constituency and in other parts of the country who feel like they are being targeted. This is not just about the numbers: it is about what is happening to people on a daily basis. The reality of the situation is that people need the police. We have heard in the debate already that black people can in some cases, in relation to particular crimes, be disproportionately the victims of crime. For that reason, we need to be able to work with the police in our communities, but it is difficult to do that if people feel like they are being harassed by them.”
“For any men who are still wondering, yes, a period cramp is typically at least more painful than testicular trauma, while at its worst it is as intense as a heart attack. Only 2.5% of publicly funded research is dedicated to reproductive health, although 90% of women suffer from such issues. Women feel gaslit by their GPs, they are told to go on painkillers, and there is so much more that they are not receiving when they ask for help with their healthcare. We cannot fight for gender equality when the disparity in the treatment of women’s health conditions is so stark. I do not imagine that by next International Women’s Day we will have complete gender equality, but I hope we will see some concrete steps towards getting there on health.”
“For many men, as we have heard, there is just a physical exam and a few questions in order to be diagnosed with something such as erectile dysfunction, but it takes eight years for a woman to receive a diagnosis for endometriosis. Every seven and a half seconds a man is prescribed ED medication, but it takes eight years for a woman to be diagnosed with endometriosis. We still know next to nothing about the causes, symptoms and diagnosis for the management of conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome, despite that impacting one in eight women. We know so little even about periods, yet almost every person who has experienced one understands the pain and discomfort involved.”
“Regrettably, most of that decrease is not because maternity services are improving, and the rate of women and babies of all ethnicities dying in pregnancy and childbirth in this country has increased in the past two decades. The UK sits in the middle to low range of maternal mortality compared with the global standard, but we should not settle for that, just as we should not settle for racial disparities or poor maternal care, especially when our maternal mortality rate is far higher than that of other-high income countries such as Iceland, Norway, and Finland. It is not just in maternity care where women are being failed, because women’s health issues have long been overlooked, as men have historically been treated as the default.”
“A number of areas will require focus if we are to accelerate progress, but I want to focus on women’s health. Members will have heard me speak often about racial disparities in maternity care and the disproportionate fatality rate for black mothers, and more must be done to address that. However, issues around maternity are now worsening for all women in this country. When I first raised the issue of black maternal health in the House, black women were four times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth. That has now reduced to just over three times. Awareness has played a huge role in that, and I pay tribute to Five X More and other organisations that have done so much to raise awareness.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on introducing this vital debate. She is a true champion of women’s issues and an inspiration to many. Twenty-one fifty-eight—2,158 is not my number; we have a long way to go before we get to that—is the year when, at the current rate of progress, we will see full gender parity. That is 133 years away and five generations of girls who will continue to live under a system of gender inequality. Imagine if the leaders of the Suffragette movement had known that in spite of their heroic actions it would take another 10 generations before we achieved equality of the sexes. That is why this year’s theme, “Accelerate Action” is appropriate, because the current rate of action is unacceptable.”
“10. Whether he has had recent discussions with his international counterparts on the payment of reparations to people impacted by historic slavery.”
“Is it not better for the UK to engage in these discussions and ensure that we play a constructive role in addressing the enduring legacies of slavery and colonialism?”
“Last week saw the 38th ordinary session of the African Union Assembly of Heads of State and Government, the topic of which was “Justice for Africans and people of African descent through reparations”. Caribbean Heads of State were also present, and we know that the Caribbean Community, or CARICOM, has long engaged in discussions on reparative justice. Whether or not we participate in these discussions, they will continue to happen. Does the Minister accept that the world and its power structures are changing? In our turbulent post-Brexit reality, we need allies and friends, but we will not even say that we are sorry. We would be foolish to think that we are not deeply resented for that.”
“As it stands, we are already not on track to reach our target of ending new cases by 2030, but I hope that today we will hear insights from the Minister on the steps the Government are taking to increase testing and to end new cases in the UK and abroad. As I am sure other hon. Members do, I eagerly await the Government’s new HIV action plan in the summer.”
“I hope to see more from the Government on the international front. We must actively look to support international efforts to stop HIV transmissions, especially at a time when President Trump is running his reckless review of American aid and has put the future of the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in the balance. Any credible attempt to end HIV transmission must include a global response. When it comes to ending HIV transmission, we are not an island. Ending new cases here will only last for so long if we are not contributing to efforts to end them abroad. Where the US is stepping down from efforts to tackle global HIV transmissions, we should be stepping up.”
“I am particularly pleased to hear about the £38 million that is being awarded to my borough of Lambeth, which will go a long way towards supporting people with HIV, preventing HIV and funding other public health initiatives that the borough runs. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) spoke about the important role that councils play, and it is a crucial role indeed. They encourage testing and are well-poised to target the right communities and areas to increase awareness, and they can tailor messaging in the way that is needed. The work of local councils and community-based organisations has really helped to increase testing rates and reduce stigma. It has also helped to ensure that as many people as possible know their HIV status, and the recent round of Government funding will continue supporting that work.”
“This is incredibly encouraging, but we must do more to increase testing among heterosexual men, heterosexual and bisexual women, and the trans and non-binary community. The stereotype that HIV is only something that affects men who have sex with men is not true. In fact, the increase in infections in 2023 was attributed to sex between men and women, with a 35% increase among heterosexual men and a 30% increase among heterosexual women. We should be doing more to encourage testing among all groups. That means greater investment in local and community-based public health initiatives, so I am pleased that the Government are investing in local government public health.”
“Although there is still a way to go, it is through open discussions, such as the one we are having today, that we have been able to reduce the number of HIV cases in the UK down to an estimated 113,500. But it is thought that 4,700 people are unaware that they are living with HIV, and that is why it is vital that we continue to push to increase testing. We know that when caught early HIV is treatable and that the quality of life of those living with HIV is far better than it was back in the ’80s. Unknowing carriers risk not only not getting the treatment they need or getting it too late, but unknowingly infecting others. Testing is easy, quick and can save lives. We know that testing among men who have sex with other men is high.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on bringing forward this important debate and on the work he continues to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on the APPG. While we will spend most of this afternoon’s debate speaking about the goal to end new HIV transmissions by 2030, I feel it is important to recognise just how far we have come in our understanding of HIV and treatments for it, and in our education and awareness raising. We have seen so much progress in the fight against HIV since the 1980s crisis.”
“With these measures, as with others, the boats will not be stopped unless we look at the issue holistically. Have we stopped organised crime, drugs, people trafficking, fraud, firearms and so on? Of course not, because some of those crimes are high-tech operations, but all these overseas-based people smugglers need is a dinghy. We cannot have a credible plan to smash the gangs unless we deal first with the demand for what they supply. Many of us have long argued that the way to undercut and ultimately eliminate the gangs is to re-establish safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, to establish processing centres in northern France, to turn away failed applicants, and to allow safe travel for those who are entitled to be here.”
“I commend the Home Secretary and her team for the reforms in the Bill that are genuinely positive, including the scrapping of the unworkable and costly plan to expel asylum seekers to Rwanda—a repressive regime that is making war on its neighbours. The Bill rescues us from the “Alice in Wonderland” situation in which Rwanda is safe if the Government say it is safe. The Government have also scrapped and towed away the Bibby Stockholm, the miserable and dangerous prison ship, and committed to deciding asylum claims that had previously been placed in indefinite limbo. Those are all positive developments. However, it is difficult to be positive about the remainder of the Bill. It clearly aims to prioritise border security, but the malign Greek chorus that chants “Stop the boats!” in response to every problem in our society is wrong.”
“We could do so much more on things we agree on, but unfortunately there are too many instances where victims can be blamed for the crime, and I worry that the Bill could codify that injustice in law.”
“The shadow Home Secretary, when he was the immigration Minister, implemented a fee waiver, but last year only 36% of those waivers were accepted—40% were rejected and 22% are awaiting decision. That is just not good enough. This is about children who have lived here for their whole lives—children who were born here, including the children of EU nationals. We know that EU nationals continue struggle with their rights, which is something that we could resolve. We can all agree that the Windrush generation have the right to be here, but they are still having major issues; we should not wait for the appointment of the Windrush commissioner to be told that they are still subject to the hostile environment.”
“We on the Government Benches must be better than them. At the moment, a trafficked woman who arrived here having been abducted halfway across the world would have no rights as refugee, precisely because her traffickers brought her here on a small boat. That cannot be right. The Bill focuses on small boat crossings, but it is an immigration Bill, and that means it does not all have to be negative. There are things we could do that we largely agree on, such as scrapping child citizenship fees and introducing further protections for European Union nationals and the Windrush generation. When we were in opposition, we supported scrapping child citizenship fees.”
“In 2023-24, the Home Office issued 832 compensation payments for unlawful detention, totalling £12 million. As we have heard, we detain children—in 2023, the Home Office detained 47 children for immigration-related reasons. We disagree on many things across the House, but the rights of children is not usually one of them. People say there are complex reasons why such detentions happen. To that I say: “Make it simple and make it stop.” We should not be detaining children for immigration-related reasons. I am also concerned that the Bill might undermine the application of international law to refugees. Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 will be untouched, even though it was a truly rotten measure introduced by the Conservatives, who had a problematic relationship with international law.”
“Why are we holding on to the idea of increasing the immigration detention estate when we know that in 2019 the Conservative Government awarded asylum accommodation contracts worth billions of pounds to just three companies, and almost every single one of the removal centres operated by those companies has reported overcrowding, hostile and unsanitary conditions, and, at worst, death and suicide? Those centres are costly and cruel. A limit on immigration detention would be both humane and efficient. The average daily cost of holding an individual in immigration detention is £122. What a huge cost when there are options for detention in the community. Most people are detained when they go to their bi-weekly reporting session at the Home Office. We are detaining far too many people unlawfully.”
“Then there is the question of immigration detention, which will increase as a result of the Bill. The immigration detention estate is already costly and cruel. It is a ridiculous irony that we are releasing criminals because our jails are full, yet we are increasing the use of immigration detention despite 75% of those detained eventually being found to be entitled to be here. The main concern has been foreign national offenders, and 4,674 were returned in the year ending September 2024. That is an increase of more than a quarter compared with the previous year, which means that this Government are doing what they want to do on foreign national offenders.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention, and obviously she is always right. It is not impossible; in fact, it has been done before. Instead, this Bill could end up criminalising people because of how they travelled here, which is wrong. It is widely understood that many of these people, precisely because they are victims of persecution, cannot apply for visas in the normal fashion, and many more cannot afford the cost of long-haul flights either. Genuine and valid asylum seekers could be criminalised. We should remember that these people are fleeing war and devastation. Some have been trafficked, and many of those are brought here as slaves—either for domestic service and menial unpaid work, or for sex slavery. The Bill could abolish their rights and protections under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”
“Aid has become an industry. Aid itself is subject to supply and demand, and so many countries are not benefiting from it in the way that they should be. We need to look at this issue as one of reparative justice, and we the UK have to pay what we owe.”
“That should be done through a comprehensive financing facility to offer unconditional grants, not more debt, to countries facing climate disaster, to push for automatic debt payment suspension and relief for countries in the event of a climate-related disaster, and to introduce legislation to stop private creditors from suing those same climate-vulnerable countries. The UK’s role as a major historical emitter, a former colonial power and a current global leader places a special obligation on us to put climate justice at the heart of the global response to the disaster we now face. Some people ask: why reparative justice and not simply aid? That is because aid has not worked, and when a duty is put on people to do something, and when they understand that they owe somebody something as a matter of justice, they are more likely to do it.”
“The Government should be supporting efforts to cancel debts for all climate-vulnerable countries with unsustainable debts by expanding the G20 common framework to include middle-income nations, and strengthen it to ensure that private creditors participate. To be frank, we know that the situation for the average person in some so-called middle-income nations is still dire. I call on the Government to enhance the UK’s commitment on international climate finance overall and to encourage other countries to do the same.”