Paula Barker
MP for Liverpool Wavertree · Labour · United Kingdom
“They have fought for a Hillsborough law worthy of the memory of the 97, but not just for them, which shows their decency, resilience, and wider sense of public spirit.”
“In the 2017 Manchester Arena attack, MI5 was found by a public inquiry not to have given an accurate picture of the key intelligence that it held on the suicide bomber who carried out the attack. New clause 6 would mandate that the duty of candour and assistance applies to the intelligence services as it does to other public authorities.”
“The death of a child seems to violate the natural order of things, leaving parents shocked, grieving and in unimaginable pain. The charity Love, Jasmine in my constituency was founded by Rob and Kathy Lapsley in 2016 after the death of their daughter Jasmine to support other bereaved parents on Merseyside through counselling, support grou…”
“Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who introduced the first Hillsborough law Bill in 2017, after addressing the 20th anniversary in 2009 when he was Culture Secretary.”
“The passage of the Bill has been too long delayed, and we have finally reached this point only because of the strength and bravery of the families of the 97 who died as a result of what happened on 15 April 1989.”
“I rise to support new clauses 5 and 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter). I welcome the Prime Minister’s remarks, and I am relieved that the Government have listened, so that the duty of candour will apply in full to members of the security services, and the Bill will finally reach the statu…”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Paula Barker, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“Over the last few weeks, we have heard a lot about the lack of time to scrutinise legislation when debating another Bill in this place, yet here we are with a Bill that has concessions that are not actually on the face of the Bill because there has been no time. There will only be eight days between Second and Third Reading, which is truly a lack of time to scrutinise proposed legislation.”
“I think everyone in this House believes that we need to reform our welfare system, but we must be honest: the Bill before us today is not reform. It is simply cuts, which have been brought forward to fill an economic black hole. In the Liverpool city region, nearly 30% of residents are disabled—more than 10% above the national average. Liverpool has one of the highest disability rates in the country, and our region already experiences some of the highest poverty rates in the UK. Even with concessions, this Bill still entails cuts, not reform. It will see 150,000 people pushed further into poverty, and create a stark disparity in our welfare state for disabled people. Despite a commitment to co-production, there is nothing that commits the Government to ensure that the PIP assessment review’s findings have any bearing on this legislation.”
“No, I will not. It is with sadness that I will vote for the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and I will vote against the Bill. I implore my Government to do the right thing: to pause, take a breath, and let us get this right. Before entering Parliament I had served local government, the trade union movement and working people throughout my life. Service matters deeply to me, and I see it as my job to do exactly that as a Member of Parliament. I am a passionate believer in the dignity of labour and of secure, well-paid work being the route out of poverty and to opportunity and a life free from fear, but this Bill, I regret to say, will create poverty, and has already induced fear.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention, and I absolutely concur with her views. We must be crystal clear on what we are voting for tonight: we are voting for the Bill as it stands, unamended. The late changes, combined with the compressed parliamentary timetable, mean that MPs will have just a single day to debate and consider amendments, and the fact that this is a money Bill means that it will not be subject to amendments from the House of Lords. Our movement, at its best, is the rising tide that lifts all boats—not some, but all. I cannot in good faith look my constituents in Liverpool Wavertree in the eye and tell them that this Bill would improve their lot, because quite frankly it will not.”
“The Isle of Man’s Bill is awaiting Royal Assent, and will potentially be available for terminally ill residents from 2027. The direction of travel is to give dying people true choice at the end of life. We cannot leave dying people in England and Wales behind.”
“This will ensure that choosing an assisted death is never a result of ignorance or lack of care I am pleased that the Bill has brought about a long-overdue discussion about palliative care. If we are honest, very few people in this place and outside were shouting about it from the rooftops beforehand. I sincerely hope that after the passage of this Bill, we will continue to discuss how we can improve palliative care, because it should not be an either/or. By having robust palliative care and the option of assisted dying, we will truly have options that will meet individual needs and the values of each patient. Finally, the momentum for law change is spreading across the British Isles and beyond. Last month, MSPs voted by a clear majority to pass Liam McArthur’s assisted dying Bill.”
“The status quo is failing people each and every day. I pay tribute to colleagues from across the House who served on the Public Bill Committee, regardless of what side of the debate they were on. They strengthened the Bill by accepting key amendments, including the establishment of a judge-led multidisciplinary panel to oversee every application, with oversight from psychiatrists, social workers and lawyers; the requirement that assisted dying can only be discussed with patients in the context of all their end-of-life care and treatment options; mandatory training for doctors and panel members on detecting coercion; and the creation of a disability programme board. The Bill requires that patients be informed about all care options to ensure that everyone has access to the best possible pain relief, emotional support and hospice care.”
“Too many of us have witnessed the devastation caused when we are denied choice at the end of life. Until the law changes, dying people in Britain will continue to suffer unbearably in their final weeks and days, with many trying to scrape together the funds for an assisted death abroad or taking their own lives behind closed doors. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to keep such experiences in the front of their minds when they go through the Lobby later. At the heart of it, this Bill is about choice: those who wish to exercise their choice can do so, and those who do not wish to do so simply do not have to. The Bill introduces practical measures to assess eligibility, guard against coercion, and ensure rigorous medical oversight and robust monitoring of the process. Dying people have none of those protections under the current law.”
“I am proud to support my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) as a co-sponsor of this Bill. Through her leadership, compassion and dignity, she has been a beacon of hope for so many. I thank the many hundreds of constituents who have written to me or had face-to-face appointments with me to discuss this complex and emotive issue. There are strongly held beliefs on both sides of the debate both inside and outside the House. I absolutely respect those with views different from mine, and hope that they will respect my views. After all, it is possible for all of us in this place to disagree well. People on both sides of the debate have accepted that we can and must do better for dying people and their loved ones—that has been clear throughout this debate.”
“I thank the Minister for coming to the House to make the statement and for the strong action that the Government are taking to make it clear that we hold no truck with extremists who care nothing for peace, but we must go further. He will know the strength of feeling on the Labour Benches on this issue, particularly on recognition of a Palestinian state. I reimpress that on him and hope that he will be here in a fortnight’s time as the Minister who recognised Palestine. Will he advise the House on what discussions he is having about the appalling interception of the British-flagged yacht Madleen, yet again preventing much-needed aid from reaching the Palestinian people?”
“The history books will not be kind to this Government unless we use every form of leverage at our disposal, and our grandchildren will ask why we effectively stood by while a people were eradicated by bombs, bullets, starvation and, no doubt, the further ethnic cleansing that is still to come. This should shame us all.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement, but we have been here countless times before. Last week, Israel approved 22 further settlements in the west bank. Israeli Defence Minister Katz claimed it was “a strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state”. What more evidence do we need to call this exactly what it is: a deliberate policy of annexation and genocide? Will the Government now take the long overdue steps that we have all been calling for for years—namely, the recognition of Palestine, sanctions on extremist Israeli Government Ministers, suspension of all arms sales and suspension of all trade? If we want to see a Palestinian state, we must do something now to prevent its erasure.”
“Given the genocide we are witnessing unfold before our eyes every single day, will the Government drop the 2030 road map for UK-Israel bilateral relations and impose economic and diplomatic sanctions to apply pressure on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law?”
“What can the Government do to prevent individuals like Mr Deary and his associate Liam McGrath from liquidating one company, which owes more than £1 million to customers, and going on to scam others by setting up other companies, one of which I am led to believe is called Merseyside Construction Ltd? Most importantly, what can be done to get justice and a full refund for my constituents Gemma and Paul?”
“Dozens of families across Merseyside, including my constituents Gemma and Paul Lucas, have been left financially and emotionally devastated by the actions of a home improvement company, Celsius Home Improvements Ltd, and its director Frank Deary. Customers had to pay 60% of costs up front to Mr Deary, but have been left with homes that are uninhabitable and, in some cases, dangerous. The Liverpool Echo has reported that it has seen documents showing that Mr Deary’s companies were providing quotes post 2022 with Celsius branding, but were trading as Clearmetric Ltd. A winding-up order was made against Clearmetric Ltd in the Manchester district registry on 7 January this year, more than three years after Celsius Home Improvements was dissolved in February 2022.”
“More than 300 Palestinian children have been killed since Israel’s new offensive began. What worries me about the Government is that they do not seem to have any red lines that Israel must not cross. We need robust action, not words. The two-state solution, which is on its knees, is not a by-product of peace; it is the route to peace. If the time for recognition is not now, then when is it? What will the Government’s response be when Israel permanently occupies part of Gaza, as its Defence Minister seems to be insinuating it will?”
“The backlog in the court system harms efforts to instil confidence in women persisting with domestic violence charges against their abusers. Violence against women and girls is a national scandal, and femicide is ongoing, with countless women losing their lives to male violence. Sadly, my region of Merseyside is now the second highest region in the country for femicide. Does the Department agree that any moves to fast-track cases via the criminal or civil courts to remove abusers from our streets must involve appropriately severe sentences, irrespective of the prison places crisis?”
“T8. A significant proportion of those who experience homelessness are ex-offenders. I have previously raised concerns that the drive to alleviate the prison places crisis must not add to the homelessness emergency. The Deputy Prime Minister is in the process of establishing an inter-ministerial group on tackling homelessness. Will my right hon. Friend’s Department play a full and active role in that inter-ministerial group, and ensure that Ministers and officials from the Ministry of Justice are adequately represented?”
“Will the Security Minister ensure that whatever else the inquiry into these tragic and preventable deaths examines, it looks closely at how the agencies talk to each other and assess threats together? Agencies and Departments can no longer be allowed to work in silos. Given the Minister’s statement that the Government will take steps to publish the findings of other independent Prevent learning reviews where there has been an incident of national significance, may I ask whether that will be extended to the Forbury Gardens attack?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. It makes me deeply angry to listen to the litany of errors by different agencies across the public sector, not just in failing to realise the level of threat that Rudakubana posed in each instance of encountering him, but in failing to join the dots and realise the common pattern they were all seeing—not least because in 2020, my constituents Jan and Gary Furlong lost their wonderful son, James, in the Forbury Gardens attack. As in the Southport attack, there were systematic failings in the system. The perpetrator had four Prevent referrals and was known to mental health services, and nobody joined the dots.”
“Friday’s announcement was deeply disappointing. The Liverpool city region is home to one of Europe’s largest pharma clusters. The Government were prepared to put millions into the project with AstraZeneca, which it has now walked away from. Is that money still on the table for other viable life science projects in our region? Will the Government commit to meet our metro mayor, Steve Rotheram, to discuss that further?”
“The constituents I support often tell me that the services they interact with, and by extension the Department, tend to view them with suspicion and lack of empathy. The Bill must not be used to entrench such attitudes. For the British public, whether they are in work or out of work, life is getting harder. Rampant inequality has broken our economic model, while the 1% continue to squeeze the rest. I very much hope that the Bill will not end up punishing the wrong people, making those inequalities even worse. I look forward to Government Front Benchers engaging with those who express legitimate concerns today and during the Bill’s parliamentary journey. I will not oppose its Second Reading, but I will work constructively with colleagues across the House to table amendments in Committee that alleviate my concerns and those of right hon.”
“We are looking at a hugely significant change to our welfare system, at a time when the Department is responsible for record underpayments. Surely that should be a Government priority, rather than further upheaval of a system that threatens to further stigmatise those who legitimately rely on the welfare state. There are low levels of fraud in the benefits system. The latest Government figures put it at 2.8% of total benefit expenditure, which translates to overpayments due to fraud recorded at 3.7% in the financial year 2023-24. Although it is right and proper to look at ways to reduce that figure, politicians in this place have a responsibility to make it clear at every opportunity that any such move, especially one as far-reaching as this, is intended to target a small minority of criminals.”
“During an iteration of the Bill introduced by the last Government, the Equality and Human Rights Commission called for it to be scrapped. A legal opinion from Dan Squires KC and Aidan Wills found that the powers in the previous iteration were likely to breach UK article 8 privacy rights protected in the Human Rights Act. Can the Minister tell us what legal advice the Government have received on the proposals in the Bill? I have serious concerns that assertions and decisions on individual cases, if automated, could lead to Horizon-style injustices if the necessary steps are not taken to put the right safeguards in place, alongside measures to guarantee some level of transparency and accountability when mistakes arise.”
“It feels like a hammer to crack a nut. After the second world war, the Attlee Government set about establishing a welfare state as a safety net for those who were genuinely in need. The Attlee Government took responsibility for looking after the wellbeing of all their citizens from the cradle to the grave. Worryingly, there now seems to be a determination to transform the British welfare state into a system of mass surveillance. I will be grateful if the Minister responds to the following points. First, although I acknowledge that the Secretary of State spoke about this at the Dispatch Box, what provisions are being made in respect of proper oversight of these proposed new powers? How would any financial institution navigate data protection conflicts between the Government and its customers? How would data security risks be mitigated?”
“We cannot accept a situation in which our constituents are being accused of fraud on the back of genuine personal errors. I know at first hand from my experience as a constituency MP that the Department is more than capable of making glaring errors of its own, and people suffer greatly as a result. The welfare system is not an easy one to navigate; people should be supported when problems arise, rather than there being a natural presumption towards guilt. Many organisations that have been in touch with hon. Members share this fear, so it is essential that the Government address the point head on. Other aspects of the Bill sit very uneasy with me. The Government already have the powers, under existing legislation, to investigate those who are suspected of fraud. That raises the question why the Bill is needed.”
“I recognise that fraud exists across the public sector and that it is wholly right for any Government to track down the fraudsters, the criminal gangs and those who cheat the system at the bottom as well as the top—we have heard about the VIP fast lane—but I hold deep reservations about the unintended consequences of the Bill in its present form. We have heard some very constructive contributions this evening from Members across the House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is always accessible and has been willing to listen to my concerns and those of my many constituents who have got in touch to express their views. Although she has allayed some of my fears, I did let her know that I would raise my concerns in the Chamber today. First, the Bill needs to make a greater distinction between fraud and error.”
“My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech, and he talks about benefit fraud on an industrial scale. Does he really believe that just over 2.5% is an industrial scale?”
“The wording is identical to any other money resolution for any other Bill. It is important that all Members are clear that this debate is not about the merits or otherwise of the Bill, and it would be incredibly disappointing if any Member sought to use it as such.”
“My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has led this important debate with openness and transparency at all times, and has treated all views with dignity and respect. She is acutely aware of the strongly held beliefs on both sides of this debate. Many right hon. and hon. Members expressed the concern that there was not enough time to debate the Bill. It is important to ensure the maximum amount of debate on this important Bill, and to ensure that all views are heard. The public wish to hear a considered view from all parliamentarians in this place, and we owe it to them to ensure that the debate continues, while treating each other with dignity and respect, just as we did last November, when we saw this place as its very best. A money resolution is standard for any Bill put forward by the Government or an MP.”
“I appeal to Members across this place, regardless of their views, to let us have the long overdue, open and transparent debate that will enable Members to formulate a final opinion on the Bill, irrespective of what that may be. To stifle it would be to stifle democracy. We must remember that democracy is a slow process of stumbling to the right decision, instead of going straight to the wrong one.”
“I will come to that point shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has sought every opportunity to be inclusive, and has sought a wide range of views, because she knows the value of all voices being heard. If the resolution does not pass today, the Bill cannot progress. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that that is not what the House voted for in November, and it is certainly not what our constituents want. Three full days of oral evidence from 50 witnesses will begin next week. That will be followed by at least eight full days of scrutiny. None of that will proceed if the resolution is voted down today.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. My thoughts and prayers are with everyone involved. Acts of terror devastate the families of victims who are left to pick up the pieces, having their closest loved ones robbed from them in the cruellest way. As with the Forbury Gardens terrorist attack in 2020, which saw my constituents Gary and Jan Furlong lose their beloved son James, these acts often take place after multiple agency failings. The Forbury Gardens perpetrator had been referred to Prevent four times and was known to mental health services. It will be important to those families in Southport that lessons are learned and acted on in a timely way. Will the Government engage with me and Survivors Against Terror on its calls for a survivors’ charter, which would extend rights to survivors and the families of victims?”
“T9. Tomorrow, it will be 1,000 days since the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824 was given Royal Assent, yet that outdated, vindictive and utterly ineffective Act is still driving people away from the support they need and into an already overloaded courts system. There is no need for a replacement as existing antisocial behaviour laws are sufficient. May I urge the Minister to please drop the peculiar and cautious civil service group-think? We are 201 years on. Will she advise when the commencement of the repeal will happen?”
“I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for bringing this Bill before the House. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) agree that the online service provides a vital resource for people with accessibility requirements—for those who are perhaps blind or partially sighted?”
“My hon. Friend is making a wonderful start to her speech. I congratulate her on a second bite of the cherry, as this is her second time with this private Member’s Bill. She talks about education and loudness. Does she agree that there is a particularly bad and detrimental impact on those suffering from neurodiverse conditions?”
“It has been a long and painful road to get to this point, but today’s welcome news of a ceasefire deal is finally a sliver of hope. It has always been clear that the release of hostages and a ceasefire were necessary steps to pull the middle east from this abyss, which has cruelly taken so many lives. I will touch on the point that the Foreign Secretary just made about another generation of politicians, including younger politicians in this House, debating the two-state solution in 25 years’ time. I have said to him many times that the recognition of a Palestinian state is not a by-product but the route to a resolution. Will he be brave, will he be bold, and will he, so that we are not here in 25 years’ time debating the two state-solution, recognise the state of Palestine much quicker than that?”
“To boot, the Bill ensures a protected period at the beginning of a tenancy, the end of discrimination faced by those in receipt of social security, an end to bidding wars, and the rolling out of the decent homes standard across the private rented sector. Indeed, the Government have indicated their intention to strengthen the Bill further by limiting the amount of rent payable in advance at the start of a tenancy.”
“This is groundbreaking legislation, and I pay tribute to the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for the excellent work that they have done so far. In October, I said in this place that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, under the leadership of our Deputy Prime Minister, will get this job done, and they are doing exactly that. This Government are getting on with the job. The previous Government made empty promise after empty promise, ultimately caving in to the landlord lobby on their own Benches. Perhaps that is why the Opposition Benches are so empty today. The Bill goes a long way towards redressing the power imbalance between those who own assets and those who need to use such assets for the basic human needs of housing and shelter. It will finally see an end to section 21 evictions.”
“I, too, pay tribute to Sandra Downs for starting this petition. Does the hon. Lady agree that the recognition of a Palestinian state is the route to peace, not a by-product of peace? We have seen the petulance of Netanyahu and the Israeli Government towards some of our European counterparts, such as Ireland, where they are shutting down an embassy, and with the terrible reaction to Macron. Does the hon. Lady agree that recognition is actually a route to peace?”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important urgent question. I represent a diverse community. Both Muslims and Hindus in Liverpool have made representations to me about the growing sectarian violence, the slide to extremism, and particularly the persecution of the Hindu minority. The violence faced by minorities on religious and political grounds must stop. What representations are the UK Government making at the United Nations on this matter, and are we confident that the interim Government in Dhaka can get a grip on this?”
“I urge the hon. Member to check the wording of the Bill, because if somebody signs as a proxy, they have to have known the individual for two years, and would simply be signing to say that they agree with the patient who wishes to go forward with assisted dying.”
“I do not believe that if the Bill finally becomes law, it will create a slippery slope. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) eloquently said, terminally ill adults in Oregon have had a legal option for assisted dying for more than 25 years, and not once has it been expanded to include other groups.”
“My own mum cared for my dad during his cruel battle with cancer. Sadly, not even the best palliative care could provide him with a good death—and I do believe that there is such a thing as a good death. At its core, the Bill is sensible, safe and compassionate. But above all else it places human dignity at its heart. In respect of palliative care, the Bill is not an either/or. Along with many other campaigners for assisted dying, I fully support improving palliative care. It has been proven that end of life care has improved in several countries because of assisted dying reform. I hope that, if the Bill passes, the UK will also belong on that list. Palliative experts, including those opposed to law change, admit that some people’s suffering is beyond the reach of even the best palliative care.”
“I am honoured to rise to lend my support to the Bill, and I am proud to support my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) as one of the Bill’s co-sponsors. Data shows that in my city of Liverpool 74% of people are in favour of assisted dying. I have been privileged to correspond with and meet so many of my constituents who have shared with me their views and personal stories, spanning both sides of this important debate, and I thank them all. As we have heard today, there are strongly held beliefs on both sides of the House. I absolutely respect those with views that differ from my own, and hope that they respect my views, even if we disagree. Since long before I entered this place, I have been an advocate of assisted dying, with the appropriate safeguards, to alleviate unnecessary suffering.”
“No. I am sorry, but I will not. Every year, around 650 terminally ill people take their own lives, and countless others who are more affluent make the choice of the long, arduous journey to Switzerland, all without any protections in place. I do not want choice to be available only to those who can afford to pay. That is not just or equitable. Finally, just like with many other private Members’ Bills that have gone before and looked to bring about social reform—such as those on abortion, divorce and the decriminalisation of homosexuality—this is an historic moment and an opportunity, if taken, to give real dignity to those who have reached the end of life and want a choice, while also respecting the views of those who do not want to take that choice.”
“I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), who is a fierce champion for her constituents. Does the Secretary of State agree that the news yesterday only highlights further the urgent need for a UK industrial strategy, and demonstrates the challenges that UK industry faced under the last Government without such a strategy in place?”
“3. What steps her Department is taking to improve intelligence sharing following the terrorist incident in Forbury Gardens in Reading in 2020.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. James Furlong, David Wails and Joe Ritchie-Bennett were murdered in the Forbury Gardens terrorist attack in Reading in 2020. The coroner found major problems with intelligence sharing between authorities, which was underlined in the prevention of future deaths report published in May. Alongside others, Gary Furlong, my constituent and the father of James, is demanding that this is not just another report that sits on a shelf gathering dust. What action will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary take to make permanent changes on the back of this attack? Will she agree to meet Gary Furlong and me to discuss progress in due course?”
“I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a very proud trade union member. In 2019, the Conservative party promised to deliver an employment Bill that would protect and enhance workers’ rights in the UK. Like so many of its promises it never delivered, but my right hon. Friend has done it, cleaning up the mess that the party opposite left behind. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that her Employment Rights Bill is the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation?”