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 9 of 13.
“I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I wholeheartedly agree: Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. I think that sometimes in Britain we take for granted our ability to go about our daily duties as trade unionists and as members of trade unions. That must be protected at all costs, because it is incredibly important. As I said, I am incredibly proud of the work undertaken by many British trade unions with Justice for Colombia. Trade unionists in Colombia need our international solidarity just as much today as they did 20 years ago.”
“Many believe that security, or a lack of it, and the escalating violence are the biggest threats that could tip the balance of forces in favour of chaos.”
“The Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies in the US asserts that, as late as last year, 29% of the accords had been fully implemented, which is significant given that the process is expected to last 15 years. On the polarising matter of justice for FARC victims, progress is being made, although it is too slow for some and not far enough for many, who want positive, not transitional, justice. On the other hand, the security situation is either deteriorating or static. The current Government have failed to grasp the severity of the threat posed by the far-right paramilitary groups that threaten to jeopardise the peace process. The current President has a responsibility to safeguard the peace process, and that means affording protection to those taking part in it.”
“The key tenets of the 2016 peace agreement between ex-President Juan Manuel Santos and the then commander-in-chief of the ultra-left revolutionary FARC group, Rodrigo “Timochenko” Londoño, included a ceasefire and disarmament, justice for victims, action on drug trafficking, the political process that saw FARC become registered as a political party, and wholesale land reform. It must be said that there has been some progress, such as the election of 16 victims into special peace seats in Colombia’s House of Representatives. Some 14,000 FARC combatants have laid down their arms and joined the peace process; the majority have moved out of camps and into civilian life.”
“Despite the setbacks, it is important to avoid falling into the trap of total cynicism and despair. However, elections are looming next month, and for so many progress is still too slow. Although the violence proves relentless, we are in a volatile period with the forces of peace and chaos delicately balanced. It is the job of Colombia’s international partners, such as the UK, to continue to promote peace, support the outcome of next month’s election and work closely with the incumbent or any newly elected Government on our common objectives.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I completely concur with the views she shared. As we have heard, Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world for trade unionists. More than 3,000 have been murdered since 1989—more than in the rest of the world combined. They are murdered with impunity, often by right-wing paramilitary groups with links to Colombia’s state apparatus, and no one is brought to justice. The 2016 peace agreement was meant to change that and so much beside for trade unionists and those campaigning for workers’ rights, peasant farmers, former FARC combatants who laid down their arms, and those who sought justice for the crimes inflicted on their families and communities by the likes of FARC. For all Colombians, 2016 was a marker to alter the direction of the entire nation. Indeed, it still can be.”
“The UK Government must aid the Colombian Government in those aims, if they are sincere in pursuing them, and must without question support any new Government that is elected in May.”
“Perhaps the UK Government could obtain clarity from the Colombian Government about why authorities have withdrawn the security detail from indigenous Senator-elect and human rights defender Aída Quilcué, after she faced similar threats to those made about the murdered Correa, again by the Black Eagles. The same Black Eagles group is now making threats against progressive political forces in the historic pact—most recently, Francia Márquez, who is the frontrunner to secure the vice-presidency in May. In summary, in the run-up to May’s presidential elections, the Colombian Government must step up in defence of the peace process; expand the security afforded to those participating in the process; commit to protect religious, indigenous, sexual, trade union and labour rights; and, without question, accept the outcome of May’s election.”
“Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, at the UN Security Council briefing on Colombia, called on the Colombian Government “to continue to expand its efforts to provide adequate protection and security, improve state presence in conflict-affected areas…and strengthen the institutions that can investigate and prosecute those responsible for these crimes.” I must also note the murder of the indigenous leader Miller Correa on 14 March this year. Only eight days prior to his death Miller was named alongside other activists in a threat signed by a group identifying itself as the far-right Black Eagles. It was a great loss, and many other leaders now face increased threats.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I completely concur. The early part of this year makes for very grim reading. The murder of Jorge Santofimio, the former FARC fighter turned environmentalist, was harrowing. The number of former FARC combatants killed since 2016 is now over 300. More than 900 social leaders have been killed since the peace agreement was signed in 2016. In the first three months of 2022, 48 social activists and 11 former FARC combatants have been killed, and 27 massacres have taken place. It goes without saying that if those who laid down their arms feel that they are not afforded protection, there is a risk that they will take up arms again. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) made that point very well.”
“The proposal to treat refugees differently based on how they arrived in the UK undermines a key principle of refugee protection. Such an approach weakens the very foundation of the 1951 refugee convention and contradicts the steps agreed to by the UK upon signing up to the global compact on refugees. What legal assurances did the Government seek about the protection of people in Rwanda, which has an authoritarian regime with one person in power for 30 years?”
“The fact that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both been fined for breaking the very rules that they themselves set means that either they are incompetent or they think that the people of our country are beneath them. Either way, and with the prospect of further fines looming for the Prime Minister, they are not fit to occupy the two highest offices in the land. My constituents of Liverpool, Wavertree have overwhelmingly told me that they do not believe their apologies to be sincere, so the question for my constituents is when they can expect your resignations.”
“A recent survey by the Disabled Children’s Partnership and Let Us Learn Too revealed that 60% of families with disabled children have sought mental health support because of the stresses of having to fight for basic services, while previous surveys have shown that nine in 10 disabled children are socially isolated. Given that, will the Minister outline how the Department for Education intends to use the SEND Green Paper to reduce the adversarial nature of the system and plans to improve access to mental health services for disabled children and their families?”
“Given that in this country we are meant to police by consent, how on earth can women have faith in those with the power to protect them if they hold views such as those exposed by Operation Hotton as widespread and if, even worse, those views are not taken seriously by the leadership of the Metropolitan police? What a sorry state of affairs. On International Women’s Day, I sincerely hope the Minister will wholeheartedly commit without delay to hold the Metropolitan police accountable for getting rid of the stain of misogyny that is ingrained in its fabric. Today and every day we owe that to women everywhere.”
“What was clear from meeting those family members is that we have such a long way to go to ensure that women are treated fairly and that their voices are heard. Yesterday, I mentioned recent documentaries about the victims of the Yorkshire ripper and how the police at the time reported on victims in terms of innocent versus guilty, as if any woman could be guilty and should be murdered by a random stranger. That is absolutely appalling. When a serving police officer can claim to smack his partner, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned, and then joke with a colleague that such a grotesque act “makes them love you more”, we have real problems. Police officers deal with domestic abuse and violence against women and girls almost daily.”
“We believe these incidents are not isolated or simply the behaviour of a few ‘bad apples’.” It is imperative that the Metropolitan Police Service sheds its natural instinct immediately to deflect, play down or dismiss the problems that have besieged it, which, among other organisational problems, hastened the resignation of the former commissioner. That is undoubtedly a wider problem that seems to be prevalent across the police force, with a culture of fear in “reporting your own”. The learning report touches on that: “A reason for not reporting such behaviour was a lack of confidence that it would be dealt with effectively and fear of repercussions.” Yesterday, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), I met the families of murder victims of domestic abuse.”
“Let that sink in—from those whose job it is to keep us safe. The retort of the Metropolitan police about a few rotten apples demonstrates that the rot is far more widespread, so let us say it here today clearly: there exists a culture of misogyny in the Metropolitan police. That statement is reinforced in great detail by the Operation Hotton learning report, which states: “The team at Charing Cross where we identified these problems has now been disbanded, yet we have seen evidence of this behaviour in subsequent investigations.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mrs Cummins. Happy International Women’s Day. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for calling this hugely important debate. I said in the Chamber only last week that it is deeply troubling that we are here discussing yet again our inability as a society to protect 50% of our population from harassment and sexual assault, from rape and from murder. I went on to say that we should be talking about closing the gender pay gap, delivering for working-class women in low-paid sectors such as social care, bettering access to affordable childcare for young mothers, and much more. Now, we are even in Westminster Hall this morning talking about protecting women from those whose job it is to keep us safe.”
“Local government finance has been ravaged over the last decade under the mantra of austerity. Councils in the north have lost up to 50% of their core funding, and some have lost even more. The Secretary of State has said, “If you leave the free-play market forces entirely to themselves, then what you see is inequality growing, in particular geographical inequality”. Those were fine words, spoken at the convention of the north in my home city. When will the Department drop the spin on local government finance and genuinely improve councils’ core spending powers by factoring in inflation and national insurance increases, for which our cash-strapped local authorities are picking up the tab?”
“It assists 1,284 women, meaning that only £46 is invested in supporting women and girls in the community who had no choice over the abuse committed on them for the same six-month period. Let that sink in: there is £5,425 per head for a male identified as a potential perpetrator as opposed to £46 per head for a woman who has suffered abuse at the hands of a male perpetrator—how shameful. How on earth can that be right? That is the value placed on the wellbeing and safety of women. Yesterday, during Home Office oral questions, I called for misogyny to be made a hate crime. That is the scale and breadth of the task at hand, and we have barely begun to scratch the surface on the matter. Acknowledging the problem is not enough; immediate and robust action is required.”
“A Merseyside charity that runs a programme aiming to challenge the behaviour of men who have been identified as potential perpetrators was provided with £217,000 of funding from the Ministry of Justice to be spent over a six-month period. The programme stated that, “All males have access to wrap around support including a Mindfulness programme. This has previously been shown to significantly increase engagement, improve sleep, and improve positive mental wellbeing”. That is £217,000 to support 40 perpetrators, which equates to £5,425 per head. In comparison, Liverpool Domestic Abuse Service in my constituency is given £120,267 per annum by the Ministry of Justice, which equates to £60,133 for the same six-month period.”
“Despite all that, we have continuously been subject to the endless nonsense from Government Ministers, such as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who repeatedly celebrates all crime as coming down. When he does so, he demonstrates a complete ignorance and insensitivity to the fact that women have no confidence in the system and often do not report the crimes they have been victims of, and an ignorance of the damage that austerity has caused to refuge services, support services, the justice system and much more. I have no faith in a system that spends more on perpetrators than it does on victims, and I will outline some figures in relation to that.”
“Since 1970, we have lost around 3,400 people to terrorist-related incidents, while more than 6,000 women in that time have been killed at the hands of men. For starters, how about we start treating femicide as seriously as terrorism? This Government are far too relaxed about the femicide taking place right under their nose. In my own city of Liverpool, were it not for covid, we were due to hold a vigil back in November for women murdered by men, not least the number that occurred across Merseyside in the preceding weeks and months, which would be enough to send a shiver down anyone’s spine. Next week, I hope to take part in a debate called by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on sexism in the Metropolitan police, which supposedly is an organisation meant to keep us safe.”
“We should be talking about closing the gender pay gap, delivering for working-class women in low-paid sectors such as social care, bettering access to affordable childcare for young mothers and encouraging young girls and women to enter the arena of science and technology but alas, no—yet again, we are in this place debating and talking about just keeping women and girls safe from male violence. We are yet again discussing our inability as a society to protect 50% of our population from harassment and sexual assault, from rape and from murder. That is how imbalanced the scales are, and frankly it makes me angry that we as lawmakers do not seem to grasp the size of the task at hand. With that in mind, I would like to make a comparison to another incredibly important subject to provide some context.”
“Since I entered this place, I have given much political headspace to the issue of male violence against women and girls, and I wish that was not the case. However, there is a duty on every one of us to speak out about this issue, which is endemic in our society. It is not getting better; the difference is that it now occupies more column inches and headlines than it did. We need to ensure that that remains so until the problem gets better, but even now, in this instance, I fear we are some way off from making any real progress.”
“The Minister is being generous with her time. Does she agree that although perpetrator funding is essential, the funding that goes to the victims of violence should be increased? They are often the ones fleeing the domestic home and having to set up anew. Does she not agree that they should get more funding than perpetrators?”
“Remarkably, despite all the talk on violence against women and girls, the Home Secretary and the Minister still fail to grasp that misogyny is the driving force behind it. The offending histories of many perpetrators reveal how they escalate from lower-level criminal behaviour—offences that many do not report because they do not think they will be taken seriously, such as exposure, street harassment and catcalling. Racism, homophobia and ableism are addressed in law, but no such protections are afforded to women and girls. Why do the Home Secretary and the Minister continue to turn a blind eye to the culture that exists and is the root cause of violence against women and girls?”
“The clause effectively ends the right to protest as we know it and provides yet another example of this virtue-signalling Government—”
“The Conservative party of the 21st century has shed all illusions of being a party that is committed to conserving, protecting and defending our liberal democracy and, indeed, of being a party that is committed to the liberalism that I had assumed was a key tenet of its ideology. Thankfully, the other place has rejected a string of proposals that would have given the police in England and Wales increased powers, including the power to stop and search anyone at a protest without suspicion. Even many Conservative peers did not support the Government’s proposals. Sadly, however, the likes of clause 55 still exist in the Bill. Make no mistake, the noise clause is a crack-down on dissent. It provides more tools in the establishment’s armoury. It is authoritarian and draconian.”
“Ever since I entered this place, not one Bill has occupied as much space in my inbox as this one, and I am sure that many Government Members have been similarly inundated with messages from their constituents. Many of my constituents are horrified, disturbed and frankly suspicious of this Government’s attempt to severely suppress the right to protest. Some of those who are getting in contact with me have never attended a protest, but like me, they are absolutely committed to preserving and protecting our fundamental rights. These constituents are currently watching the autocratic President Putin on their TV screens arresting hundreds of his own people for peacefully protesting and demonstrating against his country’s barbaric assault on Ukraine.”
“Are this Government telling me and everyone else in the Chamber today that they would shut them up next time? What a sorry state of affairs.”
“I am sorry; I will not, because the hon. Member has just come in, and lots of Opposition Members wish to speak and have been here since the start of the debate. The clause is yet another example of this Government giving extra powers to the police that they have neither asked for nor do they need. I have long given up appealing to Government Members to do the right thing. Rather, it is best that we just tell them that they are doing the wrong thing, and they will be doing the wrong thing if the Bill passes. Hundreds of solidarity protesters gathered on Downing Street at the weekend to express support and solidarity to Ukraine and her people. Those sentiments have been expressed right across the House. The protesters were noisy, and they were loud.”
“I thank the Minister. He has been very generous. Can he confirm that new clause 1 has nothing to do with BDS, a point to which you alluded, Madam Deputy Speaker?”
“The perverse nature of the centralised British state means that we now have Treasury announcements on filling potholes. Guess what? Local councils used to just fill potholes without the need for a Whitehall press release. The Government cannot and will not level up this country while our councils are scraping around year after year to produce balanced budgets against a backdrop of sustained cuts. Across our city region, we simply cannot take any more. I hope the Minister has some real ideas for how that is going to be addressed.”
“It is not rocket science why communities in places such as Merseyside, which have some of the highest levels of deprivation in the country and have been subject to some of the most brutal cuts, have become dirtier and less safe, have lower life expectancy, suffer from increasing food bank usage, and see widening education attainment gaps. Forgive me for thinking that that has been a deliberate political ploy to re-engineer politics across the north of England, which lets Labour councils, as local establishments, shoulder the blame and burden for austerity and higher taxation, while the Conservative Government come along at the eleventh hour to save the day. Pay more, get less —no wonder our residents are fed up. It may benefit the Conservative party, but it is bad governance, and it is our communities that pay the price.”
“Even after the Prime Minister’s non-plan for adult social care, councils across Merseyside are still having to make swingeing cuts in that area and raise the adult social care precept, with a starting position of £12 million of cuts for Liverpool in adult social care alone. All the while, demand for services increases, and the recruitment, retention and workforce crisis rages on in the sector. We cannot go on like this. Such is the arrogance across Whitehall that shuffling deckchairs is the modus operandi, with no real plan for municipal revival and no plan to restore local government to the pinnacle of achievement. Most insulting of all, there is no acknowledgment that the decisions of the past decade have contributed to the growing divide between the north and more affluent parts of the country.”
“The degradation of local government finances since 2010 has exacerbated geographical inequalities, held back our regional infrastructure and limited the potential of our people and communities. In this coming financial year, Liverpool City Council will see a starting revenue gap of an eye-watering £34 million. Inflationary pressures and the increase in national insurance—not to mention the insult of having to increase the pay of central Government commissioners by 50%, which is nothing short of a disgrace—are making the picture even grimmer. All that is on top of half a billion pounds-worth of cuts since 2010. The picture is the same across the Liverpool city region.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for calling this important debate. It is timely, because the Secretary of State is in Liverpool today, addressing northern leaders at the convention of the north. Last week, we heard the Government fanfare around the levelling-up White Paper. As one commentator put it, “the Government is like the arsonist turning up late to the scene of their crime with a fire extinguisher in hand claiming to help put out the fire they started”. So hollow is the Government’s plan that this year—the year of levelling up—councils are being forced to increase council tax precepts yet again, while at the same time making deep cuts to local services.”
“Since 2010, £465 million has been cut from Liverpool City Council, with £34 million in this coming financial year. Local government staff have had their pay cut by 20% since 2010 in real terms. Will the Secretary of State, if he is genuinely committed to tackling and reversing inequality, tell us when local government workers can expect a 50% pay increase like the commissioners in Liverpool City Council, or will he agree to meet me and my colleagues to look at that eye-watering decision?”
“They are economical with the truth—and that is putting it kindly—but less so with the public finances. They have been nothing short of an abject failure.”
“Now the latest reveal is that £4.3 billion has been lost to fraud in the covid support schemes—written off, never to be seen again—while £3.5 billion in public contracts has gone to Conservative pals in the private sector. The Government’s so-called levelling-up fund alone could have been three times as large if No. 11 had not been so flagrant with public money. Who knows? We could have afforded Northern Powerhouse Rail, not the cheap and nasty integrated rail plan that we have received. I have to mention the 3 million excluded self-employed taxpayers who continue to be ignored by this Government and who have not had one penny in support, because the Government say that could be open to fraud. The hypocrisy is astounding. When all is said and done after the pandemic, history will not be kind to this Government.”
“Consultants were on £7,000 a day; there were jobs for mates such as Baroness Harding, who was completely out of her depth, and money was being funnelled to companies like Serco which cannot even deliver decent asylum accommodation in my own constituency. When this Government claim that they got the big calls right during the pandemic, they are so far off the mark that one must wonder whether the booze consumed during recent Downing Street parties has killed off considerable numbers of brain cells. We know that these are difficult times for a Conservative Government when the Telegraph runs with the headline “Government waste is an insult to taxpayers”.”
“Companies with no track record or experience of delivering comprehensive outcomes on anything, let alone specialist services, were awarded contracts to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer cash, and the only criterion, as far as we can tell, was their personal connections with the Conservative party and Conservative Ministers—a bit like the pub landlord, for example. It is absolutely shameful. At about that time, Conservative Ministers such as Lord Bethell were refusing to publish a list of the companies awarded contracts to provide PPE because of the “commercial sensitivity” associated with the high-priority VIP lane; others might call it the Tory gravy train. Then there is the abject failure in terms of outcomes, most famously that of track and trace, at an eye-watering £37 billion.”
“Ever since the pandemic began, Members on the Opposition side of the House have raised questions, as any good Opposition should; but we were derided and ignored, accused of playing party politics throughout a national crisis. These days the Chancellor is conspicuous by his absence. That is in stark contrast to the dizzying heights of his popularity early in the pandemic, but it also means that he cannot continue to evade accountability and run from the truth. It is not as if the Government were not warned. I attended a Westminster Hall debate called by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on 8 December 2020, on the back of the National Audit Office report that was critical of the Government in respect of transparency about the use of public funds for covid contracts.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and many happy returns of the day. Notwithstanding what the Paymaster General suggested earlier, this debate called by my party is absolutely the right one. It is easy to forget, given the plethora of scandals afflicting this Government, that when it comes to actual good governance they fall short of that marker. Perhaps it is as a result of the cumulative effect of those scandals— certainly on the back of the Owen Paterson debacle—that these issues are starting to pick up traction. The issues of waste, fraud, fast-track procurement processes and contracts that did not deliver are all interconnected. They did not begin with Owen Paterson and end with Lord Agnew’s resignation.”
“When there is a failure of leadership and an inappropriate culture in an organisation, the person at the top should go. This outrageous debacle has not happened in spite of the Prime Minister; it has happened because of him. Will he now do the right thing and resign?”
“Will he go back and apologise to those care workers, some of the lowest paid in our labour market, and ensure that they have continuity of service and of pension contributions?”
“Like the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), I too am angry. I am angry because, in December last year, I twice asked the Secretary of State to pause and let us do this via consensus, rather than by making it mandatory. The language we use in this place is extremely important, and the Secretary of State has spoken this evening about care workers and their “choice” to be sacked. What I say is that they did not choose to be sacked. This Government chose not to give them appropriate personal protective equipment at the height of the pandemic. This Government chose to discharge elderly patients into care homes at the height of the pandemic. That is the real choice that this Government have made. Will the Secretary of State re-evaluate?”
“I declare an interest as a member of Unison and Unite the union. Does my hon. Friend agree that those on the Government Benches are treating trade union members as if they are not taxpayers in our society? They are taxpayers—”
“Does my right hon. Gentleman agree that some retired people are still members of trade unions, participate fully in their structures, and benefit from them?”