Kim Johnson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Dec 2025 · Sudan: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has just mentioned doing all we can to exert pressure, but with all due respect to him, I think we need to be doing far more than exerting pressure. As UN penholder for Sudan, the UK has a moral responsibility to ensure that the ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing is brought to an end as soon as possible. Most importantly, we must end all arms trade with the UAE, because it is evident that UK arms are ending up in Sudan.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I met Paula, Dougie and Ash in my constituency at Tom Harrison House, the only facility in the country offering support to veterans who have addictions. Will the Minister meet me and workers from that organisation to discuss whether statutory funding could help us to offer such support to more veterans?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  I am a lifelong trade unionist and a proud member of Unite and Unison. I was proud to stand on the picket line with resident BMA doctors in my Liverpool Riverside constituency recently. They talked about the challenges around fees, and I am sure that they will welcome the fact that more money will be put in their pockets. There was some inconsistency, however. Will the Minister clarify that all resident doctors of all specialisms will be subject to the fee waivers?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I echo my hon. Friend’s support for Eddie Marnell. I look forward to the continued support of GMB going forward.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate on the historical injustice of the wrongful imprisonment of 37 Cammell Laird workers who, in 1984, occupied their workplace in protest at redundancies, privatisation and threats of closure. They were sacked, they lost their jobs, redundancy and pension rights, and they were sent to prison in an unprecedented assault on trade unionists. They have been fighting ever since to clear their names. It is my honour to be their voice in this place today. I note for the record that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. I will begin by recognising the work of those who helped to bring this debate here today: the 37 themselves. They are Billy Albertina, Eddie Albertina, Francis Albertina, Jimmy Albertina, John Albertina, Jimmy Barton, Christopher Bilsborough, John Brady, Michael Byrne, Thomas Cassidy, Thomas Culshaw, John Dooley, Lol Duffy, Colin Early, Nicholas Fenian, Joe Flynn, Andrew Frazer, Barry Golding, Paul Hennessey, Edward Kenny, Paul Little, Eddie Marnell, Jimmy McCarthy, Anthony McGarry, Philip McKeown, Michael Mooney, Aiden Morley, Sam Morley, Alan Prior, Francis Roach, Stephen Smith, Christopher Thompson, Tommy Webb, Tommy Wilson, Chris Whitley, George Whittaker and John Wright. I want to thank several other people, including the previous MP for Birkenhead, my very good friend Mick Whitley, whose brother was one of the 37. I thank him for his tireless work and campaigning both in and outside Parliament. I thank, too, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) who led the Westminster Hall debate on this topic back in 2023, and has continued to support the campaign. I would also like to recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) who has a long history of supporting the campaign as a GMB officer. He used one of his first written parliamentary questions as an MP to secure a commitment from the then Justice Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), to consider a review into the jailing of the Cammell Laird workers.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree: justice does need to be served, and the 37 have been affected because of the financial demands put on them because of the action they took. They were striking workers, not criminals, and they should never have gone to prison. I pay tribute to Paul Heron and Clare Lash-Williams, who are providing legal advice for the campaign, with the intention to launch a successful legal appeal against the original charges. I also thank GMB union for its support; I look forward to its continued support going forward. In 1984, faced with sweeping redundancies and the decline of the shipbuilding industry, workers at Cammell Laird occupied their workplace, including a gas rig and a Royal Navy frigate, to resist job losses and defend their livelihoods and communities. Management’s response, backed by the Government at the time, was swift and very heavy-handed. The workers were threatened with dismissal, the loss of their redundancy payment, and even police intervention. They were deliberately targeted to send a warning to others—an attempt by the state to break industrial action and demoralise workers taking strike action across the country. The workers reluctantly agreed to end their occupation in September 1984 after weeks, when their water supply was cut off. They were immediately arrested for failing to turn up to court for an earlier judicial review hearing. They were convicted in their absence and sent to Walton jail, Merseyside’s category A high-security prison. Their appeal at the High Court in October 1984 was presided over by Lord Lawton, who had been a member of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, had visited Hitler in the 1930s and had been selected to run for Parliament. He was a long-standing enemy of the trade union movement and would have been only too happy to uphold the unprecedented 30-day prison sentence for contempt of court, a grossly disproportionate punishment. The whole case stinks of an establishment stitch-up. There were plenty of similar cases at the time, throughout the movement. Not even the National Union of Mineworkers leader, Arthur Scargill, was imprisoned, despite being convicted of the same charge. The only comparable case of an imprisonment of a large group of workers due to a national dispute was the Shrewsbury 24, and 47 years later, their convictions have finally been overturned by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. When the 37 were charged with contempt of court and sent to a high-security prison, Liverpool city council was locked in a fierce battle with the Thatcher Government of the time over a £30 million cut to funding from central Government, after the Government deemed the council to have set an illegal budget. The council remained defiant, adopting the mantra. “We would rather break the law than break the poor.” More than anything, the council focused on building council homes and creating jobs—work unmatched by any other authority at the time. That was the political environment with which the Cammell Laird 37 had to contend. The workers fought proudly not only for their jobs, but for the future of the shipyard. Their only crime—if it can be called a crime—was defending their livelihood. The strikers ensured that there was absolutely no damage to any property during their occupation. They even allowed Ministry of Defence inspectors into the occupation to inspect a frigate and to carry out maintenance work. Were they criminals? No. They were responsible trade union members, carrying out legitimate action at their own workplace, and respecting the property of which they were in control. For that, they were incarcerated in prison for 30 days. The Justice for the Cammell Laird 37 campaign resonates deeply with my constituents in Liverpool Riverside, and with people across Merseyside. The 37 are widely considered to be heroes for standing up to Thatcher’s policies of managed decline, which destroyed our industries and decimated our communities. Their struggle took place against the backdrop of the broader union fight-backs, and parallel injustices, such as Orgreave and Hillsborough, in which ordinary people paid the price for fighting back against a Government hellbent on crushing working-class communities. Four decades later, the fight for justice continues. Sadly, half of the 37 have died while waiting for their names to be cleared. Action is needed now to ensure that the surviving workers receive justice, because justice delayed is justice denied. I grew up in Liverpool during the Thatcher years. The neo-liberal policies enforced on our city would define us for years to come. Liverpool in the 1980s was highly dependent on the docks for work. We suffered unemployment rates of almost 50%. Our communities were deeply aware that the fight for jobs was not just about improving the current situation, but about preserving jobs and workplaces for generations to come. Thatcher’s privatisation drive resulted in British shipbuilders going from employing 62,000 workers in 1982 to just 5,000 workers five years later. In Merseyside alone, we lost 34,000 manufacturing jobs between 1978 and 1981 due to Thatcher’s policy of managed decline. It was this hollowing out of industry that these workers were trying to defeat. They deserve full recognition and gratitude for the struggle they waged, and an apology for the disgraceful way that they were treated. The Justice for the Cammell Laird 37 campaign, like the campaigns on the Shrewsbury 24 and the miners’ strike, and so many other union struggles of the time, goes to the very heart of how Thatcher’s Government responded to workers who dared to stand up for themselves. I remember the police brutality inflicted on striking miners at Orgreave, followed by lies and cover-ups by politicians, the police and the media. I am proud that this Labour Government have now committed to a full inquiry into Orgreave. It follows logically that there should be a public inquiry into the jailing of Cammell Laird workers—a miscarriage of justice with many obvious parallels. However, the priority must be releasing the Government papers to help the legal team clear the names of the 37. There is no doubt that this was a major miscarriage of justice, sanctioned at the highest levels of Government. No other industrial action resulted in so many men being sent to prison. The 30-day sentence was grossly unfair; by the time the men were released, they had lost their jobs, workplace rights, redundancy payments, and pension payments. Research by the GMB shows that at least one of the men could have lost £120,000 or more. Some were blacklisted for many years and struggled to find work afterwards, causing immense suffering and economic hardship. For that reason, we believe that there should be a public inquiry. The limited records from the National Archives and Thatcher’s private papers demonstrate that Ministers were determined to privatise the building of warships, cut the number of shipbuilding yards, and sell off the remainder of the state-owned yards. The Cammell Laird 37 knew that was what they were up against—a Government hellbent on privatisation at any cost. It is that systemic and ideologically driven undermining of the British shipbuilding industry by a group of Ministers determined to drive through the complete privatisation of British shipbuilders, regardless of the wider economic and social consequences, which warrants a public inquiry, so that the 37 and all those impacted can understand why the treatment they received was so uniquely punitive and destructive. A public inquiry is not merely symbolic; it is essential. It is crucial to understand how and why a Government acting through Ministers and the court imposed such punitive measures on ordinary citizens for exercising their right to industrial action. We call for the actions of Ministers from the time to be investigated, and for all the remaining records to be made public. That includes the Ministry of Defence and British Gas contracts, and any Crown Estate leases relevant for a future appeal. Following a GMB campaign almost a decade ago, the European Parliament committee on petitions called on the UK Government to release all relevant papers, but that has never been actioned. More importantly, we want a formal Government apology to these workers. The legal team believes that the court was given inaccurate information at the time of the initial prosecutions, and that the workers may not have been lawfully dismissed. It argues that Cammell Laird may have had no legal standing to bring the claims that led to the injunctions, and that the occupation may have occurred on land that was not under the company’s control. These claims are groundbreaking, and, with the help of the Minister, we can ensure that the campaign’s legal team has access to the appropriate documentation to finally bring about justice for the 37. During the 2023 Westminster Hall debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), the Justice Minister at the time stated that “this Department has conducted extensive searches of its records and those in the court and prison systems.” He also confirmed that he understood that “nothing has been found in relation to the Cammell Laird strike action or the strikers themselves.” —[ Official Report, 7 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 301WH.] He stated that other Departments, including the Cabinet Office, Home Office and the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, confirmed that they “do not believe” they hold any relevant records, which I find quite astounding. However, the Cammell Laird campaigners believe that an exhaustive search has not been undertaken. Papers must exist relating to the closure, and every effort should be made to identify and release them.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  The Hillsborough campaign fought for an independent panel, and it was through an independent panel that information was brought to light that enabled the campaign to move forward. Does my hon. Friend believe that an independent panel would help the 37 campaigners to move their case forward?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that when the Minister sums up, we will hear something direct in relation to that request. We need answers about who was behind the incarceration of the 37 Cammell Laird workers for contempt of court. Those men were not vandals or criminals. They were trade unionists defending their jobs, their pensions, and the future of the shipyard. I would be grateful if, when the Minister sums up, he fully committed to the search for the truth—committed that the Government will release every relevant document, fully investigate the decisions that led to the imprisonment of those workers, and agree to meet the campaigners and the legal team to discuss what support they need to exonerate all those workers. Forty-one years on, the call remains the same: justice for the Cammell Laird 37. They deserve our recognition and gratitude for their courage in standing up and fighting back, and while this debate and whatever follows it will not undo the damage done to the lives of those men, their families and our communities, it will go a long way towards achieving justice. Jobs, not jail, must remain the guiding principle. Those men deserve our full support as they seek a formal Government apology and seek to clear their names. We will not rest until the truth is uncovered and justice is finally done.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In July 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled in its advisory opinion that Israeli settlements and occupation are illegal and needed to be ended and dismantled retrospectively. Can the Minister explain why the UK Government still have not responded to the advisory opinion after 17 months?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Homelessness: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Liverpool is paying £25 million in the current financial year to house 1,700 people in temporary accommodation, 450 of whom are children. Does he agree that, although it is welcome that temporary accommodation funding is being moved into the revenue support grant, local authorities urgently need more support, given that they spend £2.8 billion on temporary accommodation, and we need to look at raising the local housing grant?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The proposed new “swift courts” will mean that decisions regarding guilt will be made by judges alone, who will have received vital, inadmissible and potentially prejudicial evidence. Can the Secretary of State assure us that judges’ decisions are not influenced by inadmissible evidence, given the significant consequences for both victims and defendants involved in cases that are no longer eligible for jury trials? If this policy goes ahead, will he consider a non-extendable sunset clause?

• 1 Dec 2025 · SEND: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I really welcome the Government’s increasing funding for SEND. However, almost 8,000 children in Liverpool now require an EHCP. The number has doubled over the past three years, with many parents struggling to find a school place that meets the needs of their child. Can the Minister please provide assurances to the Liverpool Parents and Carers Forum that the plan in the Budget to move the financial responsibility for SEND from local authorities to the Department for Education will be given the funding it needs to provide support to children who need it, including for earlier intervention, adequate specialist places and inclusive mainstream support?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Forty-one years ago, 37 Cammell Laird workers were imprisoned for protecting their jobs and protecting shipbuilding on Merseyside, and they are still waiting to clear their names. Last year, the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), said that her Department would consider and explore options for review and provide an update, but there has been no update, no review and still no justice for these men who were wrongfully criminalised for standing up for their rights in the workplace. Can the Leader of the House set aside Government time for a full debate on the Cammell Laird 37 and ensure that Ministers finally set out what action they will take to deliver exoneration for the Cammell Laird 37?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Access to Arts and Culture · Hansard source

  More

  Since its success as European capital of culture in 2008, Liverpool has played a key role in the UK’s creative industries. Does my right hon. Friend agree that success should not only be measured in economic terms, and can she explain how social value and tackling the under-representation of groups should be used as a measure of success by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Right to Trial by Jury · Hansard source

  More

  The 2017 Lammy review found jury trials to be the only part of the justice system consistently free from racial bias. With only 12% of judges being from ethnic minority backgrounds, these proposals risk deepening disproportionality and undermining confidence in the justice system. Can the Minister explain how the public and ethnic minorities can have trust in this new Crown court division, when there is no evidence that it will even work to address the backlog?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Conflict in Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  Rape and violence against women and girls has been used as a weapon of war in El Fasher, with militias acting with impunity. What support has been given to non-governmental organisations working on the ground to support the victims, and does the Minister agree that diplomatic efforts must be ramped up to end this horrific situation?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Women in the Armed Forces: Defence Committee Recommendations · Hansard source

  More

  Royal Artillery Gunner Jaysley Beck committed suicide after being sexually assaulted and failed by the military. Can the Minister explain what is being done to ensure that women serving in our armed forces are protected from abuse and that complaints are handled with independence, compassion and the seriousness that they deserve?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise in support of this Bill today as the MP for Liverpool Riverside, as a very proud Scouser and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for miscarriages of justice. As we all know, Hillsborough stands as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice this country has ever seen. This Bill is about a simple, powerful idea: truth and justice. Those two words should underpin our systems of power, but from Hillsborough to Orgreave, the Manchester Arena tragedy, the Shrewsbury 24, Grenfell and Windrush, we know that too often that simply is not the case. For decades, working-class communities and the families who have lost loved ones have had to fight tooth and nail against institutions that were meant to protect them, only to find those same institutions closing ranks and themselves facing delay, denial and deceit. This Bill, and the Hillsborough law it seeks to deliver, are about ending the cycle once and for all. Let us be honest, though: that progress did not happen by chance. It is down to the tireless efforts of families and campaigners who refused to give up. I pay tribute to those families and campaigners who were in the Gallery, and to those who fought very hard, but are no longer with us. They kept this issue alive when others tried to move on and bury it. I also want to say thanks and pay tribute to my good friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham for their work so far on bringing this Bill forward. We know that this Bill, even with the best of intentions, may face obstacles. We have already heard about the possibility of it being watering down in the other place. We all know how things work in Westminster, and while it is welcome that the Government have brought the Bill forward, we are also being warned that it might be watered down, with its bite blunted and meaning diluted. It is on this House and all of us here to ensure that we fight back against that. On that shocking day in 1989, 97 innocent people were unlawfully killed, but we must recognise that the injustice did not end that day. The real scandal began in the days, months and years that followed, when the machinery of the state turned on the victims and the families. Police statements were altered. Blatant lies were printed on the front pages, particularly by “The Scum” newspaper. Families were smeared and forced to relive the trauma for decades, just to prove what they already knew: that their loved ones were not to blame. That is why we need a Hillsborough law, with a statutory duty of candour on all public officials so that truth is not optional and cover-ups are impossible. If that duty had existed in 1989, those families might not have had to wait 36 years for justice. If that duty had existed, perhaps we would not have seen the same play used again at Grenfell, or Orgreave, or with the infected blood scandal, the Post Office, Windrush and so many more that we have heard about in the Chamber this afternoon. We owe it to those families and to every family who has suffered injustice at the hands of the state to make sure it never happens again. That is why I want to take this opportunity to recognise the Cammell Laird workers, who were unjustly imprisoned in 1984 for standing up for their rights. Their struggle remains a stain on our history, and they are yet to receive justice. My good friend the former Member for Birkenhead is a staunch leader in that campaign, and I thank him for his incredible work. Their case, like Hillsborough, shows exactly why accountability in public office matters. When the state closes ranks, ordinary people pay the price. This Bill must establish a legal duty of candour on public officials—a duty to tell the truth, to co-operate fully with investigations and inquiries and to act in the public interest, not for self-interest. It must ensure parity of legal funding for bereaved families, because justice should never depend on someone’s postcode or pay packet. The Bill must deliver real accountability with real consequences for those who lie, mislead or obstruct justice, because if we have learned anything from Hillsborough, it is that words without consequences are meaningless. I am forever honoured to represent my home in this House. My city has lived and breathed this fight for more than three decades. It knows what institutional failure looks like and what courage, solidarity and persistence can achieve in the face of that failure. For the people of Liverpool, the fight for justice has never been abstract; it is deeply personal and born out of tragedy, betrayal and an unbreakable demand for truth. We are a proud city—proud of our history, our culture and, above all, our sense of solidarity. The campaign for justice after Hillsborough helped shape our modern identity, with a fierce refusal to be silenced, a stubborn loyalty to the truth and an unshakeable belief in collective action. Liverpool has shown this country what dignity looks like in the pursuit of truth. Now it is time for this country to show Liverpool that it has learned the lessons. I urge colleagues from all parts of the House to support this Bill with the strength and integrity that the people of Liverpool and people across the UK expect from us. We must fight for every detail until it is over the line and passed into legislation. Let us make truth, justice and accountability not just passing words today, but enshrined in our Hillsborough law forever.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Some 47% of children in my constituency live in poverty. The Minister mentioned that he will consider all levers. Does that include speaking with the Treasury to look at a wealth tax to bring in much-needed money to the Treasury to remove the two-child cap?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Prisoner Release Checks · Hansard source

  More

  The case of Kebatu has exposed deep failings in our prison system as a result—as we have heard—of 14 years of failure by the previous Tory Government. Those failings were made worse by chronic staff shortages. The immediate, reckless skilled visa rule change risks forcing hundreds of experienced overseas officers out of the service overnight. At HMP Liverpool, 40% of staff could be affected. Will the Secretary of State explain how stripping our prisons of trained staff will make them safer or help prevent further failures like those seen in Mr Kebatu’s case?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order relates to the same person, but it is a different point. I rise to raise a matter of both parliamentary courtesy and political accountability. I have been informed that last week, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) held a political meeting in my constituency without giving me any prior notification. I have informed the hon. Member that I would be raising this as a point of order. Although there is no formal rule preventing Members from visiting other constituencies, it is a fundamental convention of this House that MPs respect the local representation of their colleagues and notify them before seeking to engage with their constituents. They know that they are not welcome—coming into my constituency, stirring up hate and division. To ignore this convention of the House is discourteous; to do so in a city like mine, with a very long and proud history of diversity, is politically provocative. I call on the House to recognise that such actions undermine the norms of mutual respect between Members and disregard the right of constituents to be represented by their elected MP. The people of Liverpool Riverside do not welcome this opportunistic political activity. Madam Deputy Speaker, do you agree that this matter requires urgent attention, and can you reaffirm the principle that parliamentary conventions and respect for local representation must be upheld by all Members?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to speak in favour of my new clause 2, as well as new clauses 18 and 22. Fourteen years of Tory austerity have left prisons in crisis. They are severely overcrowded and understaffed. There are significant challenges on the prison estate, including staffing shortages. HMP Liverpool expects to see a massive reduction in staffing due to the impact of the skilled worker visa scheme. Prisons were forced to take emergency release measures to prevent a complete system breakdown. There is much to appreciate in this Bill, and more to wait for from the Law Commission’s sentencing review, but I echo the concerns raised: without sufficient resourcing and transparent, clear guidance, the ambitions of the Bill risk failing. We know that over half of those serving a sentence of less than 12 months reoffend, and women prisoners disproportionately receive shorter sentences. The link between short sentences and reoffending contributes greatly to the pressures on prison capacity. Mental health treatment, alcohol and drug misuse treatment and other rehabilitative services bring wider social benefits and protect the public far better than the current system by tackling the causes of crime. The organisation JUSTICE has stated that without proper resourcing, staffing and funding, rehabilitative services will remain too overstretched to be effective. In August 2025, a shortfall of 10,000 Probation Service staff was recorded. The Bill’s impact assessment estimates the need for an additional 500 probation staff each year. Will the Minister reassure Members that he understands the scale of the task ahead, and outline his commitment to allocating adequate resources to ensure that our frontline services can deliver the provisions and vision of the Bill? New clause 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), seeks to provide leave to appeal where there has been change in the law that is material to the conviction, and where the application is served before the conviction is spent. A version of the new clause was first moved by the former MP for Huddersfield, my predecessor as chair of the all-party group for miscarriages of justice. It was written by Charlotte Henry, a formidable campaigner for Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association. I have long campaigned against the abuses of joint enterprise legal doctrine, and I take this opportunity to recognise the fantastic work undertaken by JENGbA over the past 15 years. The Justice Secretary previously provided commitments to JENGbA, and I hope that he will support new clause 22 today. My new clause 2 seeks to provide oversight mechanisms for electronic monitoring, which the Bill proposes increasing hugely. The plan is to create a prison outside a prison, but although that has potential to ease the overcrowding crisis on the estate, it could give rise to significant risks, without proper oversight and accountability. Tagging plays an important part in our criminal justice system, and if used correctly and ethically, it can help reduce crime and protect the public, while giving victims confidence that justice is being served. However, there are numerous problems, and those must be addressed before any further expansion, particularly the massive profits made by private sector companies. We must analyse the purposes of tagging, from public protection to being a punishment in itself. The Bill expands powers to ban offenders from specific places or certain activities, even when those have no connection with the offence. That is one glaring example of where tagging technologies risk leading to greater unchecked restrictions on our liberties. Failing private-sector contracts are at the heart of the problem, particularly those with Serco and G4S, now acquired by Allied Universal, which has a murky and well documented history of over-charging and under-delivering, and which has been fined tens of millions of pounds as a result. I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place, which last year said it was “remarkable” that Serco and G4S had been reappointed to provide tagging services after they had “been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and subject to fines for misconduct and a deferred prosecution agreement”. The issue is not only money; we are giving those companies more and more control of sensitive and clearly transformational criminal justice technology. Instead, we should use this decisive moment to bring tagging firmly into the public sector Probation Service, as is common in the rest of Europe, and out of the hands of failing and fraudulent privateers. The Government have promised the biggest insourcing in a generation, and if they fail to insource these services, they should consider demands by the unions to make the companies that make and provide the tags also fit the tags, pre-release. That is in my new clause 2(2)(c). I remind Members of the appalling case of Gaie Delap, a Just Stop Oil activist in her late 70s, who spent extra weeks in prison because Serco could not find a tag to fit her. The companies making millions from these contracts should be sanctioned, so that they deliver services correctly. They should not be allowed to rely on overstretched prison staff to pick up their work. Will the Minister assure the House on that point? The fragmented privatised system creates huge delays and inefficiencies, and provides financial challenges for the people whom it supervises, who, for example, have to charge tags without having access to electricity, or money to pay for it. I support new clause 18, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), which calls for an annual report detailing the use of tagging, and including information on the number of tags fitted, the number of malfunctioning devices, the rate of compliance and the cost of administrating the system. That important data must be freely available if the public and unions are to have any confidence in electronic monitoring. Justice unions and the frontline workers whom they represent are calling for greater oversight, accountability and transparency in monitoring performance, and for any failures to be addressed immediately, not covered up by profit-hungry corporations. I join them in calling on the Government to commit to a full review of the feasibility of all tagging being managed by the Probation Service in the future, in a system run for public good, not private profit. In keeping with our promise to oversee the greatest wave of insourcing for a generation, now is the time for this Labour Government to bring this increasingly vital public service fully into the public sector, where it belongs, so I ask hon. Members to support my amendments.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Ending Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Efford. I thank my good friend and constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), as well as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for securing this debate. I welcome the Minister to her place. As the MP for Liverpool Riverside, I have witnessed at first hand the devastating impact of homelessness. Before I was elected, I worked for Liverpool adult services and supported a number of service users living in hostels or on the street, many with multiple complex needs, including mental health issues, addiction and disabilities. There were people losing their legs due to injecting, or using drugs or alcohol to self-medicate because they were abused as kids in care; care leavers left to fend for themselves; and victims of domestic violence arriving in Liverpool from other cities. Homelessness can affect many people for very different reasons, and what is needed is not just decent, affordable homes but wraparound care to meet a variety of needs and to prevent homelessness from happening in the first place. The crisis in homelessness cannot be overstated, but under this Labour Government we have the opportunity to end it, with the political will and a much-needed homelessness strategy. We have heard the devastating data and statistics, particularly about children living in temporary accommodation. Those figures should shame us all, but particularly those rogue landlords. We need a homelessness strategy that tackles the disproportionate impact on black communities. Shelter’s report, “My colour speaks before me”, shows that from the moment black applicants engage with social housing, they face greater hurdles than white applicants. We must move away from costly crisis-response strategies that rely on expensive and insecure temporary accommodation, and instead invest in decent, affordable, secure and permanent homes. A Labour Government can achieve this; we just need the political will to make it happen.

• 20 Oct 2025 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps she plans to take to reform SEND provision.

• 20 Oct 2025 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s response and the £740 million investment into the sector. However, although Liverpool has improved waiting times for EHCPs, there remains a shortage of specialist school places and necessary support. Some 8,000 children in Liverpool now require an EHCP—that figure has doubled over the past three years—but almost half of them are educated in mainstream schools that do not meet their needs. More children with SEND are excluded from school and sent into inadequate pupil referral units and alternative provision. What steps will the Government take to ensure that SEND reforms deliver real improvements for families in Liverpool Riverside, and that no child is excluded from education because of a lack of services?