Paula Barker MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. I agree that what I said might not have been the most eloquent of answers. However, I would say that people in this country are fed up of the bond markets dabbling in the democracy of our country.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the families of the Hillsborough victims, and to all other families whom this law encompasses. I welcome this carry-over motion, but in all honesty, it is absolutely shameful that it is needed. In September 2024 in Liverpool, in his speech to the Labour party conference after being elected, the Prime Minister made a commitment to introducing the Hillsborough law into Parliament. He talked of the “countless injustices over the years, suffered by working people at the hands of those who were supposed to serve them”, and spoke of his “driving purpose” to show that “Politics can be on the side of truth and justice.” That is exactly why I cannot support a Bill that would provide an exemption from the duty of candour for members of the intelligence services. It would mean that the heads of the security services could decide that their operatives should not give evidence to an inquest or a public inquiry on grounds of national security. None of the families and friends of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, the fire at Grenfell Tower, the Horizon scandal or the Manchester Arena bombing wants to endanger national security in any way. However, there are already legal provisions to safeguard national security in the case of inquests or public inquiries. In fact, MI5’s website sets out clearly what they are. Under the Inquiries Act 2005, statutory public inquiries have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence, but the Act also allows for an application to be made for a restriction notice that can limit the extent to which evidence disclosed can be made public if it could genuinely damage national security. The same Act provides for a witness to apply for public interest immunity on the grounds of national security so that they do not have to give evidence, but crucially, it is for the chair of the inquiry to decide whether that should be granted, balancing the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosure. There is no reason why an additional exemption is needed in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—quite the contrary. The mission of our security services and the police is to keep our citizens safe, and the police failed in the case of Hillsborough; MI5 failed in not preventing the Manchester Arena bombing. They then tried to cover up that failure, which risks the failure being repeated. A duty of candour for public officials must include intelligence officers, to ensure that the truth always comes to light and lessons are learned that will make us all safer in the future. In his report on the Manchester Arena bombing, the inquiry chair, Sir John Saunders, wrote that witnesses from the intelligence services “who gave direct factual evidence to me during the closed hearing were able to offer real insight into their thought processes at the time. On occasion, it became apparent that the Security Service’s corporate position did not reflect what those officers did, thought or would have done at the material time. Rather, the corporate position was more by way of a retrospective justification for the actions taken or not taken.” That damning judgment shows how important it is that heads of the intelligence services are not allowed to prevent the duty of candour from fully applying to their officers. I welcome the fact that the Bill will be carried over into the next Session and will not fall, but I am angry that it is not on the statute book already. The duty of candour must apply to all public officials, and on the Wednesday before last, the Prime Minister committed to that in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). The report of the Independent Office for Police Conduct on Hillsborough was published in December. It was heartbreaking to read again how people suffered on 15 April 1989, but also the details of the subsequent cover-up and the cruel attempt to blame the victims. It took until 2016 for an inquest to finally rule that they had been unlawfully killed, and there is still no accountability or justice. That cover-up caused incredible pain to people who, to this day, continue to grieve for the loved ones they lost. Again, I pay tribute to them, and to the families of my constituents Keith McGrath, who lost his life, and Andrew Devine, who was the 97th victim of the Hillsborough tragedy. I hope that when this Bill is reintroduced in the next Session, the Prime Minister will make good on the promise he made, in order to prevent anyone else having to suffer as those families have done over the past 37 years. I say to the Minister that there has been enough obfuscation from our party and our Government. I do not know who is preventing this Bill from going forward, but it is absolutely shameful, and it must stop. The Hillsborough law must be delivered in full, and I think the Minister knows that there are many people in this Chamber, and certainly in Liverpool and Merseyside, who will accept nothing less than the Hillsborough law. Justice for the 97!

• 22 Apr 2026 · Junior Doctors’ Foundation Programme · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I remind the hon. Member that this is not a chance for a second speech; it is just a winding-up speech.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Southport Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and place on record my sympathies for the families of Alice, Elsie and Bebe, who are living with the most unimaginable loss. The Southport attack has been ruled a “disaster waiting to happen” after the perpetrator was referred to Prevent on three separate occasions, and Sir Adrian Fulford has highlighted other multi-agency failings. On 20 June 2020, my constituents Gary and Jan Furlong lost their son James, who was murdered during the Forbury Gardens terrorist attack—I am also thinking of them today. Like Southport, the perpetrator of the Forbury Gardens attack had been referred to Prevent four separate times, and multi-agency failures were also highlighted by Sir Adrian Fulford. Like the deaths of Alice, Elsie and Bebe, the deaths of James Furlong, Dr David Wails and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett were ruled to have been “probably avoidable”. I acknowledge that it will take some time to go through the 67 recommendations that have been made in respect of Southport. However, can the Home Secretary advise the House on whether, despite the improvements to Prevent that she has outlined today, she actually believes that it is fit for purpose? She said in her statement that “We must ensure we do not find ourselves here again, grieving deaths which should never have happened, had the state, and those who work within it, acted differently”, but the fact is that we are here again, and we are here time and time again after multi-agency failures. Can the Home Secretary immediately take steps in respect of joined-up partnership working, and outline to us what those steps will be, in order to ensure that no other family has to endure such loss?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for the contribution she is making. Will she commit to publishing the minutes of the interministerial group?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon Members for their thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions. I also thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), for their contributions, as well as the Minister for hers. I look forward to working with her constructively in the months and years ahead. I place on the record my thanks to Crisis for its incredible work. I particularly thank Dan Hewitt and ITV for keeping this all in the public domain—the work they do is incredible. I hope that, collectively, we can all use the moral clarity that we have found today in these abhorrent cases to spur us on to build a better Britain where nobody experiences homelessness. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of rough sleeping among families with children.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of rough sleeping among families with children. I place on the record my co-chairship of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. It is always an honour to speak in a debate under your stewardship, Dr Murrison, but I deeply regret the need to have this debate today. Government policy is clear. The letter of the law is clear. Basic decency is clear. No child should have to sleep rough on the streets of this country. Despite that, I found myself last week watching a stark ITV News report by Dan Hewitt revealing that the homelessness charity Crisis is seeing growing numbers of families with children who are homeless and approaching it for help after being turned away by their councils. In some cases, that has forced those families and children to sleep rough. Over six months, Crisis has identified 134 cases of families with children and pregnant mothers who came to its services asking for help to avoid or end their homelessness, because they had been unable to access support from their local authority. One hundred and thirty-four cases—that is about four a week, or almost one every single working day. Those cases included children as young as four, a child with epilepsy, refugees we have welcomed and single mothers. All were people who needed help, but were utterly failed by our broken system. In my time as shadow Minister for homelessness and rough sleeping and in continuing to be an advocate since then, I have heard many heartbreaking stories while campaigning in this space. I have seen relentless record highs in the numbers of people forced to sleep rough, people discharged from hospital to recover on the streets, and children doing their homework in mouldy bed-and-breakfasts. I thought I could no longer be shocked by how deep this crack in the foundation of our society runs, but I was wrong. Hearing about children being forced to sleep rough while the services built to help them played “pass the parcel” with their future was profoundly shocking. Before we talk about national plans, funding pots and statutory duties, I want everyone in this Chamber today to sit with these thoughts. What if that were me? What if it were my child having nowhere in the world to go, sleeping in a car or on the steps of a town hall, confused and getting colder, hungrier and more scared every night? How did it come to this? How is our system so broken that we cannot even keep children from having to sleep rough? We can end this scandal and deliver historic change if we hold on to the moral clarity that we feel right now and pull every lever we have. There are still many levers we can pull if we have the political will to prioritise this issue. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister because she has already written to all the councils in the country to remind them of their clear duties under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and under the Housing Act 1996. However, will she set out what accountability measures will be put in place to ensure that situations like this are unheard of, as they should be? These cases also show how guidance, laws and letters can take us only so far. I do not believe that anyone goes to work wanting to refuse help to a child facing rough sleeping, but the fact is that that is happening. It shows just how broken our system really is and how critical it is that we reduce the number of people and families being pushed into homelessness. I welcome the Government’s national plan to end homelessness. It is an historic first in tackling a range of forms of homelessness across England, setting out a new duty to collaborate between six key Departments, with outcomes frameworks for local authorities, and matching our APPG’s call for the collation of homelessness funding into a multi-annual pot. However, when the APPG for ending homelessness, which I co-chair, produced our “Homes, Support, Prevention” report, we listened closely to the homelessness sector—researchers, councils and experts by experience—to identify three key pillars that the Government need to address. The national plan only really addresses one and a half of those pillars. Without delivering on all three, some of which I accept are beyond even the Minister’s capable reach, families will keep being forced into desperate situations. The plan broadly focused on what we called the support pillar, with toolkits and an outcomes framework for local authorities that will be published in due course, as well as the prevention pillar, through the new duty to collaborate. I would welcome any further information the Minister can provide about the timeline for the consultations on the toolkit and the new duty. However, when we review the prevention targets, it becomes clear that a key driver of homelessness is not being adequately addressed: Home Office policy. Homelessness after move-on from asylum accommodation rose by 37% according to the last Crisis homelessness monitor for England, yet the only target the Home Office has signed up to is informing councils about when people are leaving its accommodation. The Home Office has effectively been let off the hook when it comes to preventing homelessness among refugees—people we have welcomed here—and has instead been allowed to start doing what other Departments have been expected to do for years under the duty to refer. This is a huge hole in the preventive wall the Minister is working to construct—one that will see homelessness and further division spreading across the country if it is not closed. I would like to talk about homes. Homes are the best and only truly sustainable way to end and prevent people’s homelessness, yet across the country an affordable home is becoming a pipe dream for whole communities, leading directly to unsustainable numbers of people needing homelessness support. It does not matter how quickly or effectively we bail if the boat is still sinking. It is therefore vital that the Government step up their social house building targets until the crucial 90,000 social homes per year—a figure supported across the homelessness sector—has been reached. One way that could be done is by stepping up work on empty homes. Analysis by Crisis found that just £1.38 billion of direct Government investment in local authorities and partner agencies could bring 40,000 long- term empty homes back into use as social homes over four years. I appreciate that this is not directly the Minister’s brief, but how is she working to ensure that the Minister for Housing and Planning understands the need for homes for people experiencing homelessness? We also need to look at short-term measures. The review of social homes allocation policy is welcome, but there needs to be a commitment to legislative change. The feedback I received from the 27 organisations on our APPG steering group was that people experiencing homelessness face a range of barriers to accessing social homes beyond simply supply, including being dubbed “too poor” to afford social rent homes. How far have we come from the purpose of social housing as housing to ensure that everyone can afford a home if people across Britain are being deemed “too poor” for it? Where are they meant to go? Supported housing, temporary accommodation, the street—back into the bowels of the system. I would welcome it if the Minister set out a timeline for her review of social homes allocation policy. Given the lack of social homes, the affordability of the private rented sector is crucial. For people who rely on benefits to pay their rent, the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget in November that the two-child benefit limit will be abolished was extremely good news. However, as it stands, many families in my constituency of Liverpool Wavertree and across the country are still struggling. There is an average gap of £200 per month between local housing allowance and the median rent for a home. That gap can turn a bump in the road into a car crash. If people lose their job, need to take up caring responsibilities or fall ill, they can no longer afford to pay their rent. When they are pushed into homelessness, the local council simply cannot find a local home that those people can afford, trapping them in temporary accommodation at much greater expense to the state—a classic false economy. I know that the Minister understands these issues. At a recent meeting of the APPG for ending homelessness, I was struck by her focus on the structural causes of homelessness, rather than on individuals. That is a welcome step forward from the last Government, but I am concerned that that understanding is not shared across other Departments. Do the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury know how hard it is for families on universal credit to keep a roof over their heads, given that fewer than three in every 100 homes are affordable on local housing allowance, and that the LHA freeze is pushing people into homelessness? Does the Home Office care that when it slashed the move-on period from asylum accommodation from 56 days to 28 days, it made it impossible for families who have been granted asylum to find a home in that time, and that is pushing people into homelessness? I would welcome it if the Minister set out how often the interministerial group on tackling homelessness and rough sleeping will meet. Will she commit to publishing the minutes? What steps will be taken if Departments in that group do not deliver on their stated commitments? We must not let national Government play “pass the parcel”, as local government has. Children’s lives are hanging in the balance. I know the Minister shares that determination, and I hope the Government as a whole do too.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Transforming Choice, led by Frances Molloy and her amazing team, is an alcohol detox and rehabilitation service based in Sefton Park in my constituency. It does incredible work to support people who are struggling with alcohol dependency and who have often also experienced homelessness, and the results are literally life-changing. It is supported in turn by Penny Lane Builders, who maintain its heating free of charge, ensuring that people accessing this life-changing service have heating and hot water—a totally selfless act and a demonstration of social cohesion. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising Transforming Choice and Penny Lane Builders, and will he make time for a debate in Government time on the social purpose of businesses, and the vital role that those like Penny Lane Builders play in their local communities, which often goes unnoticed?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Scottish Affairs Committee in 2024-25 and Industrial Transition · Hansard source

  More

  We begin with the Select Committee statement. Elaine Stewart will speak on the publication of the fifth report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, “The work of the Committee in 2024-25, and Industrial transition in Scotland”, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and then call Elaine Stewart to respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one question each.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I think I have made it clear what I think of the Government amendment. I will end by saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) did, that the Prime Minister said consistently during the general election campaign that we must always put country before party. He promised the country that this Labour Government would put country before party. I implore my Government to ensure that that is what they do today.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I place on record that my thoughts are with the women and girls who were victims of Epstein and his cronies. I am also deeply concerned for those who suffered incredible loss through the financial crisis in 2008. This House is at its best when we can find common ground and put aside party politics for the good of our country, and I believe that we are seeing that today. As the deputy Chair of both the Standards Committee and the Privileges Committee, I take that responsibility seriously, and I believe colleagues would say that I always act without fear or favour. Standards in public life and the Nolan principles are not optional to me; they guide my work every day. As politicians, every single one of us in this place must be guided by them every single day. Our national security is of paramount importance, and I know that nobody in this House would want to undermine that. During the Hillsborough law debate, it was made clear that there are existing legal protections for national security. At moments like this, we are reminded of the importance of and the desperate need for the Hillsborough law and a duty of candour. During this debate, it has been clear that allowing the ISC to have oversight is unquestionably the way forward. At a time when public trust and confidence in politicians and politics are at an all-time low, we must individually and collectively lead the way and assure the public that there is no hiding place for those who seek to betray our country for their individual greed. Mandelson has a chequered history in my party. Some might say that he has been like a cat with nine lives, being sacked from numerous positions. I cannot think of a more self-serving and self-absorbed politician than Peter Mandelson: a man who leaked market-sensitive information to a convicted paedophile and sex offender while the people of this country queued outside banks and building societies, wondering if their life savings had gone; a man who has benefited so much from being in this nauseous, disgusting web that he cannot even remember his account being credited with $75,000; a man who had no respect for our national security and international relations, because his nose was firmly in the trough. As a party, we must investigate the culture and those who have enabled Peter Mandelson to thrive for decades, constantly putting his own needs above those of our country and party. Leadership is about integrity, principle and vision. Those are the values of my Labour party, and we must embody them now more than ever. I am really sad to say that I am ashamed of the amendment the Government tabled. We have to do much, much better. I implore my Government to withdraw their amendment and let the ISC deal with the issues, because that is the right thing to do. Therefore, if it is not withdrawn, I must with a heavy heart vote against my Government’s amendment. I wrote to the Chief Whip earlier today to let him know my intentions.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  While I am looking forward to the statement a little later from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, I would like to push him, if I may. I recently visited one of my local pubs, the Masonic Arms on Lark Lane—which is a fantastic venue—and met Guy and Amelia. Currently, the overall sector picks up 2.8% of UK business rates nationally, but has only 0.5% of the turnover of UK businesses. This is clearly not a fair tax for pubs; it is the result of a uniquely skewed business rates system that actively penalises many pubs. What long-term steps can the Minister take to help pubs like the Masonic Arms and the wider hospitality sector?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I wish your leg a speedy recovery, Mr Speaker. I recently visited the wonderful Aura salon in my constituency and spoke to the owners Victoria and Janet, who have owned the business for 24 years and are the hub of their local community. They have invested in and trained numerous young hair stylists but now their business rates and VAT are crippling them, meaning that they can no longer take on apprentices. Victoria and Janet told me that the VAT rate that they pay is unbalanced compared with other sectors that claim back VAT. Will the Minister please advise what can be done to help salons like Aura and others that are part of the Save our Salons campaign, and are there any plans for an affordable apprenticeship scheme in the hairdressing sector?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  4. Whether she plans to increase the level of small business rates relief for the hair and beauty sector.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  Before I call the next speaker, I suggest an informal time limit of four minutes per speaker, because of the popularity of this important debate. I hope that Members will help each other out by keeping speeches to four minutes, please.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  Many happy returns to your son.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I ask the shadow Minister to bring his remarks back to the petition, please.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I am sorry, but I am going to have to take the limit down to three and a half minutes. It is an informal limit; if we can stick to it, I will not have to impose a formal limit.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  Order. May I bring the shadow Minister back to the issue of play, please?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  Order. After the next speaker, there will be a formal time limit of three minutes.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the families, some of whom are in the Public Gallery; to Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby KC, who have done phenomenal work for the past 37 years; and of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and to the Minister for the work that she has done on this. While I am pleased that the Government have paused proceedings on the Hillsborough law, I am increasingly concerned about the direction of travel. In March last year, the families of the 97 and Merseyside MPs made it clear that we would not accept anything less than the Hillsborough law. We all understand the importance of national security, but this Bill is not incompatible with national security. As has been said, provisions already exist, and quite frankly, nobody is above the law. A carve-out for the security and intelligence services would only allow the behaviour exposed by the Manchester Arena inquiry to happen again, whereby MI5 were able to withhold information and avoid accountability. The Minister has been very patient in her responses, but I urge her to continue to work with the families, and with Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby. Please, Minister, bring the Hillsborough law back to this House, so that we can all pass it, because as a Liverpool MP, it would devastate me to vote against the Hillsborough law.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  Compliance with international law is not an either/or, and I am extremely concerned that the action of the United States shows utter disdain for international law and leaves enormous uncertainty over the future of Venezuela. It removes a leader whose rule was corrupt and cruel, but rather than celebrating, many people there are now stocking up on food and medicines out of concern for what comes next. Trump’s rationale around stopping drug trafficking rings hollow following his pardon for ex-Honduran President Hernández. What specific actions will the Government take to stabilise the situation so that the Venezuelan people can decide their own future, and also to ensure that President Trump does not act on his threats against Colombia, Cuba and Greenland?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Middle East and North Africa · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister alluded to, British taxpayers have witnessed atrocities committed by Israeli authorities in Gaza and then acted by donating to NGOs that are ordinarily able to deliver much-needed humanitarian aid there. However, Israeli authorities continue to impede full humanitarian access, leaving aid paid for by the British public out of the reach of those who urgently need it. Can the Minister explain to the British public how the UK plans to urgently solve this ongoing issue and ensure an end to the obstruction of British charities?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is entirely up to you.