Paula Barker MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  Will the hon. and learned Member give way?

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

  More

  I rise to support the Bill. I start by thanking the Prime Minister for delivering on our manifesto promise to bring the Hillsborough law before the House. As a Liverpool MP and someone who had family and friends at Hillsborough —they fortunately all came home—I would not have accepted anything that was not accepted by the families, and I know that my neighbouring colleagues feel the same. I am grateful, as I know the families will be, to the Prime Minister for confirming that he will accept no watering down of the Bill during its parliamentary passage. I sincerely hope that those in the other place have heard that pledge loud and clear. I pay tribute to my constituent Mark Corrigan, who is in the Public Gallery, along with many family members of the 97. Mark’s brother Keith McGrath was one of the 97 who was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. His parents, Mary and Joe Corrigan, fought all the way to the end for truth and justice, and demonstrated the strength, dignity and resilience of all the families. Our city, on the banks of the Mersey, knows about solidarity, love and empathy. We have one another’s backs, and we know all too well that an injustice to one is an injustice to all. I can say proudly that the bonds that were forged in the fire of 15 April 1989 are as a strong today as ever. As I have said previously in this place, Scousers have long memories. We shall never forget. We will continue to mourn our lost loved ones, and we will always fight for truth and justice, opposing those who continue to spread the appalling lies about that fateful day with every fibre of our being. On that point, Margaret Aspinall, who lost her son James at Hillsborough, has said: “Today Hillsborough Law is finally debated in Parliament. But justice won’t be done until the S*n, too is made to answer for its abuses. The Prime Minister promised us that he would see this through. It is time for him to deliver the justice he promised, to build on today’s vital achievement by making Leveson 2 a reality, and ensure the media is held to account for its role in state failures and cover-ups.” Appallingly, The Sun played a key role in the cover-up of the Hillsborough disaster by working with South Yorkshire police to spread lies about what happened and hide the truth. The Bill before us does not contain any references to Leveson 2 or the role of the press and is exclusively focused on public officials and authorities. As welcome as that is, I would be grateful if the Prime Minister could update the House as soon as possible—I note that he is no longer in his place. Will he consider establishing a public inquiry into the relationship between the police and The Sun ? Will he keep his promises by meeting with victims of press abuses and working with them to introduce further legislation to tackle press standards and corruption? If any small flicker of light can come from the darkness of Hillsborough, it must be protection for succeeding generations from the pain and anguish of the lies, the misinformation and the cover-ups that we witnessed and suffered from for more than three decades. I welcome the fact that this law will ensure that families bereaved by public disasters are treated far better and do not have to fight for decades, and I welcome the duty of candour, although I can hardly believe that we must legislate for people to tell the truth. The fact that it has taken more than three decades to get to this point is a grotesque abdication of responsibility by those in this place to those whom we represent, those who do not pull the levers of power, and those with little resource other than their collective determined voice. When we say “Never again” to Hillsborough, we are also saying “Never again” to Grenfell, the Manchester Arena attack, the Horizon scandal, nuclear test veterans, the infected blood scandal and so many more. If the law does not place itself on the side of ordinary, good and decent people, it will consign itself to being a hobby tool for the privileged and powerful in safeguarding their own interests. We should never hear just the voices of those in this place; we should listen to the people who do not walk these corridors of power. Let us give power to them and amplify their voices. Anything less is an injustice. We need to pass this Bill in full for the families, the victims, and the survivors. Justice for the 97!

• 21 Oct 2025 · Ending Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As co-chair of the APPG for ending homelessness and the co-sponsor of this debate, I thank all colleagues who have attended; our new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern); Crisis, the secretariat for the APPG; and our fantastic steering group, comprised of organisations that support people who are homeless. This debate comes at a vital moment. In 2023-24, some 1,611 people died while homeless—up 16% on the previous year. Eleven of them were children. Four were babies aged under one. Long-term rough sleeping is up 13% compared with last year, and long-term rough sleepers now outnumber those who are new to the streets. We have already waited long enough to see a strategy that addresses the moral injustice of homelessness, and I hope the Minister can share an update on progress. The Prime Minister was absolutely correct to say in Liverpool that we must renew Britain. However, true renewal is possible only with deep roots and strong foundations. We often talk about the importance of a home as a foundation for a good life. Today, I would like to set out how ensuring that the cross-departmental strategy for homelessness delivers secure, affordable homes for everyone can be the foundation of a good society and a better Britain—a country where parents know they will be able to feed their kids after they have paid their rent, where workers can focus on their job and not where they are going to sleep that night, and where people are welcomed into secure communities, not left on the streets. The latest report of the APPG for ending homelessness, “Homes, Support, Prevention—Our Foundations For Ending Homelessness”, sets a clear blueprint to build that foundation, and I urge the Minister to consider it. The report includes the ambition of halving the use of temporary accommodation and ending rough sleeping by 2030. I am incredibly proud that in their time in office the last Labour Government managed to drastically reduce rough sleeping and the use of temporary accommodation. As an heir to that Government, will the Minister commit to that target and to emulating the progress made on this issue by her Labour predecessors? This is no utopian target. Our report sets out how to get there by delivering social homes, improving support systems and prioritising prevention to address the root causes of homelessness. On that first point, I welcome the new Secretary of State’s enthusiasm for building and his recognition that we need homes to end homelessness, but England has seen a net loss of 180,000 secure, truly affordable social homes over the last decade, and we must be mindful that our current plans will not match the 90,000 social homes a year that the National Housing Federation and Crisis have calculated we need. It is therefore doubly important that the homes built are accessible to people experiencing homelessness. For example, domestic abuse survivors often have to leave at short notice, with little to no help. Although the changes to the local connection rule for survivors are welcome, it remains the leading cause of homelessness among women. Too often, survivors cannot access a secure home. When compiling evidence for our APPG report, we heard a heartbreaking story from a survivor of domestic abuse who had been stuck in temporary accommodation so filthy that she could not let her children play on the floor. Will the Minister set out how she intends to work with the Housing Minister on the long-term housing plan and with the Safeguarding Minister on the violence against women and girls strategy, to ensure that those plans complement her own strategy and that every survivor who takes the decision to leave has a secure home to go to? Will she also consider a full roll-out of the “whole housing” approach? On improving support, the evidence we collected from frontline services and homeless charities was clear: they need to secure funding to deliver effective support for people with multiple needs who need more than a home to end their homelessness. People and local authorities are trapped in a cycle in which the scale of urgent need is overwhelming services, leading to worse outcomes despite higher spending. The National Audit Office gave evidence that the current system was “unsustainable” and over-focused on crisis management, not prevention. We need to break the cycle with both an emergency response to spiralling rates of homelessness and an ambitious, resourced plan to transform homelessness support within a decade. Will the Minister commit to matching the calls for homelessness funding to be consolidated, flexible to needs and based on multi-annual contracts? Finally, on prevention, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke about the importance of breaking down silos in public services, but it is also important that broader departmental spending decisions do not cause homelessness. For example, when compiling our report, the APPG heard evidence from charities and local authorities that the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions to freeze local housing allowance is making homes unaffordable as rents continue to rise. I can see that playing out in my Liverpool Wavertree constituency: according to analysis by Crisis and data from Zoopla, just three in every 100 properties advertised for rent last year were affordable for people who rely on local housing allowance. When people inevitably miss out, they have nowhere to go but the local authority. It is therefore entirely unsurprising that council spending on TA is spiralling, with a 25% rise across England in the last year alone, and as the Minister has rightly identified, record numbers of children are now homeless and housed in temporary accommodation. Does the Minister agree that although the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has every right to be prudent, we cannot simply ignore the economic reality of how much it costs to rent a home and ask local authorities and society to pick up the pieces? Will the Minister also consider rolling out Housing First? The pilots in Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region and the west midlands achieved 84% tenancy sustainment—84% of people sustained long-term tenancies after three years—and measurable cost savings. Analysis from the Centre for Social Justice finds that for every £1 invested in Housing First, the public purse saves £2 through reduced A&E, policing and justice costs. Social homes, secure support and a truly preventive system that helps people to avoid homelessness are the kind of common-sense steps that will build the foundation of a Britain that we can all be proud of at the next election.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to preface my comments by saying that everybody in this place was horrified by the attack on the synagogue in Heaton Park, and that my comments today are purely based on safety. A year before the Hillsborough disaster, safety concerns at Sheffield Wednesday’s stadium were raised by an official, but the ex-council safety officer was told by bosses in 1988 to keep his nose out of such concerns. Nobody in this place needs to be reminded of what happened as a result of ignoring that safety advice: 97 innocent men, women and children lost their lives. We have safety advisory groups for a reason, and it is a slippery slope when safety concerns are ignored. I believe it is unprecedented for a Government to try to overturn such advice, and I respectfully disagree with the Secretary of State that bans do not go on, because we have had a lot of cases, both nationally and internationally, with the most recent one being Napoli versus Eintracht Frankfurt. Can the Secretary of State be explicitly clear: has she seen the safety advice? If so, does she disagree with the safety advice? If she does disagree, can she tell the House on what grounds she disagrees? It is imperative that this House is clear, because if the Government are successful in having the decision overturned, particularly after the scenes we witnessed last night at the Israeli derby, people are going to ask questions.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Pride in Place · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this Labour Government’s £22 million investment in Fairfield in my constituency, which was ignored by the Conservatives. Does the Minister agree that it is crucial for this programme to provide not just new money, but new powers for local people to decide how it is spent? Will she confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that the money should not be used to deliver core council services?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Let me begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing and leading this important debate. His personal testimony of that fateful day in April ’89 is a moving one. He has used his voice in this place to continue the fight for truth, justice and accountability. Most importantly, I pay tribute to the family and friends of the 97, to the survivors of that terrible day and to my city, which has always stood together and continues to do so today. Their tenacity, resilience and dignity are a lesson to us all. I would like to take a moment to quote Jenni Hicks, who lost her two daughters at Hillsborough. “I’ll never get that accountability for my daughters but we’re still fighting on behalf of Grenfell, Manchester Arena and other disasters that are bound to happen in future. What runs alongside the loss of my daughters is the knowledge that this is a country that’s prepared to accept this injustice and that’s why the system has to be changed. You can't just say that’s it, that’s how it is. If something’s wrong, you have to try and do something about it.” Let’s forget the legal speak. Can anyone name a better summary of the guiding light and principled mission of this campaign for change? The truth is that none of us should be here in Westminster Hall today. Our Prime Minister promised this legislation at the Labour party conference in Liverpool last year, and in our manifesto. So, yes, I am angry that it is not yet on the statute book. Whether specific Ministers are to blame, or senior civil servants, or Government lawyers, I really do not care. This needs to be sorted, and sorted quickly. In the last week or so, we have seen several media reports that state we are near an agreement on the legislation, but I must place on record that the delay is one thing, but the watering down is another. It is quite frankly unacceptable, and should shame my party. It should not take a backlash to focus minds to do the right thing. As MPs and Ministers, that should always be our guiding principle. We must deliver this legislation in full, no ifs and no buts. Anything else would be an affront and a betrayal to my city. The purpose of the state, indeed of our whole system of Government, is the service of people. The welfare of the people should be the highest law. I finish by asking the Minister to get this on the statute book as quickly as possible, and by saying: justice for the 97.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I place on the record my sadness at the loss of Diogo Jota and his brother Andre? I know it will be felt across my city of Liverpool. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife and three young children. The six-week statutory maximum for the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation is being ignored. Under the direction of the late Lord Prescott and the previous Labour Government, this rule was enforced, and while I welcome our Government’s commitment to building social homes, we need short to medium-term interventions to address the crisis now. We cannot wait for the social homes to be built. Will the Leader of the House enable a debate to take place in Government time on the 165,000 children languishing in temporary accommodation?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me start by saying how shocked I am that the Minister has intervened, near the end of the debate, to say that he will be removing the whole of clause 5 from the Bill. While I am grateful for the concessions, this has further laid bare the incoherent and shambolic nature of the process. It is the most unedifying spectacle that I have ever seen. As the House has just heard, we will vote tonight on the Bill as it stands on the Order Paper, and not as amended. I am really sorry to say this, but when it is not written down, it is not worth the paper it is written on. We were promised a Hillsborough law by April this year, and nothing has come to fruition.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention, and I absolutely concur with her views. We must be crystal clear on what we are voting for tonight: we are voting for the Bill as it stands, unamended. The late changes, combined with the compressed parliamentary timetable, mean that MPs will have just a single day to debate and consider amendments, and the fact that this is a money Bill means that it will not be subject to amendments from the House of Lords. Our movement, at its best, is the rising tide that lifts all boats—not some, but all. I cannot in good faith look my constituents in Liverpool Wavertree in the eye and tell them that this Bill would improve their lot, because quite frankly it will not.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not. It is with sadness that I will vote for the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and I will vote against the Bill. I implore my Government to do the right thing: to pause, take a breath, and let us get this right. Before entering Parliament I had served local government, the trade union movement and working people throughout my life. Service matters deeply to me, and I see it as my job to do exactly that as a Member of Parliament. I am a passionate believer in the dignity of labour and of secure, well-paid work being the route out of poverty and to opportunity and a life free from fear, but this Bill, I regret to say, will create poverty, and has already induced fear. I think everyone in this House believes that we need to reform our welfare system, but we must be honest: the Bill before us today is not reform. It is simply cuts, which have been brought forward to fill an economic black hole. In the Liverpool city region, nearly 30% of residents are disabled—more than 10% above the national average. Liverpool has one of the highest disability rates in the country, and our region already experiences some of the highest poverty rates in the UK. Even with concessions, this Bill still entails cuts, not reform. It will see 150,000 people pushed further into poverty, and create a stark disparity in our welfare state for disabled people. Despite a commitment to co-production, there is nothing that commits the Government to ensure that the PIP assessment review’s findings have any bearing on this legislation. Over the last few weeks, we have heard a lot about the lack of time to scrutinise legislation when debating another Bill in this place, yet here we are with a Bill that has concessions that are not actually on the face of the Bill because there has been no time. There will only be eight days between Second and Third Reading, which is truly a lack of time to scrutinise proposed legislation.