Business of the House

Debate between Alan Campbell and Kim Johnson

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

First, my thoughts are with our servicemen and women currently serving in the middle east. As the as the situation unfolds, our highest priority is to ensure the safety of our people in the region. My thoughts are also with those affected by the terrible attempted attack on the Finchley Reform synagogue. I am sure that the House will join me in thanking the police and emergency services for their swift action.

This week has seen the 37th anniversary of the disaster at Hillsborough. My thoughts are with the family and friends of those who died. As the Prime Minister reaffirmed yesterday, the Government are committed to delivering legislation and introducing a duty of candour across all public services.

I also want to pay tribute to Lord Jeremy Beecham. Lord Beecham was an incredibly influential and dedicated politician who was respected across the political divide. His dedication to the city of Newcastle changed the city into what it is today. I know that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to his family and friends.

During recess, we published our plan to halve knife crime. At the core of that plan is prevention, providing safe spaces in communities and supporting schools and families to address root causes. That means giving an alternative path to young people, which will literally save lives.

We have also announced our intention to invest £237 million to expand community diagnostic centres across England. Four CDCs will open, 17 will be expanded and 15 will receive enhancements to boost diagnostic capacity and get patients seen quicker. That means patients will be able to get swifter results, which is really important, and get them closer to home, which again is important. This week, over 500 new free breakfast clubs also began to open their doors, helping parents with the cost of living and giving children a healthy start to the day.

I turn now to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. If I may, I will deal broadly with his first two questions together. He referred first to the way in which the Prime Minister addressed the questions put to him yesterday, and secondly announcements made outside the House and whether the House should be the first to hear. The right hon. Gentleman has been here a very, very long time—[Interruption.] Well, a long time—let me put it that way. Not as long as me, but a long time. Frankly, we have both been here long enough to know better than to ask the questions he did. I know why he did so, and I understand exactly what the point is at the heart of it, but all Prime Ministers deal with Prime Minister’s questions in their own way. It is not unusual for any Prime Minister or any Minister not to give the answer that the Opposition want on a particular day, so let us not kid ourselves that we are entering a new chapter on that.

The shadow Leader of the House talked about announcements to the House. He actually said that the previous Government “on occasion” made announcements outside the House. On occasion? I think it was on occasion that they actually made the announcements in the House.

But there is a serious point, which I will address. I am absolutely clear, and I have said from the Dispatch Box before, that serious announcements should be made at the earliest convenience in the House. But we understand that politics is done in a different environment from how it was done a decade or two decades before: to some extent, it is a moving environment, and Government is working in that environment, too. However, I do take the shadow Leader of the House’s point, and I have said that announcements should be made in the House at the earliest opportunity.

Let me turn to the comments of Lord Robertson. The Prime Minister made his and the Government’s view clear on that. The shadow Leader of the House asked about the defence plan. It will be delivered, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the plan. I do accept that perhaps it has taken longer than any of us would have wished; let me give the House three reasons why that is so. The first is that we inherited a defence budget that was totally out of control and which had been mismanaged for the past 14 years. It had been, in the words of a previous Defence Secretary, hollowed out—and that was not a previous Labour Defence Secretary but a previous Conservative Defence Secretary. That is the first reason why it takes time to put this right and turn it around.

The second reason, and I think the shadow Leader of the House knows this because he is a distinguished member of the Defence Committee, is that we inherited an economic mess. If we are going to put defence right, we have to have the money to do that. Again, the right hon. Gentleman understands that, because he has all but admitted in this place that he is a secret Keynesian at heart. [Interruption.] He has admitted to it. Don’t worry; he has owned up to it. The point is that he understands, as do most people, that our economic inheritance was absolutely appalling, and we have to get that right too before we can press ahead with our commitments to properly fund defence.

The third point that is relevant here is that the botched Brexit deal left us diplomatically isolated, and the Prime Minister has personally invested a great deal of his time and energy to build alliances with our allies, not least in Europe. Those alliances are important as we look at the question of defence in a moving international situation and of where defence will be as we move forward. I cannot accept the analysis or the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that somehow, at the election, it was day zero and nothing that happened before that has any impact on the way in which this Government are forced to face up to those difficult decisions. We will publish the plan and there will be an opportunity to debate it.

Let me finish on this: I understand the shadow Leader of the House’s point about companies, and obviously there needs to be some certainty. However, let me just rid him of the suggestion that everyone is waiting for announcements and nothing is happening. Contracts are being issued all the time, and more than 80% of contracts in the last two years have gone to British companies, which is in stark contrast to the performance of the previous Government.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is urging his followers to behave ahead of the “Unite the Kingdom” march on 16 May. The Met police have allowed the fascists the freedom to march in central London. By contrast, the organisers of the annual Nakba march, who provided the Met with details last December, are still waiting to have their route approved. The previous “Unite the Kingdom” march erupted in unacceptable levels of violence, unlike the hugely popular and peaceful anti-genocide marches. The treatment of the two groups by the Met is stark and biased. Will the Leader of the House find the time for a debate on the alarming rise of far-right activity on our streets?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I know that my hon. Friend is a keen campaigner on these matters. I am sure that the Met police will have heard her comments. Where there is the threat of a demonstration turning to violence or disorder, the Met police have a responsibility to take that very seriously indeed, even if it takes a while to agree how, or indeed whether, that march will take place. It does not matter which part of the political spectrum it comes from; what matters is security on our streets, and we trust the Met police to get on with that.

Business of the House

Debate between Alan Campbell and Kim Johnson

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I cannot confirm when, but I know that this issue is uppermost in the minds of Ministers, because it is a problem in many communities, and I will take it up with the relevant Department and get the hon. Lady an answer.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Liverpool has the oldest established Chinese community across Europe. This year it marks the 80th anniversary of the then Labour Government’s deportation of thousands of Chinese seamen after the second world war—an act that left women and children abandoned and generations without answers. Will the Government make time for a full debate on the impact of that heinous act so that we can finally acknowledge the injustice, provide full transparency and an unreserved apology, and support descendants still seeking the truth about their loved ones? Will the Leader of the House also ask a Minister to respond to my letters, please?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I would encourage my hon. Friend to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can hear from the relevant Minister directly.

Business of the House

Debate between Alan Campbell and Kim Johnson

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

What an opportunity to showcase what the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say is a very beautiful part of the world. As he can probably imagine, I am not renowned for my cycling ability or my history of such things, but I know that a lot of my constituents and people across the country are, so it is a great honour to have the course routed through the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I wish everyone involved well.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I recently met Unison health and care workers from Liverpool, who highlighted deeply worrying reports of migrant care staff being underpaid, overworked and, in some cases, intimidated because their work visa is tied to their employer. Not only does this exploitation harm dedicated workers, but it drags down standards across adult social care at a time when we desperately need to strengthen the sector. When will the Government make time for a full debate on the impact of the changes to the skilled worker visa, and on their implications for the ongoing exploitation and poor pay and conditions in social care and other sectors?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

We utterly condemn any examples of underpayment or exploitation, and I put on the record that care workers do a fantastic job up and down our country. As for when we may get the opportunity to debate these matters, I will draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State and will do everything I can to find an opportunity for her to raise these matters in a debate.

Business of the House

Debate between Alan Campbell and Kim Johnson

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I appreciate the shadow Leader of the House’s comments, not least because we spoke earlier at the earliest opportunity. He will be aware, as will the House, of the importance and sensitivity of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. I recognise that it is not ideal for Members when we have to change business at short notice. Last Friday the Government tabled a series of amendments to further strengthen the Bill’s provisions. We continue to listen to stakeholders on all sides of the debate, to ensure that our amendments strike the careful balance that is required and, where necessary, make changes. For that reason, I decided that we would move the Bill from tomorrow to next Monday. I am not going to provide a running commentary on what the changes might be, but the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), is sitting next to me and has heard what the shadow Leader of the House has said. We will be tabling new amendments tomorrow. The Government will continue to keep all Members updated on this, and on Monday we will have an opportunity to debate these important matters fully.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement from the Leader of the House. However, I am concerned that the Bill has been pulled from tomorrow’s business and that there will be amendments. Watering down the duty of candour, especially for intelligence agencies such as MI5 and MI6, is completely unacceptable. Including the duty of candour in the Bill was meant to ensure accountability, prevent cover-ups and give victims and their families the answers that they are entitled to. If this law is not watertight and does not apply to everyone, it does not deserve to be called the Hillsborough law. Why are the Government pandering to the requests of the security services at the expense of families and the public trust?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

The short answer to the question is that we are not. My hon. Friend has been a very strong advocate on these matters and a great support for families. We understand the significance of the Bill, particularly in the region that she represents and wider still. The Government are absolutely committed to the duty of candour. I know that there have been questions about the application of the duty to, for example, the intelligence services. We have been very clear that the duty will apply to the intelligence services, but there is a careful balance that we must achieve. This is not about the principles of the duty of candour being applied but how the legislation will apply in practice and having the right national security safeguards in place. Nor is it about whether we can get there in the quickest possible time. It is about ensuring that we get to the right place and that we do it in the right way.

Business of the House

Debate between Alan Campbell and Kim Johnson

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I understand the concern of residents, particularly in areas where there is a local plan. The Government have brought forward robust measures to ensure that house building takes place, and I gently remind the hon. Member that people do need places to live. We need more houses, and housing will be one of the engines that drives economic growth. It is a matter of balancing these matters, so I understand her constituents’ concerns, but it is about building the houses where people need to live.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

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?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I will draw the matter to the attention of Ministers, because my hon. Friend is right that the people involved deserve an answer, and we will see what Ministers can do to provide that.

Business of the House

Debate between Alan Campbell and Kim Johnson

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I think I am the only MP who can say they have two amazing football stadiums and two majestic cathedrals in their constituency. Liverpool Riverside is in the top 10 areas nationally for jobs, economic income and economic value. However, the hospitality sector is still struggling to recover from covid and the rise in national insurance contributions. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time to discuss how we can bring the UK closer to EU competitors by reducing VAT and providing the maximum discount for hospitality sites with a rateable value of under £500,000, to stimulate demand, boost competitiveness and keep venues open?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner not just for her constituency, but for her city. The Government are always concerned about the state of hospitality and making sure that we encourage investment in hospitality, which is at the centre of many of our constituencies, not least mine. We must ensure that there is not just decent pay and conditions, but respect for the people who work in the sector. I gently say to my hon. Friend that I know the importance of getting the tax situation right, but we need to raise national insurance contributions in order to fill a financial hole. These were not easy decisions, but they were made, and people cannot have it both ways—they cannot have more spending on public services or hospitality support unless we actually raise the money in the first place.