Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Paula Barker Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. I am afraid that the definition of terminal illness is in a sense the essential flaw in the Bill, but I will come on to that.

Going back to the conversation that the patient has with the medical practitioner, the crucial point is that the conversation does not need to be started by the patient, according to the Bill. It could be started by the medic—any medic—perhaps in hospital, who could make the suggestion of an assisted death to a patient who has never raised the issue themselves, whose family have never suggested it and whose own doctor does not think it is the right thing to do. And so the idea is planted.

Then, for whatever reason—and, by the way, there is no need ever to give a reason—the patient says that they want to proceed with an assisted death. They sign a declaration, or rather somebody else can sign it for them. It could be any professional, someone they do not know—maybe a new medical practitioner. A total stranger can do all the paperwork on their behalf. That is what the clause about the proxy entails. Then these two medical practitioners make their assessment.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I urge the hon. Member to check the wording of the Bill, because if somebody signs as a proxy, they have to have known the individual for two years, and would simply be signing to say that they agree with the patient who wishes to go forward with assisted dying.

[Danny Kruger]

I do not have time to check the Bill now, but from my memory it refers to someone who has known the patient for two years or someone of good standing in the community, which could be some sort of professional who is not known to them at all. Someone can quickly check the Bill, but my understanding is that it could be a total stranger to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I am honoured to rise to lend my support to the Bill, and I am proud to support my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) as one of the Bill’s co-sponsors.

Data shows that in my city of Liverpool 74% of people are in favour of assisted dying. I have been privileged to correspond with and meet so many of my constituents who have shared with me their views and personal stories, spanning both sides of this important debate, and I thank them all. As we have heard today, there are strongly held beliefs on both sides of the House. I absolutely respect those with views that differ from my own, and hope that they respect my views, even if we disagree.

Since long before I entered this place, I have been an advocate of assisted dying, with the appropriate safeguards, to alleviate unnecessary suffering. My own mum cared for my dad during his cruel battle with cancer. Sadly, not even the best palliative care could provide him with a good death—and I do believe that there is such a thing as a good death. At its core, the Bill is sensible, safe and compassionate. But above all else it places human dignity at its heart.

In respect of palliative care, the Bill is not an either/or. Along with many other campaigners for assisted dying, I fully support improving palliative care. It has been proven that end of life care has improved in several countries because of assisted dying reform. I hope that, if the Bill passes, the UK will also belong on that list. Palliative experts, including those opposed to law change, admit that some people’s suffering is beyond the reach of even the best palliative care.

I do not believe that if the Bill finally becomes law, it will create a slippery slope. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) eloquently said, terminally ill adults in Oregon have had a legal option for assisted dying for more than 25 years, and not once has it been expanded to include other groups.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Paula Barker]

No. I am sorry, but I will not.

Every year, around 650 terminally ill people take their own lives, and countless others who are more affluent make the choice of the long, arduous journey to Switzerland, all without any protections in place. I do not want choice to be available only to those who can afford to pay. That is not just or equitable.

Finally, just like with many other private Members’ Bills that have gone before and looked to bring about social reform—such as those on abortion, divorce and the decriminalisation of homosexuality—this is an historic moment and an opportunity, if taken, to give real dignity to those who have reached the end of life and want a choice, while also respecting the views of those who do not want to take that choice.

Prison Capacity

Paula Barker Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Member is right. In the end, individual sentencing decisions are for judges. They have discretion to apply the law as they see fit in the circumstances of the cases in front of them, and nothing that we have decided changes that picture. More broadly, we will have a sentencing review—it is something we committed to in our manifesto, and I will say more about that later in the year—to make sure that all our sentencing is consistent and coherent, and that our sentences do actually work, which is what they are meant to do.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I welcome the Lord Chancellor to her place. She has certainly hit the ground running in a very difficult backdrop from the previous Government. We know only too well that, often, prisoners are released on Friday afternoon, with little or no access to statutory services, and they become homeless. What assurances can she give the House that this has been thought through, and the unintended consequence of this decision will not be extending the homelessness crisis?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The implementation period that we have put forward in our proposals will allow the probation service time to prepare. As I have said before, that is different from the early release scheme brought forward by the previous Government; it will allow the probation service to do its job and ensure that there is a proper plan for all releases into the community so that they are successful releases. I am sure that my hon. Friend will know about the community accommodation service, which provides transitional accommodation for up to 84 nights for those who are at risk of leaving prison homeless. That will continue. The previous Government scheme released prisoners with little or no warning. This scheme is different. It gives probation time to prepare and should hopefully iron out some of the previous problems.

James Bulger Murder: Public Inquiry

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Henderson. I thank my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth), for bringing forward this debate today, as well as the thousands of constituents who signed the petition to have this debate heard.

The horrific abduction, torture and subsequent murder of James Bulger over 31 years ago shocked the nation, particularly my home city of Liverpool where it took place. It remains an act of unimaginable evil and something that continues to horrify the people of my city and beyond. I commend the bravery and persistence of James’s mum, Denise Fergus, and her husband, Stuart, in keeping their son’s legacy alive in their campaign for truth, justice and transparency.

I am not legally trained in criminal law, but as a human, a citizen and a mother myself, I cannot help but assert that it is in the interest of the public and their safety, particularly that of young children, that Jon Venables should remain behind bars. I welcome the decision of the Parole Board late last year to refuse Venables’s release, which said he could not be trusted outside of jail. While there is no doubt the same issue will rear its ugly head in a couple of years’ time, I hope that common sense will once again prevail. Let us not forget that Venables is indeed a danger to the public, having been found to have reoffended not once, but twice. I am a firm believer in rehabilitation, but I also acknowledge that not everyone can be rehabilitated, and I think that this is a case in point.

Kym Morris, the chair of the James Bulger Memorial Trust, summarises the demands of the campaign effectively when she says that

“Victim families should have full access to all of the transcripts, evidence, everything. If you went to a trial, you would have access to all of this, so what difference does a parole hearing have? That’s what we should do going forward.”

I know that the Ministry of Justice is in some ways alive to that call. Since 2022, allowing victims some access to observe an offender’s hearing has been trialled, with a view to rolling out the scheme more widely in the future. I urge the MOJ to continue moving at pace in overseeing the delivery of the “Parole Board Strategy and Business Plan 2023-2025”, which specifically sets out the Parole Board’s aims in relation to openness and transparency for the next two years and for the next five years. For the next two years, the following steps are outlined:

“Victims able to observe parole hearings with greater ease across the country… Panels are trained and have the necessary guidance to ensure victim observed hearings are effective… Support evidence-based research and analysis of both our current operating model and impact of reforms”.

Then, for the next five years—a period that is crucial for securing lasting change—these steps are set out:

“A more court like operating model”,

and

“Redacted release decisions published in all cases by the secretariat under delegated authority.”

However, that is not what happened last year, when the Parole Board denied a public hearing into Venables’s parole decision. That was hugely disappointing, given that many people believe that the necessary adjustments could have been made to comply with the original High Court injunction regarding Venables’s identity. Of course I respect the independence of the Parole Board, but I have no doubt that wholesale cultural and operational shift at the political level is needed to deliver the changes that are required to give confidence and reassurance to victims and their families.

The historical failings in the system with regard to Venables are clear, and retrospective transparency can and must be applied. The Omand review in 2010 did little to generate confidence in the original decision in 2001 regarding Venables’s release. The mitigating circumstances leading up to his release and any potential influence of others at Red Bank who allegedly engaged in gross misconduct must call into question the original decision. Why did experts consider Jon Venables to have been rehabilitated? I make no personal judgment on that decision, but I find it staggering to assert that, by denying a public inquiry, lessons cannot be learned.

I support a public inquiry. Those in power trot out the usual lines—“It’s too expensive, time-consuming and resource-intensive. There’s nothing to see here.” Even after events like Hillsborough, the penny does not seem to have dropped that victims might—just might—refrain from calling for such inquiries if the system and public sector agencies afforded victims transparency in the first place. If there is “nothing to see here,” let us have all the facts laid bare. The number of signatures on this petition demonstrates the clear strength of feeling on this matter, with more than 3,000 signatories from my Liverpool, Wavertree constituency alone.

Our city of Liverpool remembers James, with fondness for the beautiful little boy he was, and with sadness for the fact that he did not get to live a life that was full and happy or to fulfil his ambitions and potential. That potential was sadly taken away from him and his family in the most unimaginable and horrific of ways. To lose a child in such circumstances should never happen; for his family to still be fighting for justice 31 years later should never have happened and is unbelievably cruel. I hope that Ministers listen today. Once again I pay tribute to the bravery and persistence of Denise and Stuart Fergus and their wider family, as they fight for justice in memory of James.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paula Barker Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

Data on foreign national offenders is collected at the point when an individual becomes an offender—in other words, at the point of conviction—but in addition, the Ministry of Justice records the numbers in custody awaiting trial who are FNOs, and that stands at approximately 3,300. On driving the figures down, the Home Office is working to increase take-up of conditional cautions, which lead to FNOs being expelled from the UK, in place of prosecution, in appropriate cases.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

T2. The Vagrancy Act 1824 is 200 years old this year. Yes, it was supposedly repealed in 2022, but it remains in force. The Criminal Justice Bill, unamended, represents a genuine danger to rough sleepers everywhere. When will Conservative Members stop this madness, and when will we see that 200-year-old piece of legislation taken off the books?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)]

I think the hon. Lady for her question. The Criminal Justice Bill deals with repeal provisions for the Vagrancy Act, and we are bringing the Bill back on Report with more on rough sleeping.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paula Barker Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

The magistrates have continued to make good progress in reducing the backlog, and that is a testament to the work they do on our behalf.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

T4. According to probation unions, recent restructure and staff shortages are making it extremely difficult to keep tabs on some of the most dangerous individuals in our society. That is adding to the already endemic workforce retention issues. Probation workers are struggling under the pressure, as many leave the profession, leaving newly qualified and less experienced staff to take the reins. Why are calls for immediate Government intervention being ignored by the Department, and will the Minister sit down with probation unions this week as they launch their campaign, Operation Protect?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)]

The work that our probation service does is incredibly important and, like the work of prison officers, it often goes unseen. There have been recruitment challenges throughout society, as the hon. Lady will know, but we have been focusing particularly on recruiting into probation. I am pleased to report that, over the past couple of years, we have exceeded our target, which was already stretching to 4,000. In regions such as London, where recruitment has been particularly difficult, we have had encouraging signs, including, for example, 144 new trainee probation officers starting in London in 2022-23. Their ongoing training and professional development will be incredibly important over the next few years.

Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls

Paula Barker Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

Since I entered this place, I have given much political headspace to the issue of male violence against women and girls, and I wish that was not the case. However, there is a duty on every one of us to speak out about this issue, which is endemic in our society. It is not getting better; the difference is that it now occupies more column inches and headlines than it did. We need to ensure that that remains so until the problem gets better, but even now, in this instance, I fear we are some way off from making any real progress.

We should be talking about closing the gender pay gap, delivering for working-class women in low-paid sectors such as social care, bettering access to affordable childcare for young mothers and encouraging young girls and women to enter the arena of science and technology but alas, no—yet again, we are in this place debating and talking about just keeping women and girls safe from male violence. We are yet again discussing our inability as a society to protect 50% of our population from harassment and sexual assault, from rape and from murder. That is how imbalanced the scales are, and frankly it makes me angry that we as lawmakers do not seem to grasp the size of the task at hand.

With that in mind, I would like to make a comparison to another incredibly important subject to provide some context. Since 1970, we have lost around 3,400 people to terrorist-related incidents, while more than 6,000 women in that time have been killed at the hands of men. For starters, how about we start treating femicide as seriously as terrorism? This Government are far too relaxed about the femicide taking place right under their nose.

In my own city of Liverpool, were it not for covid, we were due to hold a vigil back in November for women murdered by men, not least the number that occurred across Merseyside in the preceding weeks and months, which would be enough to send a shiver down anyone’s spine. Next week, I hope to take part in a debate called by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on sexism in the Metropolitan police, which supposedly is an organisation meant to keep us safe.

Despite all that, we have continuously been subject to the endless nonsense from Government Ministers, such as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who repeatedly celebrates all crime as coming down. When he does so, he demonstrates a complete ignorance and insensitivity to the fact that women have no confidence in the system and often do not report the crimes they have been victims of, and an ignorance of the damage that austerity has caused to refuge services, support services, the justice system and much more. I have no faith in a system that spends more on perpetrators than it does on victims, and I will outline some figures in relation to that.

A Merseyside charity that runs a programme aiming to challenge the behaviour of men who have been identified as potential perpetrators was provided with £217,000 of funding from the Ministry of Justice to be spent over a six-month period. The programme stated that, “All males have access to wrap around support including a Mindfulness programme. This has previously been shown to significantly increase engagement, improve sleep, and improve positive mental wellbeing”. That is £217,000 to support 40 perpetrators, which equates to £5,425 per head.

In comparison, Liverpool Domestic Abuse Service in my constituency is given £120,267 per annum by the Ministry of Justice, which equates to £60,133 for the same six-month period. It assists 1,284 women, meaning that only £46 is invested in supporting women and girls in the community who had no choice over the abuse committed on them for the same six-month period.

Let that sink in: there is £5,425 per head for a male identified as a potential perpetrator as opposed to £46 per head for a woman who has suffered abuse at the hands of a male perpetrator—how shameful. How on earth can that be right? That is the value placed on the wellbeing and safety of women. Yesterday, during Home Office oral questions, I called for misogyny to be made a hate crime. That is the scale and breadth of the task at hand, and we have barely begun to scratch the surface on the matter. Acknowledging the problem is not enough; immediate and robust action is required.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady might have referred to another hon. Member in her speech. I am sure she knows that, if she were to do so, she should notify them. Perhaps we can have a discussion about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Thank you.

Many Members have mentioned the perpetrators strategy, and, as they will know, in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 we committed to giving the police new powers, including domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders to provide flexible longer-term protection for victims from all forms of domestic abuse. In addition to imposing negative prohibitions such as exclusion zones, the DAPO will be able to impose electronic monitoring requirements and positive requirements such as attendance at perpetrator behaviour change programmes. I think that that is right, despite some of the comments that have been made about spending on perpetrators. How can we expect to tackle the problem unless we spend money trying to stop perpetrators perpetrating? Are hon. Members suggesting that that is free? Yes, we are spending money on perpetrators—because we want them to stop offending. We want them to stop abusing their partners. That is why we spend the money, and I challenge any hon. Member to tell me that it is not a good use of Government funding.

[Paula Barker]

The Minister is being generous with her time. Does she agree that although perpetrator funding is essential, the funding that goes to the victims of violence should be increased? They are often the ones fleeing the domestic home and having to set up anew. Does she not agree that they should get more funding than perpetrators?

[Rachel Maclean]

With respect to the hon. Lady, I think I have addressed that point. The funding is allocated to her local Labour police and crime commissioner, and those are choices that are made on a local level. We have introduced a huge number of measures through the Domestic Abuse Act to address the issues that she has mentioned.

Many hon. Members referred to education, which is vital. They will know that funding and support are going into schools to enable teachers to deliver that education in a respectful and age-appropriate way. All children deserve to learn about what healthy relationships are and about their importance, as well as how to develop mutually respectful relationships in all contexts, including online.

Several hon. Members commented on the online safety Bill. In response to the Chair of the Joint Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins)—and others, let me say that we are strengthening the Bill. We will require all companies to take swift and effective action against illegal content, including criminal abuse and so-called revenge pornography. We confirm that stalking and harassment offences relating to sexual offences, including revenge and extreme pornography, will be specified as priority offences in the Bill. Companies will have to take proactive steps to tackle such content and prevent users from encountering it. There is no watering down going on. The Government are going to make tackling VAWG online a priority.

We must continue to drive a cultural change in attitudes and adopt a zero-tolerance approach to these crimes. I genuinely hope that every hon. Member across the House will take the time to share the “Enough” campaign, because a lot of the groups that have been referred to were in the room on Monday night, and they all welcomed the work that we are doing. They all said that we have to tackle this at the source; that is what we are doing. We launched the campaign this week to help us to make it clear to perpetrators that their crimes will not be tolerated, and we will consider where further action is needed to protect the most vulnerable in society and bring perpetrators to justice.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House condemns the Government for failing to take sufficient action to tackle the epidemic of violence against women and girls and for presiding over a fall in the rape charge rate to a record low; and therefore calls on the Government to increase the number of specialist rape and serious sexual offences units, improve police training to secure better outcomes for victims, introduce effective national management and monitoring of domestic abuse and sexual offenders and urgently publish the perpetrator strategy in full.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Paula Barker Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I want to refer to two parts of the Bill: on protests and on Travelling communities.

I was one of the organisers of the huge 2003 demonstration against the war in Iraq. It was obvious that whatever restrictions the police or the Government wanted to put on that demonstration, they could not because the numbers—1 million in Hyde Park and hundreds of thousands more in the streets—were so huge. That demonstration was historic for its size and effect. What we have before us now is far too much discretion being given to the police to decide whether a demonstration should go ahead or not, or whether it is appropriately noisy or not. I do not think that many police even want that discretion. The Minister was very vague on when there would be any review of the legislation, should it go through tonight. He conceded that it should be reviewed, but did not say when that would happen.

If a demonstration is to mean anything, it must be effective, it must be loud and it must cause some degree of disruption. What I see coming ahead is the police trying to arrest samba bands and taking away PA equipment and so on. That will send a message all around the world that this country is closing down on demonstrations at the very time we are saying we support demonstrations in other parts of the world. Every single one of the rights we have was won by people being brave enough to protest. The Chartists and many others put themselves at enormous risk to get a message across and bring about a change in society. Protest is an essential part of a decent, free and democratic society. We should not be voting for restrictions and we should not be giving the police the powers to prevent protests in our society. That is a very bad move.

The other side of the Bill that I will refer to in the little time that I have left is the attitude towards Travelling communities. They are abused and discriminated against all over this continent of Europe, and they are treated abominably. They get a very bad press and are treated like pariahs by much of the media, yet we claim to support the European convention on human rights and, through our Human Rights Act 1998, we claim to support the right to lead that nomadic life, the right to be Travellers and the right to access appropriate sites.

What we are doing is bowing down before some unpleasant anti-Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community pressures to restrict that right. We should not be doing it, because if we restrict that right and go against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, we go after many, many other communities as well. In my view, it is discrimination, pure and simple, against an historic tradition of the right to roam in our society.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

Ever since I entered this place, not one Bill has occupied as much space in my inbox as this one, and I am sure that many Government Members have been similarly inundated with messages from their constituents. Many of my constituents are horrified, disturbed and frankly suspicious of this Government’s attempt to severely suppress the right to protest. Some of those who are getting in contact with me have never attended a protest, but like me, they are absolutely committed to preserving and protecting our fundamental rights. These constituents are currently watching the autocratic President Putin on their TV screens arresting hundreds of his own people for peacefully protesting and demonstrating against his country’s barbaric assault on Ukraine.

The Conservative party of the 21st century has shed all illusions of being a party that is committed to conserving, protecting and defending our liberal democracy and, indeed, of being a party that is committed to the liberalism that I had assumed was a key tenet of its ideology. Thankfully, the other place has rejected a string of proposals that would have given the police in England and Wales increased powers, including the power to stop and search anyone at a protest without suspicion. Even many Conservative peers did not support the Government’s proposals.

Sadly, however, the likes of clause 55 still exist in the Bill. Make no mistake, the noise clause is a crack-down on dissent. It provides more tools in the establishment’s armoury. It is authoritarian and draconian. The clause effectively ends the right to protest as we know it and provides yet another example of this virtue-signalling Government—

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Paula Barker]

I am sorry; I will not, because the hon. Member has just come in, and lots of Opposition Members wish to speak and have been here since the start of the debate.

The clause is yet another example of this Government giving extra powers to the police that they have neither asked for nor do they need. I have long given up appealing to Government Members to do the right thing. Rather, it is best that we just tell them that they are doing the wrong thing, and they will be doing the wrong thing if the Bill passes. Hundreds of solidarity protesters gathered on Downing Street at the weekend to express support and solidarity to Ukraine and her people. Those sentiments have been expressed right across the House. The protesters were noisy, and they were loud. Are this Government telling me and everyone else in the Chamber today that they would shut them up next time? What a sorry state of affairs.

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

I wish to speak in support of Lords amendments 73 and 80, which would remove the ability of the police to impose noise-based restrictions on processions and greater conditions on static demonstrations. Peaceful protest is a legitimate and integral part of our unwritten constitution and for the Government to interfere with those rights and to try to impose restrictions and unnecessary conditions that affect and violate basic human rights is nothing less than appalling.

If Lords amendments 73 and 80 are not accepted, there are great concerns that police officers will be placed in the unenviable position of having to adjudicate between different stakeholders on the basis of broad and ambiguous criteria about whether to allow a “noisy” or “disruptive” protest to take place or continue. Far from enabling the police to maintain public order, these provisions will place an onerous burden on police officers in the exercise of their professional discretion, subjecting the police to even greater political pressure.

The police already have sufficient powers under the Public Order Act 1986. The additional powers in clauses 55 and 56 of the Bill are neither necessary nor welcomed by many senior police officers. As a uniformed police inspector in the Metropolitan police, I had extensive experience of dealing with public order and with processions and demonstrations of all sizes, and I can say honestly that none of them needed any further legislation; they could all be effectively dealt with by the current legislation.

There are serious concerns that the police, who serve a vital function in enforcing the law, are being instrumentalised for political purposes. That will erode the trust of the public, seriously damage the relationship between the police and the public, and adversely affect the cherished tradition of policing by consent that is at the heart of policing and our society.

Despite the disparaging remarks made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), I pay tribute to the police officers out there policing our streets, who are overwhelmingly honest, trustworthy and hardworking. I commend them for putting themselves at risk and in danger to keep us all safe.

Terrorist Incident at Liverpool Women’s Hospital

Paula Barker Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s desire for more information, but he will know that we do not, as a rule, discuss the reasoning behind our security levels, just as we do not discuss specific security arrangements or, indeed, specific security tactics or capabilities. While there are mechanisms in the House to oversee what we do, not least the Intelligence and Security Committee, I hope my right hon. Friend understands that it might not be helpful to our general security for me to discuss these matters in public.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

Let me first pay tribute to Chief Constable Serena Kennedy, her officers at Merseyside Police, Counter Terrorism Policing North West, Phil Garrigan, the chief fire officer of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service, and all the other emergency responders for their rapid response in reassuring our people and communities including those in Kensington, in my constituency, which still has a heavy police presence. My thanks also go to the incredible staff at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, and I wish David Perry a very speedy recovery.

Given that the picture is still unclear in respect of the wider investigation, may I ask what additional resources will be allocated to Liverpool via Merseyside Police and Counter Terrorism Policing North West, to help them to conclude their investigation at the earliest opportunity?

[Kit Malthouse]

As I said earlier, we believe that Merseyside Police and the regional counter-terrorism police have adequate resources. Obviously, national resources have also been devoted to this investigation. At present I am not aware that we have received any request for further assistance, but I am sure that if there is such a request, we will be able to look at it.

Hillsborough: Collapse of Trials

Paula Barker Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman encapsulates the feelings very well indeed. I refer him to the answers I gave a moment ago.

With regard to the CPS, I have to say that I am not the accountable Minister. The Attorney General is responsible for the superintendence of the independent Crown Prosecution Service. As Lord Chancellor, my clear role is to acknowledge and respect process, and I think perhaps it would not be right for me to make comments about an individual case, not having been close to the facts. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are mechanisms by which further questions can be asked, primarily via the Attorney General’s Office.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]]

As other hon. Members have done today, I pay tribute to the families and survivors of Hillsborough for their dignity and tenacity in the pursuit of truth and justice, and of course I pay tribute to my wider city of Liverpool. Hillsborough and the subsequent fight for justice show the great lengths to which state actors are willing to go to avoid accountability and truth—to act in their own self-interest, not that of the public, the survivors or the families.

The fact remains that 96 innocent men, women and children were unlawfully killed, and yet nobody has been held accountable and justice still awaits. Will the Secretary of State condemn Jonathan Goldberg’s recent comments about the behaviour of Liverpool fans that day? A member of the Queen’s Counsel should know better and, quite frankly, his empty apology just does not cut it.

[Robert Buckland]

I can absolutely understand the strong feelings that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) has articulated. She is right to remind us that every time comments are made in public, by people who should think very carefully, real hurt can be caused. The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) is right to mention the reliving of events. The intense sensitivity of these matters cannot be overestimated, so my sage advice to everybody in public life, and anybody who wishes to pass comment about the dreadful events of 1989, is this. Remember that there are human people behind this, who are still living with it. Show some respect.