Parliament's party history for this member: Labour ( – present); Independent ( – ); Labour ( – ).
Register of interests
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
Date
Category
Entry
Declared value
Sitting for
Source
2. Donations and support
Social Workers Union (SWU) and British Association of Social Workers (BASW) - £4,868.12
<Question HRSContentId="{96A73614-4FE4-4B25-B537-E9105C8D49C1}">T8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{7831C2EB-9CC2-4D41-B9AC-07F63BB4E566}" /> The Chancellor rightly said last Wednesday that homelessness is a political choice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that hunger is a political choice as well? Earlier this month the Right to Food UK Commission published its final report, fully costed by Lord Prem Sikka, setting out credible reform to end food insecurity by 2035. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss its recommendations?</Question>
For many of my constituents in Liverpool West Derby, the cost of living crisis means a daily struggle to keep the heating on, pay the rent and put food on the table. I welcome any measures that ease that struggle, and the direction of travel from the Budget last week was really welcome, but “breathing space” is nowhere near enough when 14 million people are struggling to put a meal on the table tonight. People need to see a credible plan to improve their living standards and tackle the shameful poverty and hunger that we see across the country.
The Trussell Trust reports that between 2024-25 and 2026-27, the number of people experiencing severe hardship grew by 500,000. That included 115,000 children, and there would have been more, but thankfully we scrapped the two-child cap. We cannot ask families to keep making sacrifices while offering them so little prospect of things getting better. We see the unrest across Europe as a result of this feeling of hopelessness with politics and politicians. The Prime Minister has, thankfully and rightly, identified the damage caused by 40 years of neo-liberal politics. Reversing the damage requires true radical action on a scale that matches the hardships that our communities face, and nowhere is that damage highlighted more than around our kitchen tables.
In September, the Right to Food UK Commission published its final report. We heard evidence from across the United Kingdom—from communities speaking directly to us. What we heard should really shame this House. We heard about parents missing meals so that children can eat, people in work relying on food banks, and families choosing between heating their homes and feeding themselves. At a community session in London, a stone’s throw from this Chamber, one woman put it in three words: “Rent eats first”. The rent is paid, then the energy bills and then the debts. Food is whatever is left. That is the plight of millions in all our communities.
The commission’s central finding is clear: people are going hungry because they cannot afford the food that is available. Low wages, inadequate social security and the rising cost of essentials are leaving families without enough to live on. These are failures of policy that require political action. The question is no longer whether we can afford a right to food; it is whether we can afford to carry on without one. In Liverpool, a woman giving evidence said simply:
“A right to food is a right to exist.”
She was spot on, because we are already paying for failure. Updated analysis from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission puts the wider economic and social costs of Britain’s unhealthy food system at £298 billion a year—up from £268 billion two years ago. That includes more than £100 billion in direct costs across healthcare, social care and welfare, alongside the enormous costs of lost productivity and diminished quality of life. Those figures cover the wider unhealthy food system, so tackling food insecurity and making healthy diets affordable must be absolutely central to the Government’s mission.
We pay through our taxes, our public services, our health and the opportunities denied to our children. The question is whether we carry on accepting these costs, or invest in preventing them. Alongside the wider reforms that we need, the Right to Food UK Commission has set out an initial package of practical measures, including universal free school meals, holiday food provision, and proper funding for community kitchens and hubs. Our initial asks are fully costed, with funding identified through tax reforms put forward by Lord Prem Sikka. We have set out what needs to be done, what it would cost and how it could be paid for. Whether the Government choose to act is now a question of political will.
The Right to Food UK Commission’s modelling estimates that we could create about £100 billion-worth of wider economic and social benefits over two decades. That includes improvements in health, education and people’s ability to participate in society. Behind those calculations are outcomes that every Member of this House should want: children arriving at school ready to learn, parents able to feed their families without skipping meals, and fewer people developing avoidable illnesses. These are investments that can improve and lengthen people’s lives. That is why the commission calls for a statutory right to food, backed by resources, clear duties and accountability. It means clear legal duties on the Government and independent scrutiny, so that Departments cannot pass responsibility between themselves while families continue to go hungry.
Members from across the House have joined me in calling for a right to food in the next King’s Speech. I ask the Government to listen, work with the Right to Food UK Commission, and commit to the legislation needed to deliver lasting change. Hunger really is a political choice. The Government have the power and responsibility to end it and give millions, in every postcode, hope again in politics.
The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. First I want to pay tribute to Father Bashar, a Palestinian priest who spoke so movingly this afternoon about his experiences of settler violence in his town of Taybeh in the west bank. What he said about what people were living through was extremely moving.
I welcome the Government’s regulations to extend our sanctions framework to serious violations of international humanitarian law. The Foreign Secretary rightly warned businesses on 19 October not to accept tenders relating to the expansion of illegal settlements in the E1 area of the west bank. Yet, as I understand it, the UK sanctions list shows no new designations connected to that warning since the regulations came into force. The warnings will only be as strong as the action that follows. The regulations we are discussing today give the Foreign Secretary the power to enforce his calls.
I raise that in the context of charities. It has been reported that a UK charity gave around £5.7 million between 2017 and 2021 to a school in an illegal settlement in the occupied west bank. Further reporting has identified UK charitable funds reaching organisations that pursue settlement expansion. The British public give to charity in good faith and do not expect their generosity to finance the occupation of the west bank, which the British Government recognise as unlawful.
I ask the Minister for three clear commitments. First, will the Government work with the Charity Commission to issue guidance so that trustees know what due diligence is expected, to avoid funding organisations or people directly or indirectly involved in enforcing the illegal occupation of the west bank? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that UK individuals, businesses and charities financing or supporting settlement activity can be considered for designation where the legal criteria are met? Thirdly, will he set out how the Government will investigate evidence of charitable funding supporting serious human rights violations, and will he act on that evidence and report back to Parliament?
Every designation must meet the legal test, but under the standard procedure, the test is reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is involved. A criminal conviction is not required. We cannot condemn illegal settlements while failing to confront the money that sustains them. The Government have rightly strengthened their powers. What Parliament, charities, businesses and, above all, the Palestinian people now need to know is when the powers will be used.
<Question HRSContentId="{F70A2602-3263-4833-89A0-8B3FC25D98AB}">2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{9F17C1EE-FA2F-4BDF-A66D-3D5A77529B70}">What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill on access to justice for victims and survivors of the troubles.</QuestionText> </Question>
I know that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the care we must all take over the language we use when we discuss troubles-related affairs. He may recall that the Law Society and the Bar Council have called recent references by some hon. Members to supposed “IRA lawyers” grossly irresponsible and said that it puts people at risk. Given the tragic history of the murder of lawyers such as Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson, will he join me in urging all hon. Members to take extreme care over their language and recognise that their words can have tragic consequences and completely undermine the confidence of bereaved families and victims, which is essential to ensuring a balanced and credible legacy process?
What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that the people involved in the Hillsborough campaign, the contaminated blood campaign and the many campaigns that have highlighted state cover-ups in this country should just give up because of the passage of time.
As we debate this Bill, we must never lose sight of the families whose decades-long fight for truth and justice has brought us here: mothers who have waited 50 years to understand why their children were killed; siblings told to move on; widows denied information about their husbands’ deaths; and children who grew up without a parent and still await answers. For many, the question is not simply whether the state failed to protect their loved ones but whether parts of it were involved in, enabled or concealed what happened. Allegations of state collusion have hung over these cases for decades. Families have been left wondering whether the institutions they turned to for answers were themselves implicated. They were promised that this legislation would begin to <span id="858" class="column-number" data-column-number="858"></span>repair the damage caused by the legacy Act, but that promise will ring hollow if the state continues to control how much families are allowed to know.
The Government published substantial amendments shortly before the Committee stage. These significant changes will have serious consequences for bereaved families, yet Members have had too little time to scrutinise them properly. One concern is the proposed requirement for consent before prosecutions for the most serious troubles-related offences can proceed. In Northern Ireland, that consent would rest with the Advocate General, a role held by the Attorney General for England and Wales. The independent Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland already applies tests of evidence and public interest. Under this proposal, even where those tests were met, a Government Law Officer could withhold consent.
I agree with Amnesty International UK that Ministers must explain why this additional power is necessary and how it will command families’ confidence. Where the state itself is under investigation, including allegations of collusion, concealment or misuse of public power, families will understandably question why a Government member should have the final say. Whatever the Government’s intentions, the risk of further undermining confidence is clear.
We must also remember the Dillon litigation. The courts in Northern Ireland found the legacy Act’s immunity provisions incompatible with articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights. Those declarations were not appealed and remain in force. The Government must ensure that this legislation delivers meaningful accountability and respects their human rights obligations. The protections underpinning the Good Friday agreement must be upheld. As a Labour Government, we have a particular responsibility to protect that achievement and never, ever undermine it.
Nor do the concerns end with prosecutions. Families have raised questions about the Secretary of State’s control over sensitive information, restriction notices that may exclude them from proceedings and the independence of appointments to the judicial panel. These are fundamental issues: who controls the evidence, who can see it, and whether families can trust the process. They are especially pressing where families believe that state agencies failed to act, withheld information or colluded with those responsible for violence. The state cannot determine for itself which evidence matters, how much is disclosed or how much truth families may hear.
That is why I have tabled new clause 56. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations applying the duty of candour and assistance created by the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, known as the Hillsborough law, to inquisitorial proceedings under part 4 of this Bill. Those regulations would require approval by both Houses. The principle is straightforward: public authorities and officials must be legally required to assist proceedings established to discover what happened. They must be open and honest, provide relevant evidence and actively help to establish the facts.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and I look forward to working with him and the Department to ensure that what comes out in the House of Lords is the Hillsborough law, that it does exactly what we wanted and that it applies to Northern Ireland, because families should never, ever depend on the goodwill of institutions whose conduct is being examined, or face a lesser standard of candour because their case is before the legacy commission rather than a coroner.
Amnesty International UK has highlighted the importance of disclosure, transparency and accountability in legacy cases. The Joint Committee on Human Rights scrutiny report on this Bill recommends that the Hillsborough law duty of candour must apply equally to revived coroners’ inquests and proceedings conducted by the legacy commission. New clause 56 would apply these principles directly to these proceedings, and I thank the Secretary of State for his words.
An investigation can establish the truth only if evidence is brought forward. If public bodies withhold information, provide incomplete accounts or protect themselves, families are forced to fight the same battles again and again. That is how allegations of collusion remain unresolved, suspicion becomes distrust and justice is denied for generations. We should do everything possible to prevent that. As a survivor of Hillsborough, I know the damage caused when the state closes ranks against the people it has failed. Ninety-seven people were unlawfully killed. Their families and survivors endured decades of lies, smears and cover-up. The consequences continue today.
Families should never have to fight to establish why their loved ones died. Survivors should never have to defend themselves against lies. Public authorities have a duty to tell the truth and assist in establishing it. Instead, those same institutions protected themselves. Evidence was withheld, and the truth obstructed. That experience is why we fought for, and fight for, the Hillsborough law to require public bodies and officials to be honest, to disclose evidence and to assist the search for truth, not block it.
That is a very poor point. Of course they matter, but lots of people are speaking out for veterans tonight. I wanted to give the families the voice and give my experience in fighting the state for truth, justice and accountability, so that is what I focused on tonight. Lots of people have rightly spoken about veterans with great expertise and, of course, I have met veterans in my community and sat down with them, and I have friends who are veterans. It was a pretty poor point that the hon. Member just made.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House for attending on a one-line Whip, which shows the strength of feeling. Their presence proves that the unresolved problems that have emerged for many in Liverpool West Derby represent a national scandal requiring a national response. In my constituency alone, 35 people have contacted me with serious concerns about the administration of their civil service pension. I speak for them, and for civil servants, pensioners and bereaved families across the country being badly let down. They have served the public, paid into their pensions and planned their retirements in good faith.