Laurence Turner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and I hope he will also give way to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench. Will he tell the House what possible motive he thinks a Labour Government would have for scrapping the pint?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  As has been said, on the face of it this is a short Bill, but when we look beneath the surface, it is even more exciting than the bare title of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill suggests. Most of us go through our days without giving much thought to the measurement of the units that govern our everyday lives—I confess that, until very recently, I was one of them—but so many of our scientific and medical advances have succeeded or failed on the most precise margins, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) so brilliantly set out. It was a real privilege to be in the Chamber to listen to his speech. In the city of Birmingham, best known throughout much of its history as the workshop of the world, many millions of hours must have been sweated out to meet the finest of measurements and tolerances. I suspect my hon. Friend is capable of accurately estimating just how many hours that would have taken. However, I note in passing that one of just two remaining proof houses, which fell under the scope of the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868 and succeeding Acts—they attracted a lot of attention in the other place—is in Digbeth in the city of Birmingham. At the start of my hon. Friend’s speech, he raised the question of when exactly the word “metrology” entered common parlance. I do not know what that date was, but I note that when the National Physical Laboratory was created in 1900, it was established with a metrology division. One of the early guiding forces, Mr J. E. Sears, later found a second career as a scales manufacturer, again in the good city of Birmingham. Today, when pharmaceutical manufacturing jobs are starting to return to my constituency, 20 years on from the collapse of MG Rover, I know some of the exacting standards that those manufacturers must meet. We need only look at the number of Weights and Measures Acts passed by this House down the years to understand the importance of these questions for our role as legislators. I fear that I am about to commit an unwise act by referencing Magna Carta in this place, as that text has been the subject of one or two interesting emails that I suspect a number of hon. Members have also received, but it is telling that it stipulated: “There is to be a single measure for wine throughout our realm, and a single measure for ale, and a single measure for Corn… And it shall be the same for weights as for measures.” In the other place, and it is fair to say in this place as well, the arguments over the Bill have come down to a simple point: are delegated powers and statutory instruments the right processes for adapting to a rapidly changing landscape for product safety and international measurement standards? It is worth remembering two things. First, the theory that we could make sufficient updates through primary legislation can be tested against the history of legislation in this place. For example, some of the provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 have been overtaken by events, and it has proved hard in practice to bring forward the necessary changes to that legislation. Secondly, as has been said, this work was initiated by the last Government, who at the time made the case for delegated powers persuasively. As the 2021 response to the 2019 call for evidence stated: “Over time, the limited powers we retained in domestic legislation became less effective. Rather than update these, the UK relied on powers in the European Communities Act (ECA) 1972 to introduce new harmonised legislation to deal with product safety and metrology.” Those powers have now expired. Governments of all colours must deal with “A complex, forever changing landscape” and current legislation does “not allow for many of the changes necessary to keep pace with technological advances and modern hazards.” A good example of the ever-changing metrological field can be drawn from the 2019 changes to the international system of quantities, which altered in subtle ways the definition of the kilogram, the amp, the kelvin and the mole, with implications across a very wide range of regulations. I think it is sensible to update those definitions swiftly by regulations. We have heard examples of some of the unsafe products that are on sale at the moment. It is worth noting that the Bill is not simply about definitions, but enforcement. Clause 3 will enable some of those stretched resources, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) referred, to go further. I also note that through the Transport Committee I received representations from Brompton Bicycle, a very good British manufacturing success story, which said that UK product safety regulations and enforcement have failed to keep pace with the development of e-bike technology. Unsafe, poor quality e-bike products are entering the hands of UK consumers with sometimes devastating consequences.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 31 Mar 2025 · Birmingham City Council · Hansard source

  More

  My residents and constituents deserve better than the current scenes in Birmingham. Bins are not being collected, and the council is losing future revenue because commercial contracts are being cancelled. The reality is that bin services were not good enough even before the strike. When the strike ends—and it will end—what assurance can the Minister give my residents that refuse and health services in Birmingham will be decent and fit for purpose? May I respond to the comments of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), whom I respect? He sought to deny a share of the blame for his party, but will the Minister confirm that last year’s 10% council tax increase was signed off in No. 10 and the Treasury at the time and that, under the previous Government, Birmingham lost 40p in the pound, with the sharpest cuts of any unitary authority?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  On the face of it, this is a technical Bill, but the benefits and opportunities that the transition to Skills England can create across the country, including in communities such as Birmingham Northfield, are real and tangible. The amendments would have similar effects. In terms of timing, while new clause 1 would delay the establishment of Skills England by six months, new clause 4 and amendment 6 would delay it by a year. There is a risk that by accepting such amendments we would recreate IfATE under the name of Skills England. As my hon. Friends have said, we cannot wait that long. A new approach is needed. As the first Skills England report, which was published last September, identified, there has been a steady decline in employers’ investment in training during the past decade. Investment in real terms has fallen by about 20%, even though 90% of the roles in critical demand across the economy require training or education. In my constituency, apprenticeship starts fell by 35% during the last Parliament, more than double the national rate. This is a social issue as well, because more than half the young people not in education, employment or training in Northfield are classed as vulnerable, and adult skills funded education is accessed particularly in the areas of my constituency with some of the highest levels of social need, including Longbridge and West Heath, Weoley and the three estates in Kings Norton. I am sure the situation is similar for other hon. Members. According to a response to a freedom of information request in 2022, some £1 billion a year nationally in apprenticeship levy funding was unspent. At the same time, major local employers have expressed their frustration to me about skills shortages in areas from construction and home upgrades to computer science. I have seen some of the good work already done locally to provide apprenticeships and other forms of technical education. Next month, we will witness the 20th anniversary of the closure of MG Rover in my constituency. Today, South and City College Birmingham, which is partly built on the old Austin site, is one of the largest training providers in the west midlands. A number of hon. Members have paid tribute to their local colleges, and I would like to do the same. That college offers impressive programmes, developing the technical and soft skills of students in a multitude of industries including catering, automotive and advanced manufacturing. As manufacturing jobs start to return to Longbridge, these facilities and the experienced staff who work there will be vital to delivering economic growth and opportunities for young people, but they are attempting to fit into a system that is not fit for purpose and is not working. In other words, skills policy is essential for the Government’s plans for economic recovery and industrial strategy, and it is appropriate to place accountability for the new development directly with Ministers for this period. We heard a lot on the Bill Committee as well as elsewhere about whether Skills England should be created as a stand-alone agency at arm’s length from the core Department. As we heard on Second Reading, the Government may review Skills England’s status after 18 months to two years, which seems like a sensible way forward. That is a legitimate debate, but we should not agree tonight to delay Skills England’s creation. It is important to say that IfATE has not lived up to expectations and that the status quo is a barrier to the Government’s objectives. Nine years ago, the then Minister for skills, Nick Boles, told the House’s Education, Skills and the Economy sub-Committee that IfATE would “be much more akin to the Bank of England” in terms of its independence compared with a traditional arm’s length organisation. I think most hon. Members would agree that that has not been borne out. During the last Parliament, I attended meetings of the UK shipbuilding skills taskforce, where there was common agreement between employers and employee representative organisations that the GCSE entry-level requirement was a barrier for employers taking on the young people who were best equipped for those apprenticeships. However, that recommendation was blocked—by DFE Ministers, we were given to understand—from the final report. Similarly, employers and people with direct knowledge of the skills system I have talked to over the last few weeks have stressed some of the frustrations that existed in the trailblazer employer organisations: within the bureaucracy of IfATE, some recommendations and expertise would be either delayed or disregarded by the route panels, some of which were made up of employers who did not necessarily have expertise in a particular industry. It is important to reduce some of that bureaucracy so the Bill’s effect of removing a requirement for a regular review of an apprenticeship’s standard—in practice, every few years—is a sensible change. There are, at the last count, 658 live apprenticeships listed on the IfATE website. That implies 219 reviews every year or four a week; I think we are entitled to question how effective those reviews can be given IfATE’s current resources. If I may, I will list one more example of where the current system is going wrong. The special educational needs and disabilities teaching assistant apprenticeship standard, which was discussed during the last Parliament and then formally created during this one, lists a very large number of organisations that contributed to its design. The overwhelming majority are employers, who, of course, need to be represented. Only one trade union was represented and I question why that was the case. However, not a single SEND parents’ organisation or other group that represents the needs of those young people was drawn into the creation of that standard. I think we are entitled to ask whether that is the right approach. The discussions that led up to the creation of the standard, in practice, were heavily DfE-guided, so I think we are entitled to question the independence of the current system as it exists.

• 27 Mar 2025 · PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for the constructive and thoughtful way in which he has engaged with Members over the past week. I have written to him in the past couple of days on two matters, and I would like to take the opportunity to put them to him. First, he is leading a review of the PIP assessment—will its terms of reference be made public? Secondly, there is a case for looking again at the PIP criteria, as set out in secondary legislation, which were opposed by Labour 12 years ago. Will he continue to engage in the manner that he has been doing with Members now that we are in the consultation period, including on that point?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my background as an official of the GMB steelworkers union, that union’s support for my constituency party and my membership of GMB and Unite. The three steelworkers unions—GMB, Unite and Community—have put forward a multi-union plan for Scunthorpe. Will the Minister meet those unions urgently, including with cross-governmental officers, so that we can do everything possible to keep that multi-union plan on the table?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been substantially changed in Committee. Can the Leader of the House give an update on when the House may see the impact assessment for that Bill? Can she give an assurance that sufficient time will be available for Members to consider that analysis before we get to the Bill’s remaining stages?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Disruption at Heathrow · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State’s statement underlines why it is important to avoid speculation in the immediate aftermath of a critical incident such as this. Can she reassure the House that if any systematic risks are identified that potentially affect other major airports, there will be a co-ordinated response? If any such issues are identified at regional and local airports, will Members of this House in proximity to those airports be kept informed?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Disabled People’s Access to Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, whose determination as Chair has meant that this important report from the previous Committee has seen the light of day. Does she agree that the reasonable adjustments framework under the Equality Act is the right one, and that the problem is the lack of implementation and awareness? If we had clearer statutory guidance, as exists in some areas, disabled passengers and other transport users would face fewer barriers.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q5. My constituents in Birmingham Northfield are deeply concerned about the scourge of knife crime, and I pay tribute to the professionalism of West Midlands police for its response to these horrendous attacks. However, there are still 1,200 fewer police officers and police community support officers in the force than in 2010, and a new bid for 150 more officers has been submitted to the Home Office. Will the Prime Minister look at this issue so that the police can do more to keep our streets secure and safe?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Shipyards: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. I thank my hon. Friend for his words about the workers at Arnish and I know that he has played a very important role in advocating for that yard. He talked about the national shipbuilding strategy and defence orders. Historically, all Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary orders were fulfilled by UK shipyards. That changed in 2012 when the MARS tanker order was awarded to Daewoo in South Korea. Subsequently, the 2017 national shipbuilding strategy made it an assumption that all such defence orders would be put out to international tender, bar some exclusions. Does he agree that that has been a source of real uncertainty in a sector that needs long-term planning, and that in future any industrial strategy should provide maximum assurance about the pipeline of orders for our domestic shipbuilding yards?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s recapitulation of the history. In the last Parliament, I attended meetings of the UK shipbuilding skills taskforce, which was sponsored by the Department for Education, and considered these matters in respect of that industry quite closely. Employers and employee representatives were unanimous that the GCSE entry standard requirements should be removed in that industry, but the inclusion of that recommendation was blocked because, we were given to understand, it would not be supported by DFE Ministers. Does he share my concern that the independence of the current system is more claimed than real?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As has been said already in this debate, trade union donations have been declared, but donations from employers who have a direct private interest in particular sectors that we have debated in this place have not been declared. If any of the hon. Member’s colleagues have not drawn attention to such an interest, will he encourage them to do so? Does he agree with us on the Labour Benches that they were wrong not to make such a declaration?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will remember that in 2017, when the Conservatives announced the employment Bill that was never produced, they said that it would represent the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights by any Conservative Government ever. Would she care to speculate on why they set their ambitions so low?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to be called twice on Report, and as is customary, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of Unite. I am also the chair of the GMB parliamentary group. I start with comments that I had not planned to make at the beginning of this debate. Much has been heard about registers of interests. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who is in his place, said at the end of the Bill’s Committee, Labour Members have been assiduous in drawing attention to their membership of trade unions and their declarations in registers of interests, but I believe that the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) was the first Conservative Member to draw attention to his own donations without being challenged first. Much of the tone of this debate has focused not on the substance of the Bill, but on ascribed motivations, which I believe has been demeaning to the standards and courtesies expected in this House. There is much to welcome in the Government amendment. I wish to concentrate my remarks on new clause 40 and new schedule 2. On political fund ballots, the 10-year requirement dates to the Trade Union Act 1984. The requirement does not apply to any political funds that may be maintained by employers’ associations; nor does a successful ballot in any way infringe on a trade union member’s right to withdraw payments from the political fund at any time, so I think we can be confident about that policy’s intention: it was to tie up trade union time and resources, and in that respect it was successful. These ballots are a massive abstraction of resources, which gets in the way of trade unions’ and trade union members’ core business of representing people at work. In 40 years, not one union member has voted to discontinue a political fund. Trade unions are democratic organisations. If there is discontent in a union over political fund expenditure, any member is entitled to inspect the accounts, and that expenditure can be stopped in whole or in part through existing democratic structures. There is, I think, a contradiction when this House, a representative democratic institution, may seek to instruct other organisations to make decisions by referendum. To those who have suggested that trade union political expenditure is somehow illegitimate, I would just like to remind Members that trade union political fund expenditure is not synonymous with party political donations. In fact, many important campaigns that have won cross-party support in this place were made possible only because of trade union political fund expenditure. I draw Members’ attention to one such campaign, which I was proud to be associated with. The Protect the Protectors campaign started with the campaigning work of GMB and Unison members in the ambulance service and resulted in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. If the measures that have been put forward at different stages in this process were successful in restricting that political fund activity, it would be harder to deliver that legislative change in this place on behalf of working people. Much has been said in the debate and I do not wish to duplicate it, but I wish to say a few words about the situation at Amazon in Coventry. Much trade union work in the private sector in recent years has been focused on the warehousing and logistics sector, where a focus of trade union activity has been the increasingly intensive workloads, workers’ employment being terminated on the basis of unclear and unaccountable target setting, and high rates of musculoskeletal injuries, which have contributed to a high rate of people being out of work in the wider economy. When the GMB, in response to approaches from its members, initially contacted Amazon to seek voluntary recognition at that site in December 2022, the company reported that there were 1,400 people working at the site. The company refused to engage meaningfully with the union or attend talks at ACAS to resolve the situation. As has been said, in the space of just a few months, the number of people at the site was increased dramatically by 93%. Some of them were temporary workers transferred from other sites. It has been reported that others were new workers on student visas who were worried about the potential implications for their studying and immigration status if union recognition was voted for. As a consequence of that increase, the union could still meet the 10% membership threshold, but could not meet the requirement of 40% of the bargaining group being likely to support recognition.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a particular pleasure to follow a former colleague of mine, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). What she has said will have a special resonance with the many people who are following this debate in this Chamber and beyond. She has done a valuable public service, and we thank her for it. As is customary, I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. Because time is limited, I will restrict my comments to Opposition amendment 290 on the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. This amendment seeks to disapply the SSSNB’s statutory remit from both academies and local authority maintained schools, which makes it substantially different from and more damaging than the similar amendment brought forward in Committee. If it was carried, it would reduce protection for many school support staff workers in employment. The vast majority of school support staff are already covered by collective bargaining, almost 80% directly and the rest indirectly. However, the existing agreement, through the National Joint Council, does not serve support staff or employers well. Last year, teaching assistants were paid just £17,400 on average, and 90% of those workers are women. I have spoken to some who have relied on food banks and payday loans to make ends meet. There are 1,800 school support staff workers in my constituency of Birmingham Northfield, and they deserve better. Most schools struggle to recruit for those roles, according to research by the National Foundation for Educational Research, and at one point during the pandemic the role of teaching assistants was the second hardest to recruit for after that of HGV drivers. This is not just about pay. As the Harpur v . Brazel case showed, substantial liabilities also exist for employers because of unclear and outdated terms and conditions. As the Confederation of School Trusts, representing academy employers, has said, the time has come to move school support staff out from under the local government negotiating umbrella. Indeed, the request from school employers was for the Bill to establish a floor, not a ceiling. That point was addressed in Committee, so we might ask why this amendment has been brought forward. It is in contradiction to the amendment that the Opposition tabled in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee. After all, it was the Conservatives who put the School Teachers Review Body on a statutory footing back in the early 1990s, so why will they not support the same step for school support staff? Similarly, they are not seeking to amend the Bill in respect of the adult social care negotiating body, despite the similarities between the two occupations. I fear that the answer is that school support staff—the majority of people who work in schools—are suffering from the soft prejudice of unequal knowledge and interests that divide the workforce into professionals and ancillaries. This outdated attitude should be confined to the dustbin of history, where it belongs. It was rejected in this place almost 20 years ago, when the process that led to the SSSNB began. This is not a measure whose time has come; it is long overdue. I wish to say a little about the importance of the measure for special educational needs and disabilities. Classroom-based support staff spend the majority of their time supporting SEND learners. They are essential to schools’ models of inclusion.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. When we look back at the national agreement in the early 2000s which led to the expansion of school support staff roles, the justification was that they would alleviate pressure on teachers and add to the quality of teaching in classrooms. That is exactly what school support staff workers in my constituency and his do every day. School support staff roles are essential for SEND support, but the contracts those staff are employed under are so squeezed that no paid time is available for professional development or training. In other words, we cannot resolve the SEND crisis without contract reform, and we cannot achieve that contract reform if the drift and delay, which is the legacy of the 2010 decision to abolish the SSSNB, continues. I urge the Opposition, even now, to think again and not press their amendment to a vote. In the time remaining, I wish to say a few words about the provisions on hospitality workers and their right not to be subject to third-party harassment. When the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who was formerly in her place, brought forward her private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament, it contained the same provisions that are being advanced now. At the start of the debates in the House of Lords, the extension of the protection to “all reasonable steps” was supported by the Government of the day. Baroness Scott, leading for the Conservative party, said that the measures would not infringe on freedom of speech; in fact, they would strengthen it. The Conservative Front Benchers were right then and they are wrong today. The Bill is incredibly important. Employment law in the United Kingdom has tended to advance by increments; the Bill measures progress in strides. I am proud to have had some association with it through the Public Bill Committee. I thank the departmental team who were part of the process and the other members of the Committee. I will be proud to vote in favour of the extensions to rights in the Bill when they are brought forward to a vote tonight.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has just said that there may be areas where we could go further on flexible working. Can he explain why the previous Government’s flexible working taskforce met just once last year, and just once the year before? As with the long-awaited employment Bill that never materialised, is it the case that this Government are bringing forward real measures because the previous Government vacated that territory?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the shadow Minister give way?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome today’s announcement. Recruitment and retention challenges have limited access to justice in recent years. Will the Lord Chancellor outline what steps she is taking to ensure that we have enough barristers and solicitors so that courts can get through as many cases as possible?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Hong Kong Democracy Activists · Hansard source

  More

  Birmingham has a large and growing community of people from Hong Kong. Although most are now well settled in the wider community, some of my constituents are fearful about continued monitoring and surveillance, especially if they speak out on human rights. Will the Minister give me and my constituents an assurance that if they are subject to those utterly unacceptable practices, they will receive protection and support?

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the members of the Backbench Business Committee and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for granting and leading the debate. Three years ago, we watched as missiles rained down on Ukraine from Kharkiv to Lviv, damaging even the Holocaust memorial at Babyn Yar. Anyone who has stood in that space will share the sense of revulsion at that desecration. A motorised column, reported to be some 40 miles long, advanced on Kyiv and its advance groups left a horror of murder in their wake. This was the terrible return of unrestricted industrial warfare to Europe for the first time since 1945. The goal must be stated bluntly: the Russian state seeks the destruction of Ukrainian sovereignty and Ukrainian national identity. The proof of that assertion can be found in bodies that were laid out in Izium, Bucha and Kherson, and, I fear, in many other places whose names are not known to us and that only liberation will identify. When we think back to February 2022, we must remember the hope that could quickly be found among the despair. A small Ukrainian force defeated the Russians at Hostomel airport, and on such a fine margin, the nation may have been saved. The actions of successive UK Governments and the unity of this House have, as many other hon. Members have said, been essential to that Ukrainian struggle for liberty. Out of war have come new bonds of family and friendship. I pay tribute to the members of the British armed forces who have trained Ukrainians and to the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham—they have learned from us, and, as was said earlier, we have learned from them. I also pay tribute to all those who have acted as hosts as part of the wider support network for Ukrainian refugees. One of the most valuable things we can do in this place is repeat Ukrainian voices. I will quote one—that of Ivanna Khrapko, the youth chair of the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine, who it has been my pleasure to come to know over the last couple of years. Ahead of a TUC vote some 18 months ago, she said: “Of course we want peace, more than anything. But we want a just peace, without occupiers in our country.” As Oleksandra Matviichuk, the head of the Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine, which holds a Nobel peace prize, said: “Peace cannot be reached by a country under attack laying down its arms, that would not be peace but occupation.” I hope that message—so eloquently articulated by Ukrainians, who know the Russian regime better than anyone—is heard by all those currently making decisions about Ukraine’s future. I cannot go into detail in the very short amount of time available, but the issues identified by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown- Fuller) with regard to the Ukraine permission extension scheme have been heard in my constituency as well, and I hope that Ministers are monitoring those concerns closely. I close by echoing one last Ukrainian voice—that of Taras Shevchenko, who wrote in a poem almost 200 years ago, also under Russian occupation: Oh bury me, then rise you up And break your heavy chains And water with the tyrants’ blood The freedom you have gained And in the great new family, The family of the free, With softly spoken, kindly word Remember also me. The words ring true today. If one message is to go from this House today, I hope it is this: our nation’s support for the Ukrainian cause is constant, not passing. We remember Ukraine, and we will stand with Ukraine and with our Ukrainian friends to the end—to the very end—and to the hoped-for day, as hard as the path may now be to imagine, when all Ukraine will be free.