Laurence Turner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I must say, I think I must have been listening to a different set of evidence today than the shadow Minister, but there we are. I want to raise devolution, and specifically clause 5. There is a lot of history to the clause, and a line of continuity with the old section 20 of Barbara Castle’s Transport Act 1968. A lot of great things were accomplished under that legislation, including the creation of a cross-city line in Birmingham, but then privatisation came along. There was an attempt to do something similar under section 13 of the Railways Act 2005, which frankly did not work; there was never a single agreement signed. What lessons have been learned about what went right in the past and what went wrong with the 2005 legislation, when it comes to clause 5 of the Bill? Keir Mather: I suppose that, in the 2005 Act, section 13 was not only really narrow in scope, in that it covered only franchised services, but represented a significant watering down of relationships between the rail industry and passenger transport executives. The difference with clause 5 of the Bill is that it is significantly wider in scope, to ensure that partnerships under GBR cover the full rail offer, rather than focusing only on services. There is an important point around corporate structure. It is right that the corporate structure is not laid out in the Bill—no piece of rail legislation in 113 years has done that—but what has come out quite consistently in the testimony of the mayors, and in the broader points made around devolution, is that, whether it be on the MCA basis or on the local authority basis more generally, people want GBR’s structure to be flat, and responsive to dynamic changes both in demographics around housing and your ability to get to Everton stadium when the rugby league is on, which is of personal interest to me. I think the point is very well made, and it is certainly taken by me as the Minister, that democratic accountability means that the operational reality of GBR should be diffuse wherever possible. People do not want to see a replication of a centralised model of the past.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have one final question, if there is time.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q So the concern is about potentially losing access to some data flows that currently exist. John Davies: Potentially. There are already moves within the industry to restrict those data flows. Again, if it goes to the point that this is not entirely a theoretical risk, then yes, we would—

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I will make it very quick. Mr Montgomery, I saw a document that rail partners published a few years ago called “Working together for a better railway”, which suggested that the ideal mix of passenger contracts would be concessions for commuter services and franchising—I do not think it used the word “franchising”, but maybe something similar—for longer-term services. Is that your personal point of view? Steve Montgomery: Yes. We believe that the Bill does not give enough power to the Secretary of State to put out contracts and devolved parties—whether that is Greater Manchester, Liverpool, and so on—to give them out. The concession model is something that we have continued to support.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Finally, I will continue a line of questioning from the Transport Committee. As you know, we had an exchange about executive remuneration; in the subsequent written evidence that Trainline provided, it referred the Committee to the annual reports of published information. It also said that that salary or package was set in comparison with similar, comparable companies. Are you able to provide that information and name which companies you are talking about? John Davies: No I am not, because the benchmarking is done by Trainline’s board, consistent with the processes that it has published.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q As I did in this morning’s session, I draw attention to the fact that I am a member of Unite. I have a few short questions, primarily to Ms Simpson to start with. We heard from some of our witnesses in this morning’s panels that they would like to see a passenger growth target in the Bill on an equivalent basis to the freight growth target. I am interested in your reaction to that proposal. Maggie Simpson: It is not my business to talk about the passenger railway. We see two things as important in having a freight growth target: first, it is a statement of Government commitment to growth, which is hugely powerful; secondly, and importantly, the people who are going to be running GBR are going to spring out of bed every morning and say, “It’s my job to make my trains run on time,” and the freight growth target makes them say, over their Weetabix, “Yes, and I must make freight run on time as well.” It is the incentive effect of having a growth target. We have seen that effect really powerfully with the freight growth target that the Scottish Government and Whitehall have set, in that it changes the dynamic and the culture. I think—perhaps you would say I am biased— that people think about the passenger railway all the time, so I do not see that that incentive effect is as necessary—but in terms of other factors, I leave that to others. John Thomas: May I add to that? I think a passenger growth target is really important. At the moment, the duties for GBR only include improving performance. You can improve performance, as we saw during covid, by cutting the number of services, but that is not necessarily in the best interest of customers. We think a balance between a performance target and a passenger growth target is really important.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I turn to clause 64 on the charging scheme. Subsection (4) allows GBR to levy lower charges for the purpose of introducing new services, including for the carriage of goods. How would your members like to see that power applied? Maggie Simpson: We very much welcome that clause; it is a broadening of the provision in the current law, which is quite tightly worded. There are some areas where we think it could be particularly powerful, such as incentivising a greater uptick in use of electric traction, where those units exist, and making sure that people are using them wherever they can. We have just seen the first fleet of digitally enabled wagons arrive in service. That is something that can help to reduce track damage, but it is expensive, so helping the introduction of more digital technology would be another area. We are looking at novel markets for rail freight—moving new fuels, for example, and supporting green energy. Often, it is quite difficult to get new flows up and running in new markets, so incentivising growth through the uptick of those sectors would be another area.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Picking up on a point that was made by witnesses on our devolution panel, the geography of, say, West Midlands Rail Executive does not overlap entirely with the geography of the combined authority. Similarly, there might be a case for reaching a clause 5 agreement with more than one mayoral authority at the same time. Does the clause as drafted allow the flexibility to reach an agreement directly with, say, West Midlands Rail Executive, or a combined agreement with the East Midlands combined county authority covering the cross-country service? Keir Mather: I think we have been really clear, and the provisions in the Bill support this, that GBR needs to be organised locally so that it can work really collaboratively with local leaders, and it is through the business units that it has to devolve that responsibility to as close to decision-makers as possible. MCAs are the right level, in terms of being a catalyst for economic and housing growth, but you are right that the challenges around rail infrastructure and service provision, even though the solution to a lot of them may be set by MCAs, are inherently cross-border. I would expect GBR to be able to fulfil a role in facilitating the ironing out of those differences, for the good of everyone, on a cross-border basis.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In Trainline’s written evidence—possibly to the Transport Committee rather than this one, or possibly to both—there is a reference to a view that there might be some particularly sensitive data within GBR that Trainline believes should be firewalled off from any ticketing function. I think the suggestion is that there may be some operational information to which GBR’s ticketing function should not be given privileged access. I was wondering whether you could expand on that point and explain what types of information we are talking about. John Davies: What we are advocating for is that whatever flows of data or information are necessary for, say, a GBR online retail function to do the work of helping customers engage with the rail industry—to book tickets, to travel and to do all those things—all those sources of information should be made available equally, at the same level and without discrimination, to whoever has a legitimate cause to use them. One of the things that becomes problematic is this. Thinking about something like the centralised seat reservation system, which is a piece of industry architecture, we are currently able to draw on it at a very granular level. We take a very base level of data and are able to use it in different ways, as are other retailers, to design good customer experiences. For example, a 28-day view of the availability of cheap fares for any given journey is not that straightforward if you are only able to access information that has previously been filtered—let us say by a future GBR—which has decided that all you are going to have available are five single and return journeys for the date on which you have made the inquiry.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a follow-up about passenger growth targets and freight growth targets. This question is not new: the freight growth target is inherited and was included or announced in the Williams-Shapps plan for rail White Paper. Mr Plowden, I am conscious that this was before your time in your present post, so perhaps this is for other witnesses. Given that we cannot question the previous Government in this Committee, based on your conversations and representations, why did the previous Government decide not to bring forward a passenger growth target alongside a freight growth target? Alex Robertson: I do not know—I mean, I really do not know. We never got as far as having the Railways Bill in Parliament; we are fundamentally redesigning the railway, and that creates a different framework and a different set of responsibilities. I do not know; I have struggled with that question a little. Ben Plowden: The Government did say, in their response to the consultation, that there are two reasons why, having considered the possibility of a passenger growth target, they decided not to include one. One reason was that GBR would be sufficiently incentivised through a whole variety of other means to increase passenger demand. The second reason, which I think is less convincing, is that it might lead to infinite growth over time in principle. Clearly and logically, that is possible, but the point is that the Secretary of State would set a growth target that would seek to strike a balance between what is feasible and practical, and what could be afforded in terms of taxpayer investment. It seems to us that neither of those arguments necessarily stands up, and that logically you would want to include a passenger growth target alongside the freight one.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The ORR has taken an interest in the transfer of ownership to DFTO of individual franchises—I think that is recorded in the board minutes from last year. As far as I can see, it has been some time since the discussion was recorded at the board—it is possible that I may have missed one. How do you think those transfers have gone? John Larkinson: We have a very specific role there because, effectively, the safety management system has to be revalidated when that transfer is made. It has not been debated much by the board because it is all going extremely smoothly. We have done our role effectively on that: we have hit our deadlines and all has gone according to plan in terms of the transfer of safety responsibilities. I will be saying that again at the board next week.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Is it correct that, in theory, it has an appeals function? John Larkinson: I think this is the thing: in theory, yes, but in practice there are very few issues that come to us as a result of that role in Northern Ireland.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Forgive me; I am particularly interested in policy development over time with this question. Ben Plowden: I see.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Does the removal of interfaces through the Bill make it easier to progress that work? John Larkinson: We have to progress it now, so it is not conditional on the Bill in the slightest—the target is set now. We are getting on with it. It will be different with GBR, because we are dealing with a different organisation, but that is some way into the future. I have probably two years of work to do on this before we get to that point.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good morning. I first have a couple of questions to Mr Larkinson, but if other witnesses wish to come in, please do so. Mr Larkinson, in the ORR’s last annual report and accounts, it stated, “we began engaging with infrastructure managers on how to reduce the administrative burdens we impose”— in the context of the Bill and rail reform. I do not mean to suggest that “burdens”, as expressed here, are always entirely one-sided, or that the ORR is doing anything other than working within the framework that has been established for it. Can you tell us a bit about what these “burdens” are, and what potential benefits might accrue from their removal? John Larkinson: That work comes from the Government’s overall review of regulators and the remit that they have given to all regulators to look very carefully at administrative burdens imposed on regulated companies. We are the regulator that that applies to. The target is to reduce the administrative burden by 25% by the end of this Parliament. We are working on that process as set out by the Government and have already put a whole section in our business plan about the work that we are going to do. On that basis, we have had conversations with the companies that we regulate, such as Network Rail, about areas where we might be imposing unnecessary administrative burden, which is something that is always good to come back and look at. Interestingly, we have had different responses from the different companies that we regulate, including, “We do not see any massive excess of administrative burden.” In the case of Network Rail, we have already identified some areas, such as the amount of data we require and the way that data is transferred around us—areas where things can be made faster and less resource intensive. So yes, we are getting on with it and reporting back. Indeed, I was at the regulators council with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Chancellor reporting back about a week and a half ago.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am also a member of Unite the union. Examination of Witnesses Jeremy Westlake, John Larkinson and Alex Hynes gave evidence .

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have one final question for Mr Hynes and Mr Westlake. We talked on the Transport Committee some time ago about progress with shadow GBR and the preparations for implementation. As it has been some time since that was discussed, and this Bill has subsequently been published, could you give us an update on the work that shadow GBR has been undertaking? Alex Hynes: Shadow GBR continues to meet very frequently under Laura’s chairship, and it is really helping to drive alignment and convergence between the Department for Transport, DFTO and Network Rail in this pre-GBR state. Whether it is developing a leadership academy for Great British Railways, looking at where the Great British Railways headquarters is going to be, in Derby, or working with the mayoral strategic authorities on how GBR will work in partnership with said organisations, it is helping to drive the alignment of the industry in this pre-GBR state. On 1 April, about 200 civil servants will TUPE transfer out of the Department for Transport and into DFTO. One of the things that Jeremy and I are doing is trying to get our organisations and teams—of course, there is lots of good will in this area—to work together as though we were GBR, so we can start capturing the benefits of a more integrated railway system in advance of GBR. That is going well. It is Jeremy and I working together that is enabling us, for example, to put integrated leaders in place. You talked about the public ownership programme, which I agree is going well; I pay tribute to John’s colleagues, who work well on the safety aspects of the transfer. Jeremy and I are working—in fact, we are discussing it this week at shadow GBR—on whether and when we can put integrated leaders in place, once we have brought the businesses into public ownership, to make track and train work together and create a single point of accountability by having one person in charge for certain chunks of the railway.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Moving on, the ORR will remain the regulator in Northern Ireland, as I understand it. It is quite a general question, but how does the role of the regulator under the Bill compare to the system in Northern Ireland, which, am I right in saying, broadly has a more European approach? Also how will it compare to other rail regulators on the continent? John Larkinson: At a high level, they are largely non-comparable. The Northern Ireland railway is very small and has a very simple system. I remember the conversation I had with the people there when we first took on that role. Our regulation is proportionate to the size of the system. That means it does not cover safety: it is only an economic regulator. It is very narrow and focuses almost entirely on separation of accounts and issues like that. It really is not comparable.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  A discontinuity or a change is that the draft Rail Reform Bill, published at the start of 2024, did not include a statutory freight target. I am interested in your views about the interaction between freight and passenger services, and whether the freight target is in place of a Bill or not. Alex Robertson: I do not think I have a particular problem with freight—we represent passengers, and we have looked at it from a passenger perspective. I am comfortable that passengers are sufficiently represented in the Bill as it currently stands. That is the easiest, most direct answer I can give you.

• 19 Jan 2026 · School Support Staff Negotiating Body · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group. The School Support Staff Negotiating Body, established under Labour’s landmark Employment Rights Act, will make a real difference for more than 1,600 people in my constituency who have been undervalued and denied decent wages and terms and conditions for too long. Can the Secretary of State, who has been a determined champion of this policy, update the House on what progress has been made to establish the SSSNB in recent months, and on when my constituents can expect to receive published information from her Department on what this policy will mean for them?

• 19 Jan 2026 · School Support Staff Negotiating Body · Hansard source

  More

  9. What recent progress her Department has made on establishing the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.

• 14 Jan 2026 · West Midlands Police · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As a Birmingham MP, I have set out on a number of occasions in the Chamber my serious concerns about both the decision and the way in which it was made. It is clear that the chief constable’s position is untenable. I pay tribute to the many police officers who are working hard to make Birmingham safer for all its communities. However, this decision did not arise in a vacuum. Put simply, if a sufficient professional culture had been followed at every level and by every individual in West Midlands police, this decision would never have been made. Does the Home Secretary agree that there must now be sufficient assurance that other decisions, including those that may not have the same national profile, but are important to my constituents, have not been tainted by a similar failure of process? If the chief constable resigns or is removed, does she agree that measures must be put in place to ensure that the highest operational standards are maintained for everyone in Birmingham?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Northern Powerhouse Rail · Hansard source

  More

  A little more than two years have passed since the last Prime Minister chaotically took the axe to HS2 north and east of Birmingham, and the mayor at the time, Andy Street, failed the test of leadership and failed to stand up for our region. There is an obvious link between the east-west connections the Secretary of State has been talking about, and the south to north connections along the west coast main line. Will she and her Ministers meet and engage with west midlands MPs about the capacity issue she has set out, and can we not lose sight of the importance of the west midlands to east midlands connection, which is as slow as the connections in the north?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) about the regime’s severance of communications adding to the distress of many of our constituents, who are trying to establish the safety and personal liberty of loved ones. I appreciate that there may be things that cannot be said in this place lest they inadvertently inform the regime, but will my right hon. Friend give the House the assurance that all practical measures are being explored to increase the quantity and the quality of information going into and out of Iran?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I sit on the same Select Committee as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), and I know better than to speak for him. I have a degree of personal sympathy with the case that the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) sets out. I also think there is something to be said for giving more powers to our councils, because these decisions—particularly when they relate to areas at risk of complex interactions between homelessness, lack of mental health provision and the sales of these at times dangerous products—are best made locally, in addition to national policy setting. My final point is that there have been calls outside this place for uprating to be moved to a different inflation index, principally the consumer prices index or the consumer prices index with housing. That important matter has not been raised in this debate, so I will touch on it briefly. Although CPI and CPIH are both of use as macroeconomic indicators, RPI remains the only measure that is in general circulation and is updated regularly that actively seeks to measure the cost of living as it is experienced by working people. Criticisms can be made of the retail prices index, but it is important to place on record that in the early 2010s, regular changes to the methodology for RPI were discontinued. That is behind the formula gap that has led to the widening between the headline rates of RPI and CPI. I am not convinced that moving to a different rate at this time is appropriate, given some of the limitations of CPI and its twin CPIH, which we can discuss on another occasion. The Office for National Statistics has been developing the alternative household costs indices measure. That is particularly useful, because it captures the different rates of inflation experienced by households of different income levels. I hope that in future we can look at the HCIs as an alternative means of uprating the various charges, levies and escalators that the Government apply. We are not in that place yet, and it is important that the ONS makes progress in this area. On the whole, I welcome the Minister’s statement. Compared with some of the other debates we have had in this Parliament—particularly on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, where it was suggested that there was some secretive and sinister plot to change sales of the pint to some metric measure—this has in contrast been a sober debate. I look forward to voting for the Finance Bill tonight.