Laurence Turner MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I draw attention to my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group, a union that represents workers in the distillery and retail trades. I will limit my comments to the uprating of excise duty, but I welcome this Budget more generally. It represents the right choice—investment and renewal over austerity and decline. Clause 86 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill represents a simple uprating of alcohol duty in accordance with the retail prices index. In that sense, the clause represents continuity with the policy of successive Governments over many years, going back to the early 1970s, and of course the principle of excise duty predates that by many more years. Having noted the shadow Minister’s comments, it is telling that none of the amendments we are considering today would actively reverse that increase. The effects of the escalator is also softened to an extent by the reduction for draught products, which, combined with pre-existing changes to the tax system, amount to a somewhat more favourable regime for the drinks most sold in pubs. This direction of policy is welcome, given everything we know about the attendant health and social harm that can be the result of solo drinking. It is worth noting that the increase is in line with international best practice. It is timely that just today, the World Health Organisation published a new report titled “Global report on the use of alcohol taxes”. That report says that “specific excise taxes need to be regularly adjusted for inflation or their real value risks erosion over time.” It also establishes that the UK’s effective tax take is firmly in line with many other European countries, including Belgium and much of central and eastern Europe, and of course it is significantly lower than in Scandinavia. As such, uprating the duty strikes the right balance between the different objectives of encouraging social activity, supporting the hospitality and manufacturing industries, and not encouraging excessive consumption. It is true that there have been changes in alcohol consumption rates among the general public, changes that have been particularly marked since covid. As the 2024 living costs and food survey found, there has been a notable fall in real-terms alcohol consumption, both in and out of the home, which is why specific measures are needed to support the pub trade. If I may, I will say a few words about the revaluation 2026 process. I have raised questions about this before, and the Minister has indicated that—as the phrase goes—discussions are ongoing, so in the interests of time I will not repeat my questions today. However, I would like to note two things. First, the Valuation Office Agency has been genuinely independent since the days of the increment value duty, and secondly, valuation 2026 has been coming for a long time. It was the last Government who changed the law to introduce three-year valuation exercises, and as successive annual reports of the VOA make clear, the risk of valuations in individual sectors that are not of sufficient quality was foreseen. A delivery plan was developed before the 2024 general election to mitigate that risk, as the VOA saw it. Presumably the Government of the day did not have concerns about the VOA’s approach, because if they did, they would have raised them on the record. I will make two further brief points, the first of which is about the tax system’s treatment of different types of alcohol sales. Something needs to be done about the sale of high-strength drinks on our high streets in proximity to betting shops. If you were to go to Northfield high street, Ms Cummins, you would see a succession of small betting shops immediately next to off-licences where very low cost, but very high strength beers and ciders are sold. There is a revolving door between those premises, and it is a major contribution to some of the antisocial problems that we have on our high streets. I hope that future exercises will look at different treatments, whether that is powers for local authorities or changes to the tax system to try to remedy the problem.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for all her hard work over many years to bring this excellent statement to the House. Some 500 people are killed or seriously injured on Birmingham’s roads every year, including in my constituency. Sadly, due to the historical layout of many of our estates, schools, shops and other amenities are in some of the areas at the most acute risk. Can she assure the House that her Department is working with other public agencies to ensure that efforts are targeted at those most at-risk areas? Once the consultation has closed at the end of March, will every effort be made to respond to them as soon as possible?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Animal Welfare Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and all the staff of the House. There is no such thing as cruelty-free fur, as the last Labour Government recognised when they banned the fur farming industry in the UK. That case has been made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and organisations like Respect for Animals. Beyond the animal welfare strategy, and when the Animal Welfare Committee reports, will full and favourable consideration be given to finally banning the fruits of this vile trade by ending the import of real fur products?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  Merry Christmas to you, Mr Twigg, and all the House staff. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on a topic that is close to my heart, and close to the hearts of many of my constituents. My union, the GMB, has done a lot of work on this issue through the “Thinking Differently at Work” campaign. Does my hon. Friend agree that when workplaces are inclusive by design, and there are clear routes for reasonable adjustments to be made, employers benefit because they get the best out of all the talents in their workforce?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  One problem experienced by neurodivergent workers is that, when reasonable adjustments are put in place, the manager changes and they have to start again. The TUC did some very good work on a reasonable adjustments passport, as did the civil service unions. I encourage all colleagues to look at that work to see if it can be adopted more widely.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The debate is on the Employment Rights Bill, although I struggle to follow the line of logic in the hon. Member’s speech. He said that the effect of the change would be to benefit the wealthiest employees, but chief executive officers and other senior executives rarely seek recourse to employment tribunals, for a number of reasons. Can he name a single CEO or equivalent who has pursued a case for an employment tribunal?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the shadow Minister give way?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I enjoyed many hours in proximity to the hon. Member. He will know that the only reason we are considering the measure in such a short time is that the Bill has been delayed, so close to the April implementation period, because of the Conservative party. The final proof of the implications of the constitutional limits of what we are now being asked to consider can be found in the fact that the Opposition’s amendment was carried last week thanks to the votes of Conservative hereditary peers, who owe their positions to an accident of birth.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, he would know that I was referring to the review called for in the Lords amendment. That is not all that the amendment contains; it seeks to strike out the powers to change the compensation cap. It is a nonsense to say on the one hand that the Bill must be halted in its track while there is a review, when the powers in question have been removed. The delays to the April implementation of fundamental rights cannot be suffered. As the employers’ representatives have said, we are out of time. The opposition to the Bill is exhausted, and the Commons mandate must be respected. Parliament must pass the Bill.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have been called to speak in this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my membership of the GMB and my chairship of its parliamentary group—an unremunerated role. The Bill has been the subject of 14 months of debate and scrutiny, and it should have received Royal Assent months ago. Let us not beat around the bush about why we are here tonight: the Bill has been deliberately delayed by some Members of the other place who disagree with the principle of what it seeks to achieve and with the electoral mandate behind it. The amendment that came from the Lords last week represents the last gasp of that approach, testing the limits of the democratic decision-making process and the constitutional relationship that binds these two Houses. This is no longer solely about workers’ rights; it has become a challenge by unelected peers to the primacy of the Commons and the greater legitimacy that our constituents lend us temporarily.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the Lords amendment were not rejected, it would have two immediate effects. First, it would collapse the agreement between employers and union representatives. It is not some reasonable call for a review; it strikes out the changes to the compensation cap, which was a key component of that agreement. The Conservatives know that it is a nonsense to call for a review if the legislation that would give it effect is not carried— [ Interruption. ] Secondly, the amendment would so delay the Bill that April’s extension of statutory sick pay and parental leave for millions of people—some on the very lowest incomes—falls into doubt.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my membership of the GMB and my chairship of its parliamentary group. The BMA is currently in dispute with its workforce over an offer of 2% for this year, which is below the inflation rate on the retail prices index and the consumer prices index. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a striking inconsistency between the heads of claim that the BMA has advanced and its own record as an employer?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on again reading into the record the names of the 37. I hope I might put two sentiments of my own on the record. First, I pay tribute to the work of Eddie Marnell who, over many years as a member of GMB’s north-west and Irish region and central executive council, championed their cause outside this House and, through the union, inside it. I also pay tribute to the work of my former colleagues at GMB; I can attest to the many hours that have been spent in support of that cause, and I understand that the union is due to meet the campaign again in the new year.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  And now we turn, at last, to a fundamental question which has perhaps gone unasked in this House for too long: what is the mass and acceleration of an average-sized peacock? The question does not spring from the pages of a script for “The Goon Show” or “Monty Python”. It is a real case that came before the rail industry’s Delay Attribution Board. A delay caused by a collision between a train and a small bird is the responsibility of a private operator, which pays the cost of compensation, but if the unfortunate bird is deemed to be large, then taxpayers are on the hook. And so it came to be that one day expensive lawyers gathered to compare calculations and precedent, and argue out whether the unfortunate peacock was more akin to a goose than a duck. Few incidents better illustrate the costly absurdities of rail privatisation. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the cost of privatisation is borne by all taxpayers, whether they use the railway or not. The railways received nearly £700 million in subsidy in 1990-91. By 2018-19, before the pandemic impaired the industry’s finances, the net subsidy requirement had increased to £4.3 billion—an increase after inflation of some 236%; more than doubling, even after passenger journey increases had been accounted for. To this day, subsidy is lower in Northern Ireland, where the railways remained in public hands. Everywhere, the railway’s contingent parts are divided and separated by contractual barriers. For passengers, that can mean station staff who cannot even board a train to help someone with mobility issues, because they work for different companies. There is a multiplicity of such unnecessary contractual barriers, and public money and public confidence drains through each one. We should not expect a complete change of services on day one of operations under GBR, as there was not on the Attlee Government’s vesting day for nationalisation in 1948, but change over time it will, and for the better, including for my constituents who travel from Longbridge, Northfield and Kings Norton. The Bill is the instrument of that transformation. Tonight’s vote is on the principle of establishing Great British Railways. In the weeks ahead, there will be time for detailed line-by-line scrutiny, to which I look forward to contributing, including through the Transport Committee. But for tonight, I just want to say that there can be no doubt that this is the right policy and the right Bill. It has been a privilege to have had the occasional view of the development of this area of transport policy down the years. I look forward to voting for it tonight.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) was the shadow Transport Secretary, he was recorded saying that his party would likely not reverse nationalisation because the public would be unlikely to think it was a good idea. If this Bill passes, will it be the policy of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) to privatise the railways all over again?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady just said that she has been informed by business groups that were in the negotiations that this measure was not agreed. Will she name them?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton). Something has clearly gone very wrong with the safety advisory group process in respect of Aston Villa, as the Minister, to her credit, has said from the start. I am particularly concerned by the apparent absence of clear decision-making processes, and of evidence and recording surrounding those processes, and I wish to know whether this is indicative of other decisions that might have been made by the respective police forces. Can the Minister confirm to the House whether, as part of her considerations, she is looking at new national minimum standards for the way that decisions are made and evidenced through safety advisory groups?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  The OBR is a valuable institution, and the “Economic and fiscal outlook” is by far the most important document that it produces. Today’s report makes it clear that the OBR’s IT infrastructure was a point of critical failure that should have been identified as far back as 2013. Does the Minister agree that the chair of the OBR now cannot credibly lead the investigatory and reconstruction work, and that he should resign?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  As a local MP, I have previously expressed my concerns about the decision-making process. I welcome the Minister’s commitment today that a review is being carried out about how such risk assessments are made. I understand why some information may not be suitable for placing in the public domain, but can the Minister assure the House that the Government’s view is that as much information as possible should be made available for public scrutiny?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Budget: Press Briefings · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister said in his response that the Treasury and the OBR are exchanging information, but that did not happen in the period immediately before the last election, when spending pressures were withheld from the OBR in a way that the chair said may have broken the law. Will the Minister confirm that that failure is being corrected under this Government?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right, and we could all point to examples of waste and inefficient spending under the previous Government. That is, of course, part of the context of where we find ourselves today, as are the £9.5 billion of undisclosed spending pressures that were withheld by the Treasury on their watch from the Office for Budget Responsibility. I will just say this before concluding, because it has been part of the debate: we are today in a pre-Budget debate, and no Back Bencher knows the contents of what will be announced. But when we do look back on the past in that reflective way, I think the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) had—

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for becoming the human face of tax collection in this debate. A number of my constituents also work for HMRC, and they have told me that the period of cuts has impeded the agency’s ability to collect corporate taxation and get into the public purse revenues that are rightly due. Is that not a relevant factor when talking about the Opposition’s plan to cut 132,000 civil servants?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I have said it a number of times on the record and in this House before, so it is no evasion to say that I am no fan of the cap at all. As an incrementalist, I would like to see at least some solid progress on lifting that cap, and I hope that we will be in a position to remove it completely.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Opposition motions are usually detailed—as, indeed, is the next motion on the Order Paper, relating to energy—so the brevity of this motion deserves comment. The most important line is, I think, the first: “That this House calls on the Government to control public expenditure”. In the hands of this Opposition, that short and seemingly innocuous phrase is a euphemism for cuts to essential services, and a return to the austerity agenda that the public rejected so decisively a year ago. All that follows in the motion hangs on that intent. After all, the Opposition accept that were the positions reversed, they themselves would probably be putting up taxes. Earlier in the debate the shadow Chancellor, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, said that he had been quoted out of context. According to the longer transcript, as reported by City AM , he said: “If I was in exactly her position” —the Chancellor’s, that is— “and I had to deal with tax, and I was down the end of the spectrum where the black hole was really big, I would probably go for income tax…I wouldn’t want to be in that position but that’s the cleanest thing to do.”

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  No. I have already taken two interventions and I want to make a bit of progress with my speech, but I might come back to the hon. Member. I hope that the Opposition do publish more detail, because, if they do not, it will be widely suspected in the country and the House that they know that their claims do not withstand the lightest of scrutiny. It will also be concluded that the real function of that document is to act as an exercise in wishful thinking, and that it is designed to avoid the taking of difficult and unpopular decisions. Some parts of the Opposition’s claims can be dispensed with briefly. They tell us that they would save £3.5 billion by closing asylum hotels; I think my constituents would choke on their cornflakes on that one, because they know that the Conservative party was the originator of hotel use, just as small boat crossings were not an issue before 2019. I am glad that, under Labour, hotel placements in Birmingham are down by 50% compared with their peak, and I look forward to their use being eliminated completely. The greater part of the Opposition’s claimed savings is £23 billion of supposed cuts to the welfare bill, but, again, we have had only the scarcest of details. Let us be clear about the scale of what is being discussed: £23 billion is the equivalent of a quarter of the universal credit bill, more than half the disability social security bill, and two thirds of housing costs. To give her credit, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said last week that she would be happy to share a further breakdown of those savings. Again, that has not been brought forward. If the Opposition are to ask the House to have any confidence in their proposals, they must provide that information—not examples of proposed cuts, but the cuts in their totality.