Laurence Turner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Oct 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for her recent decision, when she was Home Secretary, about the Ukraine permission extension scheme. Does she agree that when Putin probes weakness we must respond by demonstrating strength? Does she further agree that the post-war development of Ukraine’s significant energy resources, which may require British technical expertise, would serve the dual purpose of helping to reconstruct Ukraine’s shattered economy and increase Europe’s security of energy supply?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising a very powerful and relevant point. She is absolutely right that those are the groups of workers who would enjoy greater protection as a result of this legislation being carried. I want to respond to a couple of points that have been made in this debate. It was a shame that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is not currently in his place, did not have the self-confidence in his arguments to take interventions on his points. He referred repeatedly to the validity of estimates of the number of workers employed on zero-hours contracts, but there are good reasons for not having confidence in these estimates. After all, they are derived from the Office for National Statistics labour force survey, which has had well-advertised and well-understood problems with response rates that have wider implications for both the current Government and the previous Government. It is well known that the number of people who identify as being on a zero-hours contract corresponds to changes in the wording of that particular question. In addition, the labour force survey has well-understood limitations when it comes to reaching people who are employed in what might be called the most marginalised parts of the economy. I therefore urge Conservative Members not to have too much confidence in those estimates, but to look instead at the surveys of workers undertaken by many organisations, such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and trade unions. It was a shame to hear during the debate the number of references to trade union political funds only in the context of party funding. Of course, the great majority of trade union political funds are operated by trade unions that are not affiliated to any political party. Furthermore, the political funds even of Labour-affiliated unions in practice often support meaningful and consequential campaigns that are supported by Members across the House. One example to which I would draw Members’ attention is the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018—sometimes called the protect the protectors legislation—which began as a result of trade union campaigning that was not party political in its nature, and that legislation has since been broadened. I pay tribute to USDAW’s “Freedom From Fear” campaign and the work that has been done to extend the same protections to retail workers. These are exactly the sort of valuable campaigns that, sadly, Members from both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats are looking to restrict. Finally on points raised, I had not intended at the start of the debate to talk about heritage railways. Indeed, it must be said that during those long years in opposition, when we were looking closely as trade union officials at the potential future issues that would be covered by trade union legislation, I think it is fair to say that that issue never once came up, but perhaps we were guilty of tunnel vision. [ Interruption. ] Sorry, I will not do that again. Throughout all the debates on this matter in the other place and here, it has been discussed purely in theoretical terms. The contention has been that the 1920 Act has had a chilling effect on the of operation heritage railways across the country. I do not think, but I would be glad to be corrected, that any actual examples have been brought forward of either court cases being taken or legal advice being received from those organisations, but it certainly feels like an issue that the Transport Committee may wish to consider. I have tried to limit my comments only to the details of the Lords amendments, but if I may, I will make two general comments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough said, the Labour manifesto committed to “implementing ‘Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay…’ in full…and introducing basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal.” Yet in front of us are Lords amendments that would either obviate many of those commitments or reduce their potency to homeopathic levels. As he also rightly said, there can be no question of nodding through amendments that contradict the clear mandate we first received a year ago, and which commands broad support among voters of all parties.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that fair notice may be relative to the industry we are talking about? What is fair notice in, say, the retail sector may be completely different from what is fair notice for someone working on an offshore oil rig.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is rightly talking about the contributions made in the debate by hon. Members of various parties. I am always reluctant to criticise individual Members who may not attend a debate, because they often have good reasons, but there has now become a pattern: at no point in the Bill’s passage has any Reform Member spoken to justify their stance of scrapping thousands of laws, including employment laws. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a democratic deficit in not one Reform Member ever having spoken to defend their stance?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for being able to contribute to this debate. It is a privilege to follow so many powerful speeches, and the speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) was the most powerful I have heard in this place. Her words rose to the moment; mine are inadequate by comparison. I can only thank her for speaking so powerfully about an issue that affects so many of us. I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and thank him for the way in which he opened this debate. At the outset, I draw the House’s attention to my background as an officer of the GMB union and my current unpaid role as chair of the GMB parliamentary group. In that capacity, I thank the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), as he leaves the Chamber, for what he said about Members’ staff in this place. GMB is the union that represents the majority of people who work in support of us as Members of this House. I am sad to say that they are perhaps uniquely vulnerable to some of the abusive practices that have shamed our democracy for too long, and I am at a loss to understand how the relevant Lords amendments were ever brought forward from the other place. I wish to speak specifically against Lords amendments 121, 11 and 1, and in support of the Government amendments that seek to strike them out. Before doing so, I want to say a few words about my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is not in his place at the moment. As a former shadow Minister and latterly as the sponsoring Minister for this Bill, he unfailingly and characteristically brought graft, industry and good humour to the brief. This would be a weaker and lesser Bill without him, and those of us who support the Bill and its principles owe him a debt of thanks. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), who brings a real depth of knowledge and understanding to the role of Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, is now guarding the Bill’s passage to Royal Assent. I know that she will be both pro-worker and pro-business in her approach. I believe that Lords amendment 121 contains significant drafting weaknesses and would fundamentally alter the nature of the proposed and restored school support staff negotiating body. First, the amendment states that employers may introduce new terms and conditions of employment that “meet or exceed any minimum standards set by the SSSNB.” In legal terms, however, the SSSNB will not set or determine those standards; it is a statutory forum for negotiation. The actual conditions of employment will be set through regulations drafted by the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament. Secondly, the actual parameters of a future pay and grading structure will be negotiated by the relevant parties: the representatives of employers, and the representatives of employees. That was the spirit of the original 2008 Act and the actual operation of the SSSNB in its original incarnation. Given my experience as a former trade union officer representing school support staff, I know the contractual issues that need to be addressed are so complicated that they cannot be satisfactorily resolved on the Floor of the House. That complexity is a result of 14 years of drift, dither and political disinterest in the 800,000 support staff workers in England who keep our schools going, and it is a damning indictment of the decision to cancel the original SSSNB. Finally, Lords amendment 121 risks creating confusion at a local level. The amendment states that employers must not be restricted from introducing “improved terms and conditions”, but changes to contracts are not merely introduced; they are consulted on and agreed, either individually or collectively, under existing statutes. The effect of the somewhat loose wording in the amendment may be to encourage local attempts to make unilateral variations to contracts and terms and conditions. Members who support this amendment might say that only improvements could be made under it, but both “improvement” and “detriment” are subjective terms. They are in the eye of the beholder, and I believe that if the amendment were to be carried through, the actual effect may be to increase the number of court cases concerning school support staff. I urge the Opposition not to push a point, and to reconsider their wider opposition to the school support staff negotiating body. School support staff undertake essential roles, and they deserve the same professional standards and professional respect that is afforded to teachers. That is what the restoration of the school support staff negotiating body will achieve. We have debated the official Opposition’s amendments many times at various stages, but I want to comment on some of the Lords amendments that stand in the names of Liberal Democrat peers, either in whole or in part. When I entered this Chamber at the start of the debate, I did not presume that those amendments necessarily enjoyed the support of the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers in the Commons, but I am afraid that impression was dispelled by the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I am at a loss to understand how the radical change in approach has come about among the Liberal Democrats in this House between Committee stage, Report, Third Reading and the debate that we are holding today. In fact, listening to the hon. Lady, I felt an uncomfortable sense of déjà vu: it was like watching the Rose Garden press conference all over again. After all, her Front-Bench colleagues—the hon. Members for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) and for Torbay (Steve Darling)—were at all times appropriately critical in Committee, but they were essentially supportive of the principle of enhancing workers’ rights. Lords amendment 11, which was originally a Conservative amendment in the Commons but now stands in the name of a Liberal Democrat peer, was not supported by the Liberal Democrats in Committee. Lords amendment 1, which stands in the names of both Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers, seeks to amend clause 1. However, the Liberal Democrats supported that clause in Committee and only voiced concern, which was reasonable, that timely guidance to employers must be issued to accompany it; indeed, they voted with Labour Members when it was put to a vote in Committee. I fear that this amendment, too, could have serious unintended consequences. The clause that it seeks to amend puts a duty on employers to offer regular-hours contracts to “workers”—that is the language used in the legislation as it stands at the moment—but the amendment seeks to convert that duty into a right to request by employees. “Employees” is, of course, a more restrictive category than “workers”; indeed, clause 148 of the Bill as drafted makes it clear that for the purpose of the interpretation of this Bill, “workers” and “employees” mean two different things. Many of the people who are classed only as “workers” are precisely those who may benefit the most from these protections. Some 5 million people who are nominally casual workers in sectors such as social care, construction, hospitality, security and retail could be excluded from these protections if the amendment, which stands in the names of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers, were to be carried. I hope it is not the intention of those on the Conservative Benches to exclude those 5 million people. At the start of this debate, I could not believe that that was the intention of the Liberal Democrats, but now I am not so sure.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend speaks about care workers. Does he agree that one issue so brutally exposed during the pandemic was the fact that many thousands of care workers were classed as workers, not employees? As a consequence, they could not get full access to sick pay. One consequence of that was that the fatality rates among both residents and workers were much higher in the care homes that did not make that provision available. If the provisions in the Bill were in place then, many thousands of lives could have been saved.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. I rise merely to support what he is saying. About a decade ago, the University of Manchester published research that found that being in forms of insecure employment may be more damaging to health than being unemployed.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  Does the shadow Minister agree with his predecessor—the last Conservative Rail Minister, Huw Merriman—who said this: “Whilst it’s legitimate to debate the terms of the deal, the demonisation of train drivers and those onboard and at stations, who carry out a difficult and skilled job for the safety of passengers, is completely unfair. These people work hard and should be shown more respect.”?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  I will do my best to speak at high speed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to say a few words about my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood): she was an outstanding Minister and the Department’s loss is the Whips Office’s gain. She will be much missed on the Transport Front Bench. I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this debate. She and I represent constituencies in the squeezed midlands—regions home to 10 million people that have historically been denied a fair share of funding and political attention. As has been noted already, the east midlands receives the lowest transport funding per head of any region, although the west midlands held that unhappy status until recently. The rail line between Birmingham and Nottingham is slower, mile for mile, than that between Manchester and Leeds. The west midlands has the lowest share of public transport journeys of any English region, followed by the east midlands. That fuels congestion, road safety problems and potholes. Birmingham’s roads are a special case. We have one of the last private finance initiative contracts in the country. When originally issued, local government austerity and the high inflation of the early 2020s were not foreseen. The previous Government tried to withdraw support for the PFI contract without a clear plan, which was ruled unlawful. I know that the new Minister will be looking at that closely, and I look forward to working with him to get a fair deal for Birmingham. Most public transport journeys are by bus and half the industry’s income now comes from public funding, yet public accountability lags behind. This summer, National Express announced major changes to the X20 and 61 routes. People in Allens Cross and parts of the New Frankley estate lost their direct connection to Birmingham, and some older residents no longer have direct bus access to the Queen Elizabeth hospital. I am grateful to the hundreds of people who signed petitions, including one that I organised. I have met National Express and Transport for West Midlands, and I hope that we can find a way forward. Significant investment has been announced for commuter rail. I have spoken frequently in this House about rebuilding Kings Norton station as part of a midlands rail hub. In the interest of time, I will only say how grateful I am that Ministers listened; I hope that we can make progress on restoring that service’s frequency. Finally, we must be ambitious. Birmingham Corporation Tramways once ran services to my constituency. The original 1984 vision for a revitalised metro included a loop serving Northfield, Longbridge, Frankley and Rubery. That vision was right, and I hope that we can find funding for a feasibility study for a south Birmingham extension. Regional transport inequality hinders economic growth and denies opportunities to my constituents. I am glad that the House has had the chance to debate this issue. I think this is my stop, so I will.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Half the bus sector’s funding now comes from public sources, but during the summer, National Express announced changes to bus services in my constituency with just two weeks’ public notice, which will have a really negative effect on residents in New Frankley, Allens Cross and Bournville Gardens Village retirement home. Does the Minister agree that when regulation is brought in—which is welcome—consultation must be included?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Life Sciences Investment · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to his place. The life sciences sector is helping to regenerate parts of south Birmingham’s economy, from the new Waters pharmaceutical factory on the old Longbridge MG Rover site in my constituency to the University of Birmingham’s life science incubator. The Minister has been extremely generous in agreeing to meet Members today, so continuing in that spirit, would he be willing to meet south Birmingham MPs to discuss what more can be done to support this very important part of our local economy?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) for securing this urgent question, and welcome the Minister to his new role. JLR employs hundreds of people directly in my constituency, and many more indirectly. This is an extremely concerning time for them, and I hope that the Department will consider providing information directly to local MPs, in addition to engaging with the company. As has been said, this attack follows attacks on Marks & Spencer, the NHS, the British Library and other public institutions. I understand why the Minister has set out that the Government’s focus is on ensuring that companies are better protected and report these kinds of incidents, but can he assure the House that all steps are being taken to identify areas of critical national vulnerability in both the public and private sectors, so that we can try to avoid these attacks in the first place?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I echo the welcome that has already been extended to the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), in his new post. I know that he will bring to this position the same qualities of diligence and collegiate working that characterised his approach at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Given the level of interest in today’s debate, I will speak only about and in support of the second petition that we are considering, which is on the Hong Kong BNO visa. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for the able way in which he has led this debate, and the Petitions Committee for making it possible. I also thank the 635 people in Birmingham Northfield who signed the petition, and the dozens of people who have made representations at constituency surgeries and in writing. I can do no better than to quote one of them: “Since settling in Birmingham, we have purchased our own home and integrated into the community. Two of us are working in the NHS. We made this move not out of convenience but out of necessity, fleeing the erosion of human rights in Hong Kong. Incidents such as the firing of pro-democracy campaigners, prosecution of journalists and the enactment of the article 23 law have only reinforced the difficult choice we made to leave.” Our Hongkonger constituents who are watching this debate should know that they are welcome here and are valued members of our communities. We should also recognise that Hong Kong is clearly a special case. The statement that I have just quoted is not only a commentary on the deep links of culture and history that bind us together, as important as those links are. The practical reality is that although we might wish that the Chinese Government’s tightening repression at home and abroad might lessen within the next 10 years, such hope is contradicted by all the available evidence. We need only look at the fate of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, the organising centre of independent labour, which was linked indelibly to the democracy movement. It was coerced into dissolving itself in 2021. Its leaders are now prosecuted and persecuted, including through abuse of the international arrest warrant system. They are people such as Christopher Siu-tat Mung. Some Members of this House will have heard him speak at the conferences of the TUC, the GMB and other UK labour organisations. He was forced into hiding here in the UK under the protection of the Home Office after a bounty was issued for his arrest. I have spoken to a number of my constituents who share the concern that they may themselves be targeted and subjected to surveillance. They deserve to have that fear lifted—the fear of return to Hong Kong or relocation to another country that may offer lesser levels of protection. There are other important issues that we could talk about today, such as the need for progress towards greater UK recognition of Hong Kong qualifications, but, on the substantive issue—the subject of the petition—the Government have said that they will set out their approach to particular visa routes over the coming months. While I do not necessarily expect the Minister to pre-empt that announcement today, I do ask that he acknowledges the strength of feeling shared by so many Members in this debate, that he makes sure that the arguments made today are given full attention by the Home Office, and that our constituents will be given that certainty as soon as possible.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Early Education and Childcare · Hansard source

  More

  It is so gratifying to see the school-based nursery programme going from an idea to a reality. I place on record an appreciation of the positive role that the trade union movement, and in particular the GMB, has played in nurturing that idea in response to the problem of falling rolls. Will the Minister please set out a bit more information for schools in my constituency that may wish to apply for phase 2 funding on the steps they should take next?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be called in this debate, even if I must start by questioning the wisdom of the Opposition’s decision to bring forward today’s motion. After all, the memories and consequences of their so-called mini-Budget are still fresh—the culmination of Liz Truss’s economic policies, which the present Leader of the Opposition said were “aspirational and inspirational”. Their dreams became our constituents’ nightmares—to say nothing of the Conservatives’ failure to pass renters’ rights reform, which this Government are now putting through, or of their dreadful record on wages, which left people in my constituency with £300 a month less, after inflation, every month. It cannot be reasonably denied—although the Conservatives have tried—that the incoming Government faced a bedevilled inheritance last July. For all the sound and fury, there is little mystery about this now. As Richard Hughes, the chair of the OBR, told the Treasury Committee: “When we had a high-trust relationship with the Treasury those things were being well managed, and managed within the total. That system very clearly broke down… there was about £9.5 billion-worth of net pressure on Departments’ budgets, which they did not disclose…which under the law and under the Act they should have done.” What a disgraceful set of affairs, and decisions that awaited the Government on public sector pay had been ducked and delayed until after the election. We need to be clear about this: Conservative Ministers already knew the recommendation of the schoolteachers review body. They also knew that the recommendations of each pay review body tend to be similar. Why were those recommendations delayed, given that the pay year started not in July or even at the beginning of the pre-election period, but in April? It was because Conservative Ministers and their Departments submitted the remit letters and their evidence late. As the Office of Manpower Economics said in its 2022 efficiency review: “The work of the PRBs is demand led and essentially non-negotiable—departments set the remits and timetables.” There we have it: the additional cost was always coming, and the only reason why it came seven months into an election year was because Conservative Ministers were content for it to be so delayed. Today Opposition Front Benchers claim that they would have rejected the recommendations, but not once has any Opposition Member had the courage to say how much less they would have paid nurses, paramedics, teachers, police officers and armed forces personnel in each of our constituencies. Are any Opposition Members able to enlighten us today? No. The reality is that they want the investment that means 25,000 fewer people are on a University Hospitals Birmingham waiting list compared with last year, and which is almost doubling the free school meals entitlement in my constituency of Birmingham Northfield, but they do not support a single measure to pay for it. We should be clear in saying that strong public services create value. Businesses and working people in all our constituencies need roads, schools and hospitals that are resourced and decent.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member tempts me to get drawn into a discussion to which, in one minute and 30 seconds, I do not have enough time to do justice. Of course we need a bin service that is fit and decent—I have spoken about that many times in this House. What my constituents did not need were the sharpest cuts in resourcing of any unitary authority in the entire country, coupled with the sharpest increases in council tax, and those were signed off by Conservative Ministers. I have in front of me the impact assessment of the 10% council tax increase from January last year, which says: “The decision for Ministers across Government, as No. 10 and HMT clearance will be needed, is whether to grant these increases.” That is the legacy of the hon. Member’s party for my constituents: the highest spending cuts and the highest tax rises. The last thing they need is a return to the failed approach of the Conservatives, who deserve to be reminded of that every time they bring such a debate to this House.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  For many years under the Tories, the west midlands was at the bottom of the league table for regional transport investment, but Mayor Richard Parker has secured £2.4 billion of investment to extend the metro. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the powers in the Bill will make it easier for combined authorities to deliver these kinds of projects in the future, including, I hope, further extensions of the metro to south Birmingham?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  One of the questions that haunt Baroness Casey’s audit is, “Why?” Why was this type of offending allowed to grow seemingly unchecked for so long? Will the Minister, whom it is good to see in her place, give an assurance that serious and credible research on all the factors that drove and enabled the horrendous crime of gang-based child sexual exploitation will be commissioned and will operate without fear or favour?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his leadership on this issue. As the pressure on Ukraine to agree a ceasefire builds, Russia too escalates its campaign of aerial attack on Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure. In the liberated city of Kherson, Russian first-person drone operators are turning state killing into a grotesque spectacle that is publicly broadcast and has been christened a “human safari”. The provision and conversion of Ukrainian Soviet-era missiles into the Gravehawk system represents both real material aid and an accomplishment of British military engineering. Crucially, it helps to reduce dependency on any single supply chain and technology for aerial defence. Will the Defence Secretary give the House an assurance that all steps are being taken to increase both the quantity and the diversity of air defence systems for Ukraine?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the GMB trade union. The Minister said that he was engaging with workers. Will he set out in more detail what engagement he is undertaking with the trade unions that are those workers’ representatives? Will he give the House an assurance that the detailed modelling work undertaken by the Department includes the impact on the wider supply chain?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Birmingham Bin Strikes · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the appointment of the new lead commissioner. As the Minister knows, we have had many discussions about the intervention, including at times from a place of concern. I look forward to working constructively with Tony McArdle on behalf of the citizens of Birmingham. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the GMB and Unison unions, which are the claimant unions in the equal pay case in Birmingham. I feel compelled to round out the partial account that we have heard today in the Chamber. Will the Minister confirm that by far the largest share of Birmingham’s equal pay liability of more than £1 billion was incurred when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats ran the city, and that over the past decade to 2024, Birmingham suffered the sharpest reduction in spending power of any unitary authority in the country, with devastating consequences for every constituency in Birmingham?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Orgreave Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly welcome the Minister’s statement and the fulfilment of that manifesto commitment and, like others, I pay tribute to the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign. I am sure that Members across the House will have been disturbed by reports of the destruction of potentially relevant documents—a point that has already been ably raised. The Home Office is currently considering the case for instituting a public inquiry into the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings, and I do not expect the Minister to pre-empt that today, but in respect of the preservation of records, will the Department consider taking the same actions to preserve potentially relevant documents, including those held by external bodies, in advance of that decision? The Northumbria police case highlights the particular risk of accidental loss or deliberate destruction in advance of that legal protection kicking in. I would welcome the chance to discuss this matter further with the Minister.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Extending the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Has the hon. Member seen the research produced by the University of Birmingham on the experience of Ukrainian refugees in circumstances such as those he describes, particularly loss of employment and loss of tenancies? Does he agree that landlords and employers should not be acting in this way, that to do so may be discrimination on the grounds of nationality, and that some form of remediation needs to be found in these cases?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Victoria college in my constituency is one of the relatively small number of SEND specialist further education colleges in the country. It does outstanding work. For many years, such colleges have not had access to dedicated capital grant funding. Will the Minister be so good as to look into the issue and agree to meet me to discuss it further?