Laurence Turner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2026 · General Strike Centenary Commemorations · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is only right to say that he, through his role on the GMB executive and as one of the delegates to the national policy forum in opposition, was one of the people who helped draw up the reforms to employment rights that have been passed by this Parliament. The general strike raised profound questions about the proper balance of state power and the rights of dissenters at times of civil contingency, and we should ask them again and with urgency in each generation. It is difficult to capture the essence of the world that created the strike: the depths of poverty in the older mining districts; the extreme social control exercised by employers in the villages put up around the more lucrative and newly exploited seams; and the critical dependence of the nation’s economy upon a coal industry that killed one in 1,000 of its workers each year and seriously wounded one in 10. When working people rallied across occupational boundaries to defend the miners in 1926, they showed extraordinary solidarity, and their unions channelled national power to a degree perhaps unseen before, even if they were unsteady in exercising it and uncertain of its limits.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Peter Mandelson’s conduct has disgraced himself and, by extension, brought shame upon the two Houses of which he was formerly a Member. Does the Prime Minister agree that the famous Armstrong memorandum on the conduct of the civil service was correct and holds true today, as it says that “it is the duty of the civil servant to make available to the Minister all the information and experience at his or her disposal which may have a bearing on the policy decisions to which the Minister is committed or…preparing to make, and to give to the Minister honest and impartial advice, without fear or favour, and whether the advice accords with the Minister’s view or not”?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Fur: Import and Sale · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this debate and for all her work to bring her private Member’s Bill to the House. It stands in the tradition of the private Member’s Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) in 1999, which paved the way for the banning of fur farming in the UK just one year later. I welcome the Government’s animal welfare strategy and the Government’s commitment to looking at the fur issue through the working group, but we in this place should be clear that there is no such thing as cruelty-free fur. The domestic farming of fur has been banned since the year 2000, which raises an obvious question: why should we be content for fur to be imported from overseas, when we believe that it should not be produced on our own shores? It is the inherently cruel fruit of an immoral trade. The European Food Safety Authority published an exhaustive scientific study last year, which found serious harm to species such as fox and mink across a range of issues, including severe stress and self-harm. The EFSA was clear that most of the welfare consequences cannot be prevented or substantially mitigated in the current cage system. It is important to address the claims made by the proponents of fur and the industry interests who defend fur farming. A ban on imports would not be without precedent. In fact, in the year 2009, the European Union put in place a ban on seal product imports, primarily from Canada. At the time, I had the privilege of working with Humane Society International, which is now called Humane World for Animals, to challenge the legal attempts to overturn that ban. I am very glad to say that it remains in place. Article XX of the World Trade Organisation’s general agreement on tariffs and trade clearly allows bans on the imports of products if they are “necessary to protect public morals” or “necessary to protect…animal…health”. As others have said, fur is not a natural product. In fact, so-called real fur is so heavily treated by carcinogenic chemicals that it produces seven times as much carbon as faux fur. The other claim made by organisations such as the International Fur Federation, which is headquartered in the UK—a short walk from Parliament—and the British Fur Trade Association is that indigenous communities depend for their economic livelihoods on these exports. This is a complete canard. The overwhelming majority of fur imports are from European factory-farmed locations. Imports from the Canadian hunt, which is not today dominated by indigenous communities, represent a minuscule fraction of UK fur imports. It is also necessary to address the so-called certification schemes promoted by organisations such as WelFur and Furmark. The fur industry knows that the UK public is repelled by fur farming, so it tries to hide the cruel reality behind sanitising but meaningless labels. The labels do not challenge the cage system, which the EFSA found was incompatible with animal welfare standards. They create the appearance of oversight while leaving the practices unabated. It is a very 21st-century form of greenwashing of archaic butchery. When the Minister responds, I hope that she can give the House an update on the timelines in which the working group will conduct its business. I also ask the Government not to accept the validity of these self-interested, industry-promoted certification schemes. I place on the record my appreciation for one of the organisations that has led the campaign against the fur trade in the UK over many years: Respect for Animals, originally founded as Lynx. It was founded by Mark Glover, who was joined by Nicki Brooks and Richard Bissett. They do outstanding work. Three years after the election of the last Labour Government, the law was passed to ban the domestic farming of fur. I hope that we can work to a similar timetable to end the import of fur products under this Labour Government, consistent with their commitment to animal welfare.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that progress has been made on the cultural issues and the micro-management that he describes? I note in passing that he dates that culture from 2012 onwards, which was, of course, entirely under the Government of which he was part. In the Transport Committee, we heard that until the election, Network Rail had to seek Treasury permission to do as much as put up a passenger footbridge. Is it not welcome that that has now come to an end?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. At the outset, I wish to declare that I am a member of Unite. It is a privilege to speak at the start of these proceedings. I do so as a believer in public ownership of the railways not as an end, but as the best means of realising greater economies for taxpayers and improvements for all those who rely on the railways for livelihood and leisure. I am conscious that the Committee has much work ahead of it, so I will keep my explanation of the amendment brief. Public ownership is the ballast of the Bill, but its clauses make only limited reference to ownership, although the drafting logic for that may be good—the Bill must, after all, be read alongside the previous enabling legislation passed by Parliament, the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 and the now much amended Railways Act 1993. In 2024, Parliament’s decision and intent were clear: passenger services are to come under public ownership as franchises expire. I must admit, however, that I start our proceedings under the shadow of a doubt. On my reading, there is a risk that the requirements of public ownership that sit outside this Bill may be time-bound, designed for the specific circumstances of transition, and dependent on definitions in statutory instruments that are themselves at risk of amendment or repeal without full parliamentary scrutiny. I freely acknowledge that some members of the Committee may take a different view of the merits of the ownership question, and I am sure that we will have good and respectful debate on the Bill’s provisions in the weeks ahead, but surely we can all agree on one point: such an important decision as public or private ownership should be taken only through primary legislation. To put it another way, were a future Government to seek to return to a privatised model, they should be obliged to seek majority consent in the full House. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. The amendment would require Great British Railways to be a wholly and nationally owned public sector entity. Indeed, it would cease to be GBR if it were sold in whole or in part. The amendment would also, I think, prevent a future Secretary of State from taking the extremely perverse step of removing GBR’s designation as a public sector body and transferring it to a private or semi-private entity. If the wording of the amendment seems familiar to hon. Members, it will be because they have been paying close attention to other legislation. Clause 1 of the Bill is effectively identical to section 1(1) of the Great British Energy Act 2025. The amendment is a near carbon copy—I am sorry to all members of the Committee, but we are only at the start of our descent; I cannot promise that the puns will improve as we go on—of the subsections that follow in section 1 of that Act. I note that in the equivalent Committee debate for that Act, the sponsoring Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), said: “The clause protects the principle of public ownership by making explicit that the company would terminate if it ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown.” –– [ Official Report, Great British Energy Public Bill Committee, 10 October 2024; c. 91.] I accept that we are seeking to build on a complex body of legislation; the railways are the accumulation of two centuries of history, and so are the laws that govern them. If—I emphasise that word—a drafting issue has been identified, we also need to identify the right solution for this specific legislation. I am grateful to the Minister in the Commons and to the Minister of State, the noble Lord Hendy, for their thoughtful conversations on this matter. I am also grateful to the officials who have worked hard to prepare this commendable Bill. My motivation in tabling the amendment is to establish beyond doubt that the Bill will achieve its aim: that Great British Railways will be run by and for the nation. If we can assure ourselves of that, I believe that this legislation will set out a permanent way for reform. I will listen carefully when the Minister responds.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that Trainline and other online retailers are not seeking to make ill use of their market position, but the Advertising Standards Authority has ordered Trainline to amend its adverts, and the ORR ordered it to amend its practice of not showing booking fees at the start of the booking process. In oral evidence to the Transport Committee, Trainline accepted that its market share was significantly above the 25% test that the Competition and Markets Authority applies for a potential monopoly position. Does that concern the hon. Gentleman at all?

• 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 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

  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.

• 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?

• 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

  When Opposition Members talk about defenestration, I do listen—because of their greater expertise in these matters. And, of course, “What’s past is prologue”—the hon. Gentleman tempts me to get on to the Zinoviev letter, but that might be one for another day. However, I have actually made only one brief reference to the last Government’s record. We are scrutinising their motion and their proposals; this is an Opposition day debate, and that is a proper function of Parliament. The other part of the Opposition’s document that I want to comment on is their intention to axe 132,000 civil servants. Some of those people are my constituents—as has already been noted. Not only is this pledge a rehash of a “here today, gone tomorrow” promise once announced by Boris Johnson and never seen again, but it is unclear where exactly the Opposition see those job cuts falling. Is it the additional trade and customs officials hired since 2016? Is it the additional Department for Education staff hired as a result of academisation—effectively a transfer of functions from local government to central Government? Is it the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government staff hired as a result of the growth in statutory burdens on our local authorities? I think all our constituents who work in those roles deserve at least clarity on what the Opposition’s intentions are.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Heathrow: National Airports Review · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group. As someone who worked on this issue the last time around, I was astonished to hear the Opposition’s flight of fantasy when they accused others of delay. On their watch, the airports commission was artificially delayed until after a general election, with three more years spent producing the current NPS and a further two years tied up in the courts. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the lessons have been learned from those eight wasted years?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Ada Lovelace Day · Hansard source

  More

  I am truly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for securing this debate and for her powerful speech. One of this debate’s origins was a question raised by a pupil at St Thomas Aquinas school in Kings Norton. They wanted to know what more could be done to improve the share of women and girls in STEM subjects and employment. I hope the fact that we are asking ourselves these questions today will be taken as proof that representations to us as MPs make a difference in Parliament. If more time was available, I would love to talk about the work going on in my constituency to sustain and improve those shares. Many women other than Ada Lovelace have made foundational contributions to the development of science and mathematics, but there is something that draws us back to Ada Lovelace in particular. Her insights into the possibilities of computing speak to us 200 years on—they seem sometimes to be more of our time than of her own—yet she was also unbound by today’s boundaries between arts, humanities and other subjects. As she wrote in one early letter: “give me poetical science”. Perhaps it was Ada Lovelace’s combination of science and poetry that allowed her to see, in a way that no contemporary did, the true potential of the analytical engine and general purpose computing. As has been said, Ada Lovelace’s comments on the creative potential and limitations of computing, and her foresight about the power of general purpose programming for the common betterment of mankind, speak in a remarkable way to the debates that we have in this House today. On the question of whether Ada was a true programmer, the fact that the first and famous note G contained a very small bug, and that her periods of intense concentration were followed by occasional intense frustration, will resonate with anyone who has engaged in programming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said, we should imagine what might have been accomplished if Ada Lovelace, and uncounted millions before and after, had enjoyed the same formal and informal advantages as men. How many great discoveries in the fields of medicine, manufacturing and technology have been delayed or are still undiscovered because there were not women in the room? Towards the end of her life, Ada Lovelace hoped that she would leave a mathematical legacy; the inspiration that she has left means that that hope is fulfilled. As my hon. Friend said, this is a time to ask ourselves the famous question, “What should we tell our daughters?”

• 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.

• 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.