Laurence Turner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  The motion in the right hon. Lady’s name states that “balances will never rise faster than RPI inflation”. She was a senior Treasury Minister. Does she share my regret at the decision to suspend routine methodological improvements to the retail prices index, which led to the gap between the RPI and the lower consumer prices index rates more than doubling?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not also the case that kids from working-class backgrounds were increasingly shut out of traditional apprenticeship routes under the previous Government because of the artificial entrance requirements, which employers said were blocking them from hiring the best? Employers said that those requirements should be scrapped, but the Department for Education blocked that under its previous management.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Type 1 Diabetes: Infant Testing · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir Alec. I am grateful to everyone who made the petition and the debate possible. In the short time available, the best service I can provide is to represent just some of the 181 Northfield constituents who signed the petition, in their own words. My constituent Charlotte said: “As a child, at the age of 10, I was misdiagnosed with a stomach bug by my GP. I was later on that same night in a coma… My parents told my GP that I was showing signs of the 4 Ts—toilet, thirsty, tired and thinness. That same night, I nearly lost my life. The doctors and nurses prepared my parents for the worst, but thank God—I survived the coma, and was blessed to still be alive.” Sadly, these are not just cases that have occurred in the past. Only a few short years ago, another constituent had to take her young child to accident and emergency. In her words, “The A&E doctor ran the usual diagnostic tests and said: ‘Go home, continue the penicillin, and let them rest.’ I refused. Something in my gut told me this wasn’t right. The doctor then agreed to do a glucose finger prick test, which showed dangerous blood glucose and ketone levels. If I’d have taken him home that day then they wouldn’t be with us. That haunts me, and I never want another family to live through the trauma that we did.” I am sorry to my other constituents whose stories I cannot recount in the few minutes available, but the common thread that unites them is some pre-existing awareness of type 1 diabetes. Children’s chances in life should not hang on that probability. Extensive reference has been made in this debate to the ELSA study, undertaken and led by the University of Birmingham and across the city. The two-year results of that study show that a national screening test programme is feasible, with high levels of acceptance and returns. I warmly welcome the Minister to her place. When she responds, I will be grateful if she can update the House on the process by which the external advisory committee could reconsider the case for a new infant screening programme.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for proving my point exactly. I will happily tell him that since becoming a Member of this House, I have not received a penny in political donations from trade unions. My constituency Labour party received a donation before the election, but that is an entirely different matter. I have only one matter to draw attention to in my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group, which is an unpaid role. We are asked today to consider a number of amendments that directly contradict our manifesto commitments. Lords amendments 61 and 72 on political funds are a case in point. In the other place, the noble Lord Burns gently questioned whether this was a manifesto issue, but the Make Work Pay document, which our manifesto said would be implemented in full, clearly said that the Trade Union Act 2016 would be repealed. That must include this provision. The amendments before us seek to preserve the punitive restrictions that were originally imposed as retribution in 1927 and repealed in 1946, after which we had 70 years during which arrangements worked effectively. The actual impact of these amendments, were they passed, would be the same as any arrangement that moves from opt-out to opt-in, which is a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice. Let us not forget that trade union political funds do not exclusively fund donations to parties. Look at the campaigns that have been run and the cross-party support they have won, such as GMB and Unison’s “Protect the Protectors” and GMB’s campaigns on domestic defence manufacturing—two campaigns that the Conservatives came to support—as well as USDAW’s “Freedom from Fear”, and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, the result of Unite’s campaign in the aftermath of the Morecambe Bay disaster, in which so many cockle pickers tragically and disgracefully lost their lives. Even today, in this place, trade union funding helps to address the abuse that has occurred within the confines of the estate, and which there is a risk will continue in the future. Trade unions are democratic bodies. Any member of a trade union can demand to see the receipts of political expenditure, and decisions on party donations are taken on a collective basis. When that provision was originally repealed, the Attlee Government’s Attorney General of the day said—I think this bears repeating today—that the Conservatives relied on the “old delusion that the Labour party was being built upon the hard-earned pennies of honest Conservatives who were too timid to declare their true political colours and were being bullied by horrid, nasty trade unionists into supporting the political funds of a party to which they were so much opposed.” Anyone who has worked with trade union members will recognise that to be a delusion indeed, and we have heard much of that delusion from the Opposition through the passage of the Bill. I was going to make similar comments to those my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance)—who is both honourable and a friend—made in respect of Lords amendment 62, but she covered it expertly. I will finish by talking about Lords amendment 121B on the school support staff negotiating body, which has not been discussed so far today. I recognise that this amendment is substantially different from other amendments that have been sent to us on this matter, but I still believe that it is unnecessary. First of all, the overwhelming majority of academy employers do subscribe to the National Joint Council terms and conditions for school support staff—terms and conditions which, as has been widely recognised for more than 20 years, are out of date in respect of school support staff. The effect of Lords amendment 121B would to be to create a two-tier arrangement between school support staff in local authority maintained schools and academies. It states that employers could introduce terms and conditions. I am concerned about the potential contradiction with the provisions in the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which that require such changes to be made on a collective and not a unilateral basis. Furthermore, it states that terms and conditions that could be changed should be “in aggregate” an improvement. That clearly leaves room for employers to introduce a weakening to some areas to the detriment of the 1,700 school support staff in my constituency. I am proud to have had an association with this Bill, and I look forward to rejecting those specific amendments tonight.

• 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 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 · 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?

• 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.

• 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?