Laurence Turner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member talks of the national interest, but does he agree that it was disgraceful that Gazprom was allowed to acquire an interest in the North sea in the years after 2011, without a word of protest from his party when it was in government?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an outstanding case. Does he also agree that gas is an important feed stock in a number of critical industries, such as the production of ammonia, which is essential in the agricultural sector?

• 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.

• 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.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way; she is indeed being generous with her time. I listened to her comments about the former Mayor of the West Midlands with half a smile on my face; in my constituency I find that I have to chase up on endless promises made to my constituents about things that would be delivered—promises that were as real as fairy dust. However, that is a topic for another day. Does the right hon. Lady accept, and I say this as a former trade union official, that there are only ever two parties to a dispute? In this case, they are the union and the council. Those are the two parties who need to sort out this dispute. To suggest otherwise gives an impression to our constituents that is not accurate.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Lady give way?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to have missed the start of the right hon. Lady’s speech. I am listening carefully to what she says. I am curious to know whether she raised concerns about the cancellation of services in Birmingham in the days when the authority was suffering the sharpest cuts in funding of any metropolitan council, amounting to 40p in the pound for every Brummie.

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

  More

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

• 18 Dec 2025 · Animal Welfare Strategy · Hansard source

  More

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

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

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

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

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

• 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?