Laurence Turner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend accept that there may be a weakness in new schedule 1, in as far as it protects a person from actions taken by their employer? For example, it would not necessarily protect an agency worker who is contracted to perform a service, but the original medical body decides not to re-engage that person’s services.

• 6 May 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (Review) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to review the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority; and for connected purposes. From time to time, this House has asked itself the question: what value do we place on support for the victims of violent crime? I believe that this is the right time to ask ourselves that question again. Victim support can take many forms, including non-financial measures. We have got better, but we must get better still, at recognising the lifelong impact that violent crime has on a person. Victims would benefit from better sharing of information about support services, both public and voluntary, and the processes for accessing NHS diagnostic and therapeutic support. That information sharing should start with the police, the ambulance services and the Crown Prosecution Service, and I was pleased to hear recently from the CPS west midlands region about the enhanced victim support that is now in place. Nevertheless, there will always be cases in which financial loss has occurred, or financial remedy is a necessary or otherwise appropriate means of providing some measure of justice for those who have suffered assault. I think that Members in all parts of the House would wholeheartedly endorse the principle that, whenever possible, the perpetrators of violent crime should pay the costs of restitution. Indeed, it is a welcome and remarkable achievement that the amount recovered to fund support services through the victim surcharge—first introduced in 2007—has nearly doubled over the last four years. However, the criminal injuries compensation scheme exists because some offenders lack, or cannot be proved to possess, the assets or revenue to pay those costs—the so-called straw men of the justice system—and in still more cases, the perpetrators of violence are never identified. Crime statistics notoriously do not tell the full story, but in the West Midlands police force area, nearly one in five violent assaults are not prosecuted because no suspect can be named. I commend the chief constable, Craig Guildford, and the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, for their success in increasing the number and the share of identified assailants, but the point stands. The animating force behind the current criminal injuries compensation scheme was a Birmingham magistrate and the first secretary of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Margery Fry, who led a campaign in the 1950s under the clarion call of “Justice for Victims.” She argued that criminal injuries could not be narrowly considered to be a private matter between the assailant and the victim. Just as we provide for each other in times of sickness through national insurance, so too, she argued, a duty is owed by the state when it fails to prevent one citizen from injuring another. In her words, “the State … cannot disown all responsibility for its occasional failure to protect.” Today that same principle is set out by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which says that payment is sometimes needed as an “acknowledgement of harm and an important gesture of public sympathy.” The criminal injuries compensation scheme is now an integral part of the justice system, even if it is—as the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), put it last week—something of a “Cinderella service”. Nothing that I say today is intended as a criticism of the staff of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority; they work hard in difficult circumstances, given that staff numbers have fallen by a fifth since the current iteration of the scheme was introduced in 2012. The civil service people survey shows that they take pride and find professional fulfilment in their work, and, as someone who once received an award from the scheme, I remain grateful to them. Important and positive improvements have been made since, six years ago, the Victims’ Commissioner published an excoriating report. Let me say at this point how welcome it is to see the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), in her place. I know that she cares deeply about victim support as well as having specialist knowledge of this issue, and I am grateful to her for her thoughtful responses and conversations about it. However, it is also clear that failings remain within the system, as we heard last week when Members across parties contributed to a debate in Westminster Hall. I draw particular attention today to the delays that too many applicants still experience; a lack of signposting or integration with wider support services, and a general lack of public awareness of the scheme itself; the trauma of dog attacks on postal workers and other victims by new and banned breeds, the victims of which are mostly ineligible for compensation following changes to the scheme in 2012; the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse; a supposedly £500,000-a-year hardship fund, established 13 years ago, that is now essentially a dead letter—the criteria are so restrictive that no payments have been made from it in the last seven years; and the tariff system itself, as many serious and life-changing injuries are not covered at all. It is true that the upper cap on the scheme is generous by international standards, but the lowest limit of £1,000 has been frozen in cash terms since 1992. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) referred in this place to annex B of the scheme, which defines a “crime of violence” as including “a sexual assault to which a person did not in fact consent”. Those are words and ideas from another age. Even if the courts now adopt a more informed interpretation, the continued presence of that definition can only cause harm, and it must be struck from the scheme. These problems—and I believe, on the basis of my own casework and that of other Members, that they do to an extent persist—impose a heavy burden on the victims of crime. Like some other Members, I bear the physical scars of violent crime, alongside other scars of a different and more subtle kind. I have spoken previously, in another debate, about that experience, and I do not intend to repeat those words today. It is enough to ask hon. Members to take it on trust that delays, the seemingly arbitrary rules of the scheme, the manner of the communication, and, sometimes, poor decision making can add to the sum of the pain that victims feel—a pain that can only be partially outweighed by the release that the end of the criminal injuries process brings. A perpetrator might evade justice, but it is part of the nature of the trauma response that, at a slight or unexpected prompting, a victim may be compelled to relive that crime again and again. That is why the Victims’ Commissioner has called for an overarching review of the scheme to establish “whether it actually fulfils its stated remit: to acknowledge the harm suffered by victims of violent crime who have no other access to compensation, and to provide redress as part of a just and compassionate response.” That is what the Bill, which I beg leave to introduce, would achieve. The legislation would set out a simple requirement for a fundamental review, and for Ministers to report back to the House with proposals for further scrutiny and debate. I cannot stand here and claim that easy answers exist to all these questions. Although I note that, to the best of my calculations, the cost of the scheme appears to be falling in real terms, we live in straitened financial times. That is why it is better for reform of the scheme to be carried out in a deliberative manner, on the basis of accurate and recent evidence, and with the needs of victims as the primary concern. To that end, I take heart from the Minister’s statement; although she said that the Government do not plan changes to the scheme “at this time”, she went on to say: “The clear message to me is that we need change, and I will be considering how Government can best provide the support that victims need and deserve.” I also take heart from the Prime Minister’s statement of personal support for the victims of violent crime when this matter was raised with him a fortnight ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). This issue touches the lives of people in every one of our constituencies. No amount of money can return someone to their mental or physical state prior to an assault, but a well-functioning, fair and compassionate scheme can bring victims some measure of justice. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Laurence Turner, Charlotte Nichols, Michael Wheeler, Andy Slaughter, Warinder Juss, Antonia Bance, Chris Bloore, Catherine Atkinson, Kevin McKenna, Mark Sewards, Tim Roca and Alistair Strathern present the Bill. Laurence Turner accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June , and to be printed (Bill 231 ).

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises what sounds like a truly shocking case. All my sympathies are with that child and his family. I agree wholeheartedly with the point she makes about timelines and the nature of communication through the scheme, which I—and, I am sure, other Members—will come on to in the course of this debate. At the time, the Victims’ Commissioner further recommended that the Ministry of Justice “examine the Scheme with a view to making it simpler and accessible to victims wishing to apply on their own behalf, reducing the reliance on legal representatives.” Also in the last Parliament, the all-party parliamentary group for adult survivors of child sexual abuse reported that “almost all survivors” who contributed to its inquiry “had a negative experience of applying to CICA for compensation.” I recognise that some progress has been made in the last six years, which must be welcomed. The last Government retrospectively removed the “under the same roof” rule for crimes committed between 1964 and 1979. It had long been recognised that the rule prevented the awarding of fair compensation to victims of historical domestic abuse and childhood sexual abuse during that period. Progress has also been made more recently on reducing the paper-bound nature of the scheme. However, we cannot reassure ourselves that the scheme is in good health. As has been said, victims of violent crime can face long delays before they access compensation. For residents in Birmingham, the average time between application and award is still more than a year. That average can be dragged upwards by the most complex cases, but even apparently simple cases can take many months to resolve. Applicants to the scheme are not effectively signposted to wider support or assisted to navigate the processes for accessing services, such as the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder through the NHS. The reasoning that underpins the tariff system is hard to understand, and the apparently arbitrary limits to the scheme can produce outcomes that are, to the layperson’s eye, perverse. The two-year normal claim limit is out of line with the three-year limit for civil claims for injury.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been substantially changed in Committee. Can the Leader of the House give an update on when the House may see the impact assessment for that Bill? Can she give an assurance that sufficient time will be available for Members to consider that analysis before we get to the Bill’s remaining stages?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  One of the pleasures of the Committee is that we have 970 pages of transcript where those matters were discussed at length, and the Government are indeed bringing forward further impact assessments on those points. Looking at my constituency and, indeed, the constituencies of all Members of the House, the economic record that we have inherited is one of pallid economic and wage growth. After 15 years, average real wages in Birmingham Northfield are £300 lower a month than they were in 2010. The costs of delayed and cancelled NHS appointments, crime that goes without investigation and shortages in key teaching posts are borne not just by our constituents, but by businesses. We should say this clearly: public services create value. Businesses and the people who work for them need strong public services to sustain themselves and grow. When I recently met small businesses on Northfield high street, we had—as you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker—a serious and robust discussion about a whole range of Government policies and policies enacted by the previous Government, but the first issue raised was crime and antisocial behaviour. Anyone who has been a victim of crime can attest to the devastating impacts that it can have on a person or business.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I recently visited the Royal Orthopaedic hospital in my constituency, which has an outstanding veterans’ care service. Does the Minister agree that it is essential for former and current service personnel in Birmingham and beyond to continue to have access to specialised musculoskeletal rehabilitation services?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Children’s Social Care: North-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend and I previously both advocated for and represented workers in children’s social care for Unison and the GMB respectively. Does he agree that driving up pay and terms and conditions for those workers is just as important in children’s social services as it is in adult social services?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Bereaved Parents: Birth Certificates · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on bringing forward this incredibly important debate and thank her for having the strength to share her experience. She has shone a light on a matter that will resonate with people in every constituency across the country. I rise to raise a related matter that has been brought to my attention and to the attention of other representatives in Birmingham by one of my constituents, Wunmi Babalola. Last year, she and her partner Charlie lost their infant son, Kayode Babalola-Fellows. Her experience of registering Kayode’s death was much more difficult than it needed to be. They found themselves sitting in Birmingham register office alongside new parents who were registering their own children’s births, and they were required to attend two separate appointments on the same day to register the birth and their son’s passing. Wunmi said: “I was already feeling the pain of our loss so much and when we arrived we had to sit and wait our turn with everyone else, including with parents with their babies registering their births. I felt my loss so intensely in that moment, it hit me like a ton of bricks… It should be a joyful time for new parents, while obviously for us it was an awful, traumatic one. I just didn’t feel those two worlds should have to collide like they did.” I also pay tribute to Councillor Carmel Corrigan, who is a representative for Kings Norton North in my constituency. Last week, Birmingham city council carried her motion calling on the authority to work with the register office to secure an appointed officer with seniority and experience to support families through their grief, so that people who experience baby loss do not have to register their baby’s death alongside parents who are registering births, and to explore what additional support the registry service and the NHS can provide to parents in that situation. Carmel spoke about the loss of her own son, Aodhan Hay, 28 years ago, when she experienced something very similar. If something can come out of this debate, I hope it is attention for the issues raised by the hon. Member for South Devon and for the situation that my constituents faced, because if we can prevent a similar ordeal for other bereaved parents, we will have done some good. I pay tribute to all the campaigners, including the hon. Lady, who have taken some form of good from the hardest pain and dearest loss to provide some comfort to others. I ask the Minister to look at the good work undertaken in Birmingham and to assess the case for national guidance and support for register offices, so that the circumstances that Wunmi and Charlie faced do not happen again.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests, given my background in the GMB trade union, which represents ambulance workers in the West Midlands ambulance service. Does he agree that during the difficult winter period, ambulance staff endured an extremely difficult time, and we should all pay tribute to their professionalism? Does he further agree with ambulance crews that if we had more community-based health services, pressure on those central accident and emergency centres would be reduced?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on her very capable speech introducing the debate. I speak today in recognition of the strength of the representations that I have received from constituents; I thank all those who took the time to write to me ahead of this debate. I accept—as, I think, all my constituents do —that all Governments face the challenge of striking the right balance between a fair and rules-based immigration system and the human right to respect for family life, but we are here today because the 2012 system does not strike the right balance. The results can be arbitrary, unfair and distressing for families. As has been said, family life and love cannot be neatly divided by borders. The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee report said that the family visa system can be “complex and inconsistent”, and drew attention to the processing delays and decisions that are sometimes very hard for constituents to understand, as other hon. Members have ably highlighted. There are a number of examples of unfairness in the policies and practices that this Government have inherited. The inflexibility of the cut-off takes no account of variations in earnings across the country. There is affluence in my constituency, but by and large wages are low and we have not fully recovered from the closure of the Longbridge plant 20 years ago. In a ranking of all constituencies by average income, Birmingham Northfield is 35th from the bottom. In my constituency, the average full-time employee’s salary is about £31,000, but that does not take account of the self-employed, whose earnings tend to be lower. That figure is almost £3,000 lower than in Birmingham as a whole, almost £4,000 lower than in the west midlands overall and more than £6,000, or 16%, lower than the average for the UK. More than half of people in work are below the current threshold, and that would rise to more than 70% under the former Government’s plans. The £29,000 threshold is already an extremely challenging barrier for many families to meet because the jobs are just not available. I have constituents who work two or more jobs in an effort to meet that threshold, at great personal cost. There is a clear risk that if the inherited plans proceed, the right to respect for family life will become the preserve of a fortunate few, concentrated in just a few neighbourhoods within the city of Birmingham. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) made the point well: the previous Government confused income with skill. It has been the stated ambition of successive Governments to attract highly skilled migrant workers. Two of the constituents who contacted me today hold doctorates, including in shortage occupation areas, but, due to a combination of altruism in their choice of career and family circumstances, they do not have large incomes. One of them, Dr Gillian Thies, is in the Public Gallery. She fought for years for her husband, Patrick, who is also with us, and their children to be allowed to join the rest of the family in Birmingham. The applications were initially refused and were granted only in 2018, after significant political and press attention. Patrick is now a senior physician associate at the Royal Orthopaedic hospital, and his application was strongly supported by the NHS. Indeed, his work in the UK is of ongoing benefit to patients and the wider community, but Gillian and he had to fight to bring their children to the UK from America; distressingly, their adopted children—two young teenagers—were turned around and put on a plane at Heathrow. They are now heavily involved in the Reunite Families UK campaign. I want to place on the record an appreciation of how they have responded to their ordeal: by working to benefit others who find themselves in comparable situations today. Gillian and Patrick are not alone in Northfield. Another of my constituents estimates that he has spent £50,000 to try to resolve his wife’s case, which he says is an exceptionally generous subsidy to airlines, hotels and lawyers. Would it not be better for the economy if that money could be spent in south Birmingham instead? I welcome the Government’s decision to ask the Migration Advisory Committee to look again at this policy. I hope that the review, and the Government’s response to it, will take account of the House of Lords Committee’s recommendation that the financial requirement should be revisited to become more flexible and to focus on the likelihood of the future income of the family unit, rather than solely on the sponsor’s past income. The review should also take wider account of a family’s whole circumstances and of the differences in labour markets and local wages, and focus on improving the administration of applications so that fewer families are left in limbo for so long and the system is ultimately fairer and more compassionate.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Health and Social Care: Winter Update · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the Secretary of State’s comments and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) on recognising the endeavours of health and care staff during last week’s extremely difficult critical incidents, and I also recognise the effect of contingency planning that had taken place, including the provision of additional beds at West Heath hospital in my constituency. With respect to the central support the Secretary of State referred to, is he willing to make summaries of the support provided by NHS England to local trusts this year and in previous years?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  In this Parliament, we have spoken at length about the importance of valuing dignity at the end of life. That principle must be applied to hospice and palliative care, which has faced uncertain funding and been too hard to access for too long. Like most of us, I have reason to be grateful for the work of palliative care professionals. Even though more than 15 years have passed, I still remember with a great sense of gratitude and relief the compassionate care that my grandmother, Janet Russell, received at the end of her life at the St Mary’s hospice, which is now the Birmingham hospice, in Selly Oak. In advance of the debate, I have been in contact with five palliative care professionals in my constituency, who stressed the consequences of the long-term pressures we have heard so much about, including the shortages of palliative care workers and the strain that puts on those who remain. One said: “I’m deeply passionate about what I do and I have seen many lives improved by palliative care but I’m exhausted and often think about giving up.” The strains on the system have led, to quote again from one of my constituents, to “a higher threshold for admitting patients and a lower threshold for discharging patients…we are being asked to stretch further, with less, for longer…you can’t give quality medical care when your hands are empty”. My constituents stressed that there can be public misunderstandings about the nature of palliative care, which reduces suffering, and on average extends life. Those misconceptions have been exacerbated by some of the media coverage of the assisted dying debate, which can make people less likely to seek such care. A number of hon. Members spoke about the importance of children’s hospice funding. The children’s hospice grant was effectively ended last year, although it is important to note that transitional arrangements were put in place. The new funding announced before Christmas has been welcomed by the sector; it is important to stress how welcome that funding is. I heard that recently at the Acorns children’s hospice, which in the last year has cared for 14 children from Northfield. I heard about the plans that Acorns has to put that funding to good use when I visited recently, alongside my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). It is an exceptional facility, but the sector still needs long-term funding certainty, set out on a multi-year basis, if it is to deliver efficiencies and certainty for staff. I welcome the constructive approach that the Minister has taken on this issue since July. I ask him to give us an update today, or soon, on whether the Government will be in a position either to restore the children’s hospice grant on a long-term basis or provide similar certainty through another means. Whatever happens in this Parliament in respect of assisted dying, will the Government work with palliative care professionals to set out, as part of the NHS 10-year plan, a clear timeline for improving palliative care provision, which in too many areas is strained? I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this important discussion, and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for the constructive tone in which he led the debate.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights: Terminal Illness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) on securing this important debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB. I add my thanks to midlands TUC for the work it has done for many years to promote and champion this campaign. I will also mention the work that the GMB midlands region has done in connection with the cause. Two names are on the record, and I echo the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Corby and East Northamptonshire and for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh). I pay tribute to Jacci Woodcock, who struck the spark that lit the flame, and my friend of many years, Richard Oliver. It is a pleasure to see him in the Public Gallery. He has brought real passion and expertise to the cause. We have heard today that there are weaknesses and gaps in the Equality Act. I hope that this is the subject of consensus across the House. When in 2022 the then Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), responded for the Government go a debate on the Terminal Illness (Support and Rights) Bill, although he acknowledged that many workers who have a terminal illness are covered by the definition of disability under the Equality Act, he added: “I say, ‘the overwhelming majority’, but one thing that we might want to look at offline, as it were, is trying to ensure that that is everybody” —[ Official Report , 18 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 1010.] who is covered. We are still not in that place today. Although a terminally ill worker can in principle bring a case before an employment tribunal, in too many cases, sadly, there are obvious barriers to doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) has already pointed out that there is very little case law in this area. Although in theory a posthumous employment tribunal case can be brought, in practice it rarely happens. Although the definition of disability inherited from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was probably not written with terminal illness in mind, there are circumstances where a terminally ill worker who is discriminated against at work would not fall under the protections of the Act, but someone in the early and possibly asymptomatic stages of a terminal illness would fall into that category. So there is a strong and compelling case for revisiting the Equality Act, but there are steps that can be taken in the intervening period. Section 22 of the Equality Act established powers to bring in regulations on matters to be taken into account when employers and other bodies make reasonable adjustments. If regulations were brought in for the purpose of establishing that it is reasonable to take certain steps to accommodate the needs of workers with a terminal illness, that would be a helpful and clarifying step, which would be welcomed by employers as well as workers who develop a terminal illness, because employers are looking for clear guidance in this important area. Similarly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission statutory code of practice on employment is the consolidated set of statutory guidance on the application of the Equality Act in the workplace, but that code of practice has not been updated since 2011 and it does not clearly or explicitly cover or reference terminal illness at any point. Were that code updated to take account of the particular problems facing workers who have a terminal illness, that would also play a positive and constructive role. Tribunals must have regard to the guidance from the Government Equalities Office, now the Women and Equalities Unit, on matters to be taken into account in determining questions on the definition of disability. That code has not been updated since 2013, and it does not clearly cover matters relating to terminal illness. Some helpful clarification that could be introduced through that guidance. Nevertheless, some problems cannot be addressed unless and until the Equality Act itself is revisited. The point has already been made that workers who develop a specified illness—cancer, for example—automatically fall under the definition of disability, but people who develop a different terminal illness do not. There is a very strong case for revisiting the Equality Act in that regard. It is welcome that the new Government have made commitments in the “Make Work Pay” document, which states: “Terminally ill people deserve security and decency during the hardest period in their lives.” The Government encourage employers and trade unions to negotiate and sign up to the Dying to Work charter, and will work with trade unions and others to ensure that workers diagnosed with a terminal illness are treated with respect and dignity and supported at work. We all look forward to hearing from the Minister about the progress that has been made on those commitments. We have heard a lot in this Parliament about the importance of a good death and the steps that we need to take in all areas of public policy and law to ensure that people are entitled to and receive support and dignified treatment at the close of their day. That must apply in the field of work and employment as much as in the health service and in all the other respects that we have considered during very emotive and considered debates in this Parliament. It must be hoped that, in the course of the four or five years of this Parliament, real and meaningful progress will be made to extend the charter and other protections to the hundreds of thousands of people who will, sadly, fall ill with a terminal illness and need support at work.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I doubt I am going to do it personally; as with all these things, it is a collective endeavour. The hon. Member asked whether the Government are going to do this, but they are doing this—it is in the Bill. I ask again: what is the Opposition’s alternative? We are yet to hear it. It is worth reflecting on the nature of these review bodies—not that this is a pay review body; it is a negotiation body—and the way in which we establish new agreements, because these things do not happen quickly. I think that the establishment of “Agenda for Change” in the NHS took seven years from initiation to completion. That exercise took a long time, but I do not think anyone would seriously argue for going back to the plethora of terms and conditions, and the mismatch between different grades of workers, that existed before, which created serious equal pay liabilities. That is the situation that we inherit in respect of school support staff. These things do take time. If the shadow Minister goes back to the record of the original school support staff negotiating body—from 2009 to 2010—the progress made in that relatively short time was not on establishing the new pay system, but on drawing up model role profiles and moving towards a national handbook for terms and conditions. Those measures would be hugely welcome today. In fact, the Conservative Government acknowledged that some the school support staff negotiating body had done some important work during that time. They were on record as saying that there was a clear case for carrying forward some of it, but that never happened, and we have been left with an absence in that area of policy for almost 15 years. The changes to pay will be hugely welcome when they come. It will be a negotiation, so the outcomes will be a matter for the parties represented on the negotiating body, including the Department for Education. We must go back to the problem: schools are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain skilled school support staff. A number of private sector employers, including supermarkets, are increasingly offering term-time only contracts, with the intention of attracting people out of schools and into alternative roles. Freedom of information requests show that, where data is held, teaching assistant vacancy rates run at around 10%. That is having a real impact on the ability of schools to deliver inclusive education, which is a shame.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My personal view is that they should not be accepted, but the hon. Gentleman surely knows that he should not seek an opinion on the party position from a Back-Bench MP. My second point is on the sectors that would be affected by the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester made an incredibly powerful contribution, which we all thank him for having the courage to make, about his experience in the hospitality industry. I want to talk about the social care sector, and it is important to remember that one in three workers on a zero-hours contract in England works in adult social care. In a former life, I spent many hours going through the corporate structures of social care employers, and their accounts and other filings. It is commonplace for an individual care home to be constituted as an individual employer, even though they ultimately all share a common ownership structure, so what appears to be a small business is often not one. During the pandemic, there was a complex interaction between care workers on zero-hours contracts and a lack of access to statutory sick pay, and there was a direct link between SSP coverage and high rates of infection, and indeed deaths, in those homes among both workers and residents. The measures in the Bill will make real progress. Going back to points that have been covered already, I fear that this group of amendments will have serious unintended and perverse consequences, and I encourage Members to vote against it.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We heard quite a balanced account from the previous panel; there were measures in the Bill that they welcomed, alongside measures that they wanted to see changes to. Mr Hallas, I notice that you have said that gaps in employment law are becoming an increasing challenge. So I want to ask the same question to both of you: are there individual measures in the Bill that you welcome and, if so, what are they? Dom Hallas: When I talked about employment law in that context, it was as part of a broader range of work we do with what we call platform businesses. They might be traditionally known as gig economy platforms, sharing economy platforms or online marketplaces that have two sides—someone who wants to sell something and someone wants to buy something, whether that is services or goods. The gaps in law that exist there are an increasing problem, because many of these platforms want to be able to offer support to the people who leverage them, but they are not able to do so because of the restrictive nature of employment law. The challenge at the moment is that the Bill does not necessarily address that. There is clearly a way of potentially having further conversations on that. Obviously, some of that is being discussed down the line, including whether there is a single status for workers. We are not sure whether that is exactly the right approach, but there is a conversation to be had with Government about what is the right approach. In the meantime, what we have is a structure built by court case, which I do not think is helpful for anyone concerned. It is frustrating for a number of unions and workers’ rights organisations that have been campaigning on this issue, but also for a wide variety of platforms—they are not the very biggest ones that are taking things all the way to court. They would prefer some clarity so that they could potentially offer additional benefits to people who leverage their platforms. That is the first thing to say. A significant portion of the Bill is made up of things that we either have no view on or that, broadly speaking, would be fine. The reality is that I am not going to sit here and say that it is going to be catastrophic for the tech start-up community. In truth, it is not going to be. David Hale: There are steps in the Bill on strengthening paternity and maternity protection, and that is one of the reasons why I talk about splitting the Bill up. Those seem like good things that probably have a positive impact on the workforce as a whole. As I said, because of the overwhelm, we are still going through the detail, but those seem like good measures. Would it not be better to focus on good measures, and things where the risks, costs and trade-offs are understood, and to make a decision to proceed positively with those? Compared to the last speakers, we are less likely to have a particular view on the trade union aspects of the legislation. On the trade union aspects, it is fairly well understood what the measures are and what their impact will be—that is decision-ready. The bits that are not decision-ready are the proposals around unfair dismissal and zero-hours contracts. The bit that could be decision-ready but is not is probably around SSP and the question of a rebate.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attentions to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As we approach Remembrance weekend, I would like to draw attention in this health debate to the excellent work that the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine does in Birmingham. In July, the people of Birmingham Northfield voted for change. It was a vote for economic stability and investment in public services after 14 years of chaos, 14 years of austerity, and 14 years of running down our schools and hospitals. This Budget is delivering that change. I welcome the biggest increase in NHS funding in 20 years, linked to service improvements. We are a young city, but one in 10 people in Birmingham are on an NHS waiting list. Some of my constituents have been waiting for years for lifesaving treatments; some of them waited for too long. This is the sort of investment that will make a difference that people can feel, and that is a credit to the Ministers on the Front Bench today. The investment in school buildings and equipment is welcome. It is especially important for the projects to rebuild Green Meadow primary school and King Edward VI Balaam Wood academy, which were committed to under the school rebuilding programme, but which face rising construction costs. I also welcome the wider investment in education, particularly in SEND and further education. Other hon. Members have mentioned the important commitments that have been made to the West Midlands combined authority. That is excellent news for the region as a whole and money that can be invested in better housing and better transport services, alongside the additional money for social care and road maintenance in local government. I look forward to seeing Birmingham’s allocation, ahead of a tough local government budget-setting process next year. As a trade union official, I was proud to represent care and NHS workers, but I was ashamed of the conditions in which they had to work for too long. I feel that same sense of shame at the state to which the Conservative party reduced our public services. This is a Budget for investment in health and social care. It turns the page on years of failure and it sets the long-term certainty that businesses need. I hope that it will be carried overwhelmingly tomorrow.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad to draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. The Bill is at the start of its parliamentary stages, but today is also the culmination of years of hard work and consultation. It is important to recognise the accomplishment that the Bill’s introduction represents, and the Ministers, civil servants and special advisers involved deserve great credit. The Bill was born out of the undermining of the dignity and protection of work over many years, which falls heaviest on those in working-class occupations. We all know the effects that 15 years of wage stagnation has brought, the shameful limits that in-work poverty places on the potential of the people we represent, and the unfairness shouldered by those who are trapped on insecure contracts, including in the security and retail sectors in Birmingham Northfield. The Bill will make a real positive difference to their lives. In the short time available to me I will focus on three measures. First, the 3,000 school support staff and care workers in my constituency are some of the lowest-paid people in public services. They are predominantly women who work under inadequate and outmoded terms and conditions, and their professionalism has gone unrecognised for far too long. I hope that the creation of a school support staff negotiating body and an adult social care negotiating body will have cross-party support. Secondly, the condition of outsourced workers in public services has also been neglected. They are the invisible workforce who keep our hospitals running and our nation secure. For more than 100 years, under the fair wages resolution and the initial version of the two-tier code, Governments of all colours recognised the principle that outsourced workers should not be placed at detriment. The reinstatement of that principle is of critical importance. Finally, I welcome the proposed reforms to trade union recognition and access arrangements. When the system has been shown to be open to abuse, it must be changed. In that sense, there is a direct line of continuity between the Grunwick dispute of the ’70s—in which the late Member for Birmingham Erdington, Jack Dromey, played such a prominent role—and the creation of a statutory recognition regime 20 years later. I have heard directly from GMB members about the disgraceful anti-union tactics that they have faced, which were not anticipated when the current law was drafted. They must not wait 20 years for remedy. This Bill is important and necessary, and I am proud to vote for it tonight.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Gaza and Humanitarian Aid · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this important and timely debate. Earlier this week, the House marked the one-year anniversary of the 7 October atrocities. On that day and the days that followed, Hamas and other groups intended to ignite a wider war, and the death and destruction that would follow in its wake. Today, when over 2 million people have been displaced, over 40,000 Palestinians are dead and the threat of wider war looms all too closely, we must redouble our efforts in pursuit of an immediate ceasefire, the return of hostages and real progress—after these long years—towards a two-state solution that upholds the dignity of the Palestinian people and the security and territorial integrity of both nations. Six months ago, the Israeli Defence Minister said: “We plan to flood Gaza with aid and we are expecting to reach 500 trucks per day.” However, since then the World Health Organisation has warned that lifesaving hospital aid has been cut off, and the UN has warned that starvation has spread throughout Gaza. There were just 52 aid trucks each day in September —a bare tenth of the pre-October rates and far short of the total needed to relieve the extreme distress. Noting the UK Government’s existing assessment that Israel is not ensuring that lifesaving food and medical supplies are reaching civilians in Gaza, I ask the Minister to update us today on what representations and protests the UK Government have made to the Israeli Government on the entry of food and aid into Gaza. Secondly, what steps are the Government taking to work with aid agencies and civil society to offer protection to aid workers, including British aid workers, who face unacceptable risk? Finally, will he give us a broader update on the UK Government’s efforts to progress ceasefire talks and bring forward a credible reconstruction programme in Gaza? I know that hon. Members welcome the decision to reinstate UNRWA funding, but that cannot be the end of the process. I also know that the Minister takes this important matter seriously, and I hope he will ensure that there is further debate and scrutiny in this House.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  We will take no lectures on hospital admissions, given the state of the NHS that the right hon. Member’s party left us. The Conservatives claimed that they did not know what the pay review body recommendations would be, but the School Teachers’ Review Body recommendations were known to Ministers before July. They will know also that the different PRBs tend to make similar recommendations. Why were most of those recommendations not submitted in good time? Because Ministers were late in submitting their evidence, pushing the timetable until after the election. The Office of Manpower Economics has said: “The work of the PRBs is demand led and essentially non-negotiable—departments set the remits and timetables.” Shadow Ministers talked about productivity gains, but when it came to NHS negotiations under the last Government, productivity was just a slogan. The cupboard was bare. They had nothing to actually ask for.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the comments of Labour colleagues in this debate, but I want to speak about the particular issue of public sector pay and the attempts made in this debate and the preceding one to turn pensioners and public sector workers against each other, including the public sector workers who have been driven to rely on food banks and payday loans, who I was proud to represent as a trade union official. The 6,000 public sector workers in my constituency must wonder what the Opposition have against them in this debate. A strong economy needs strong public services, but the problem for the last Government—and the public sector workers who worked for them—was that their public finance strategy rested on “imposing the biggest real wage cuts in living memory.” Those are not my words but those of the former permanent secretary to the Treasury, Nicholas Macpherson. The consequences for the services that we all depend on are clear: teaching vacancies have doubled over the past three years, there is an 8% vacancy rate in the NHS and one in 10 999 call handler posts is vacant. We all know the consequences of ambulance delays for pensioners and of cancelled operations and appointments. [ Interruption. ] Does the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) wish to make an intervention?

• 9 Sept 2024 · Student Mental Health · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, there was a 38% increase in the number of CAMHS referrals in Birmingham, while also a sharp fall in the number of young people seen within six months of a referral. Does the Minister agree that we need much more preventive support in schools, and closer working between education and health bodies?