Laurence Turner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2025 · Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I intend to speak briefly, and I draw the House’s attention to my role as chair of the parliamentary group for the GMB, the union that represents the largest number of workers on the parliamentary estate, and to my declarations to that effect in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Parliament is, on the whole, a more professional, safer and more sober place to work than it once was. Such progress, however, is no excuse for complacency. Inappropriate and predatory behaviour can occur anywhere, but the risk factors are higher here, and I pay tribute to all the workplace representatives who have worked quietly down the years to raise standards and challenge poor practice in this place. I welcome the steps outlined in the motion to clarify and strengthen the ICGS, and I also wish to comment briefly on the Opposition amendments. The shadow Leader of the House said that amendment (e) will not be moved, but we did not hear about amendment (a), which is in the name of a Back-Bench MP, but is co-signed by the shadow deputy Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). If I have understood the amendment correctly, it would strike out the scope for collective complaints, and it would block the investigation of complaints if a police investigation has not resulted in a conviction, even though the standard of proof is different for the two things. The amendments would also, as far as I can tell, prevent the reinvestigation of a complaint if a respondent succeeds in persuading or pressurising a complainant into withdrawing. That point was made powerfully by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman). Amendment (a) could provide a cover for abuse, were it agreed. That is plain and apparent, and it is a matter of deep regret that it appears to have some degree of sponsorship from the Opposition. While I do not wish to depart today from the recommendations of the Kernaghan report, I will raise some matters on workforce representation. We have already heard that the workforce representatives in this place will continue to be consulted, and that is welcome. Can the Leader of the House confirm whether workforce representatives will be able to attend meetings of the assurance board in an observer capacity? It would also be good to hear whether there will be scope for direct representation of those workforce voices on the assurance board. That would improve its functioning. I know that she recently met GMB reps to discuss those same concerns, and I hope that she can comment further tonight. Finally, some 7,000 people provide support to parliamentarians. They all deserve to work in a modern environment, secure in the knowledge that there is a robust and independent process providing accountability and redress if they are mistreated. The politicisation of those processes in recent years is deeply regrettable, and I hope that cross-party support for them can be swiftly restored.

• 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

  My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, makes an important point. We must also consider the number of victims of crime who are so exhausted by the process that they choose not to appeal, even though they may have grounds to do so. His scrutiny in this area is very welcome. Changes made to the scheme have an unhappy history in this House. Some Members may recall the very contentious changes made to it in 2012, with the express intent of reducing expenditure by between £40 million and £60 million a year. At the time, in the face of sustained scrutiny, including from Members on the then Government Benches, the Minister of the day, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), announced: “a hardship fund of £500,000 per year which will provide relief from hardship for very low-paid workers in England and Wales who are temporarily unable to work as a result of being a victim of a crime of violence.” —[ Official Report , 27 November 2012; Vol. , c. 14WS.] That concession secured support for the relevant secondary legislation. The fund is still in existence, but its criteria are too tightly drawn. An applicant must be paid no more than £5,700 a year, the equivalent of statutory sick pay, and they must apply to seek it not within two years of an injury, but within two months of an injury, in order to qualify. Far from the fund supporting low-paid victims of crime by £500,000 a year, the Ministry of Justice told me recently that only £4,100 has ever been paid out of it, and no payments at all were made in the seven years to 2023-24. I suspect that the very few workers who were eligible to apply were unaware that it exists. The hardship fund is a dead letter; it would be better to scrap it than to claim that special support is available to low-paid workers when, in practice, it is not.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree with her. USDAW’s Freedom From Fear campaign, which has been running for many years and covers a number of important issues, including the importance of fair access to compensation, is to be welcomed, and USDAW should be congratulated on the changes that it has already secured in this House. Another high-profile change was the tightening of the criteria, so that the scheme only applied to injuries caused by deliberate violence inflicted by a person. That change excluded most dangerous dog attacks, and in practice compensation for such attacks can only be secured if it can be shown that a dog was directed to attack by its owner. It seems to me a serious flaw that a child or postal worker might be mauled by a dog and left with life-changing injuries, and the keeping of that dog may itself be an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but there would be no route for the victim to claim compensation, especially if the owner of the dog cannot be identified. The Communication Workers Union continues to campaign on this issue; ahead of this debate, it drew attention to figures showing that each year 200 Royal Mail workers lose a finger or part of a finger after a dog attack. I encourage Ministers to look again at this issue, especially in light of the growing number of animals belonging to new, and now-banned, breeds such as the XL bully since 2012. As has already been said, compensation for criminal injuries is an important issue for workers in public-facing roles more generally, and I am grateful to USDAW, GMB and Unison, as well as the CWU, for their work to draw attention to the risk of violent assault to their members. And for the avoidance of doubt, I draw attention to the support provided to my constituency party by GMB and Unison. The changes to the scheme that I have referred to were made under the previous Government, but I wish to press the Minister on two further and more recent points. First, shortly before Easter the Ministry of Justice published its response to the consultations undertaken between 2020 and 2023. In that response, the MOJ said that there would be no immediate changes to the scheme, in part because of resource constraints. The decision not to accept recommendation 18 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has understandably caused disappointment and reignited wider criticism of the scheme. The Government cited two factors: protection of universality, which means treating all applicants in the same way, and cost. If the scheme is not to be amended to provide different criteria for victims of childhood sexual abuse, what other steps will the Ministry now take, such as the provision of enhanced guidelines on the circumstances under which an out-of-time application would be accepted, taking into account our modern understanding of the lifelong effects of this horrendous crime? On resourcing, will the Minister accept that although the nature of the scheme means that expenditure varies year on year, the cost of compensation has actually fallen on average—that is the trend—after inflation is taken into account. Although the number of applications has risen, that appears to have been driven by an increased number of ineligible claimants. The scheme overall costs less than it did before 2012—less in cash terms, I believe, than under the pre-statutory scheme—and, as mentioned, CICA’s headcount has fallen. Reforms are needed, but I am concerned that we seem to be talking again about protecting the sustainability of the scheme. I know the Minister has a strong personal commitment to this issue and to enhancing support for victims of crime more generally. I hope she will be able to reassure us that any future reforms of CICA will seek to improve victim support, including in its compensation elements. Our constituents expect us to bring our knowledge, our judgment and the benefit of our experiences to this place. Like some other Members of this House, my interest in this matter arises partly through my direct experience of the scheme. By their nature, such matters are difficult to talk about; if I stumble, I ask for Members’ patience. Some six years ago I was on the wrong end of an attempted robbery. I was left concussed, my arm was dislocated and one of the joints in my right hand was shattered. I was physically unable to leave the house for a month, and I had a frozen shoulder for a year. There are long-term physical effects: I have premature arthritis and permanent loss of movement on my right-hand side. By any common-sense judgment they are serious and blameless injuries, arising from violence, but with one minor exception: annex E of the scheme does not recognise them as such. There was—and is—also a psychological effect. An event of that kind changes a person. I am changed in ways that I still find difficult to talk about. I have learned that recovery is not some happy state that is one day achieved: it is a process that follows its own timetable at an uneven pace, towards a destination that can never be fully reached. In my case, the perpetrators were never identified. I incurred substantial costs because the assault happened almost on my doorstep. Although I would be unlikely to recognise the perpetrators, they would have recognised me. At the conclusion of the investigation, the police referred me to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. My experience of the scheme is typical of the delays and impersonal contact that have already been described, and does not require repeating. What I will say is that when a person is compelled to relive their experiences, within a system that they feel they have to fight against, the original injustice is continually visited anew. At the conclusion of the process I received the lowest tariff award of £1,000. That was given because there was some post-surgical scarring—the only injury that qualified under the scheme. In truth, that aspect was the least consequential effect of the assault. The criteria felt—and still feel—arbitrary. I received an apologetic letter from one of the administrators of the scheme, and I remain grateful for that human touch. The award did not, as it does not for many, cover the costs of travel and accommodation for surgery or physiotherapy—but, three years on from the assault, I was just glad to have some official recognition and did not pursue an appeal. I do not say any of this to attract attention or sympathy, or to suggest that my experience was in any way exceptional. The point is that it was not. Like many victims of crime, my hope now is that some good might come from adverse experience. In that respect, I agree with the Minister when she wrote: “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 hope we will hear more about those plans today. I am encouraged by the Prime Minister’s clear and personal statement of support for victims of crime in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North last week. I am glad to have the opportunity next Tuesday to introduce to the House a ten-minute rule Bill that aims to secure the wholesale review of CICA and the scheme that the Victims’ Commissioner called for in 2019. The victims of violent crime deserve better, and I hope the Bill will secure cross-party support.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered compensation for criminal injuries. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Murrison. At the outset, I thank the members of the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to allocate this debate and all hon. Members, across parties, who supported the application. I also thank those constituents and members of the public who have been in touch in advance of the debate. Criminal injuries are, by their nature, not easy matters to discuss, so I am grateful to all the people who took the time to recount their experiences. I am also grateful to all the Members present today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who has already done much in this and the previous Parliament to highlight some of the problems that we will talk about in this debate. It is also good to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. I should make it clear that, I will be talking about the criminal injuries compensation scheme as it operates in Great Britain, but I am aware that different arrangements apply in Northern Ireland, and I am glad that that perspective will be represented today. It is also important at this early stage to pay tribute to the staff of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Nothing in the opening of this debate is intended as a criticism of them. They work within parameters that are broadly set by us in Parliament, and with staffing numbers that have fallen by 19% since the current iteration of the scheme was introduced in 2012. The civil service people survey reveals that they take pride and find purpose in their jobs, and I am grateful to them. The question of how the victims of serious physical and mental criminal injury may be fairly compensated has occupied this House for many decades. We are, to the month, at the 60th anniversary of the introduction for the first full year of the original, non-statutory scheme, which was introduced in recognition of the fact that there will always be cases in which the perpetrators of serious violence cannot be identified or awards cannot be recovered from their assets or incomes. In preparation for this debate, I was delighted to learn of a local connection: the guiding and determined force behind the original scheme was the Birmingham magistrate and first secretary of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Margery Fry, who up to her death was a tireless campaigner for better support for the victims of crime and for the principle that perpetrators must, wherever possible, pay the cost of restitution. Those are principles that I am sure Members on both sides of the House will endorse today. However, there is another, unhappy point of emerging agreement on the criminal injuries compensation scheme: it does not adequately serve the people it is meant to aid. As the Victims’ Commissioner put it in 2019, victims of violent crime reported “delays, uncertainty about next steps and poor communication. To many, fairly or unfairly, the Scheme seemed calculated to frustrate and alienate.”

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is very learned and experienced in these matters, and I wholeheartedly agree. The discrepancy is hard to explain, especially as the pre-1996 non-statutory scheme explicitly aligned the criminal injuries time limit with that for civil claims. There is some evidence that victims who have legal representation often receive greater compensation than they would have done had they acted alone. That is not a desirable outcome, especially when people with more limited means are more likely to become the victims of crime. The scheme’s tariff has not been updated since 2012, and its upper and lower bounds had been frozen for many years before that, despite inflation. Indeed, the lowest tariff of £1,000 has remained frozen since 1992—a real-terms erosion of 54%. The process can feel cold and impersonal. As one member of the public with recent experience of the scheme who wrote to me in advance of this debate put it, the lack of “timelines or guidelines” means that “victims are continually left in limbo and retraumatised by a process that is meant to help.”

• 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.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to hear a reference to a White Paper from 1993. I am a great believer in the theory that obscurity is a source of strength, and my hon. Friend has provided some evidence for that. The Treasury takes a legitimate and necessary interest in annually managed expenditure. On the other hand, there is a real risk that changes made at relatively short notice, with curtailed time for scrutiny in this place, could deliver a worse service. That must be avoided at all costs, as we have seen from some negative experiences with past changes to the scheme. Building on the Minister’s welcome commitment to continue to work with Members of this House and victims across the course of this Parliament, I hope that we can secure the positive changes that she wants to achieve. I thank all hon. Members who supported the application for the debate, including some who are unavoidably absent, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who gave notice that unfortunately they have been detained by other matters. This is the first debate on the important subject of criminal injuries in this Parliament, but I am sure that it will not be the last. I thank you for your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank everyone for their contributions.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I will not detain Members long, but I wish to thank everyone who has spoken in this debate for their informed speeches and for their tone. It is right that we scrutinise and criticise the records of Governments past and present—that is one of our critical functions—but all hon. Members have approached the subject with the seriousness and sensitivity that it deserves. We all share the common aim of having a scheme that delivers more for the victims of crime. From the Back Benches, we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Although he described some of the differences in Northern Ireland, I was struck by the similarities with the frustrations experienced by victims in England, Wales and Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) made a speech combining powerful empathy with an acute reading of the technical challenges that still exist in the scheme. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Congleton (Sarah Russell), who enriched the debate with their professional experience and expertise. In particular, I was struck by the extremely important issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North highlighted, which needs remedying. It should be a matter of concern to us all that apparent dead letters in the law can be reanimated with a sometimes surprising lack of scrutiny. From the Front Benches, we heard from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who spoke for himself as well as for his party. He has described his own experiences before in this place and has used those experiences to bring forward his own legislation on related matters. I thank him for his speech. We heard an account from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and it was very important that we heard such an account from the Opposition in this debate. He highlighted an issue that perhaps needs further scrutiny, which is the satisfaction rates that have been claimed. I have to say from my own experience of the scheme that I do not recall ever being asked to give a satisfaction rating. I wonder whether there are issues with how people are asked and what the response rate is; I must say that the 95% figure he cited is surprising to me. The victims Minister set out an overview of the contributions to this debate. I was struck by her comment that changes to the scheme will not be made at the present time. It is important that if changes are made to the scheme, they are not driven by a short-term desire for cost-savings; they must be motivated by the improvement of the service for victims.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a very informed speech. On his point about the complexity of the application, I recently had cause to see the application form for the pre-statutory scheme, and it was simpler than the form that victims have to fill out today. Does he agree that something has gone quite wrong here down the years, and that we should be looking to make the process as brief as possible, and leave those detailed checks to the Government agencies that have already dealt with the victim and crime?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very informed speech, as did the hon. Members who spoke before him. Does he agree that, with each year that passes without re-examination of the tariffs, the gap will grow between the award that someone may be able to secure—if a perpetrator is identified and the victim is able to bring a civil case—and the compensation that they may receive through the scheme? Will that not add to the sense of frustration and injustice that many victims feel?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  For the avoidance of doubt, I am a member of Unite. I was on the BBC over the weekend to talk about exactly these issues. There has been a change in the policing of the egress from the depots, one of which is in my constituency. Also, at the start of last week, a major incident was declared in Birmingham. I support the action taken, which should lead to a 40% increase in the number of trucks that are able to leave the depots. I hope that means that there will be a change in the frequency of collections.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I think what people in my constituency want is a regular and reliable service. They want the current backlog to be cleared. Some streets in my constituency have not had a collection for four or five weeks. Of course, that is completely unacceptable, particularly when other streets have had much more regular collections, even during the strike period. We need to modernise the service. Council tax is a burden on all our constituents. The impact assessment for the 10% council tax increase in Birmingham last year made it clear that approval for that increase was given by No. 10 and the Treasury when they were under Conservative leadership. The decision has been taken this year not to go ahead with the second 10% increase that had been planned under the Conservatives. I think that is positive. We are also starting to see significant funding coming into the city, which reflects the higher level of need. Over many years, we heard from the Conservatives that they were going to introduce a fair funding review for local government. It never happened. I am glad that action is finally being taken on this matter, but it takes time to turn these situations around. I hope that we see progress on these matters soon. To return to discussion of the Government’s plans, I note that I received a reply, not from the Minister present, who I know also takes these matters extremely seriously, but from the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), who is also a west midlands MP. In answer to a written parliamentary question, she said: “We have committed to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess they have created as part of a crackdown on anti-social behaviour. We will provide further details on this commitment in due course.” That is a welcome and sensible measure, and I hope that we will hear from today’s Minister, either during the debate or when we come back from recess, about what actions are planned, because people in my constituency are fed up with the actions of the organised criminal groups that are taking advantage of wider problems in society, including the severe restriction on resources for our councils and our police.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q5. My constituents in Birmingham Northfield are deeply concerned about the scourge of knife crime, and I pay tribute to the professionalism of West Midlands police for its response to these horrendous attacks. However, there are still 1,200 fewer police officers and police community support officers in the force than in 2010, and a new bid for 150 more officers has been submitted to the Home Office. Will the Prime Minister look at this issue so that the police can do more to keep our streets secure and safe?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome today’s announcement. Recruitment and retention challenges have limited access to justice in recent years. Will the Lord Chancellor outline what steps she is taking to ensure that we have enough barristers and solicitors so that courts can get through as many cases as possible?

• 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.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Education, Health and Care Plans · Hansard source

  More

  In the seconds available to me, I cannot do justice to the cases I have heard of pupils and parents who are stuck in the system. Ten years on from the passing of the Children and Families Act 2014, it is time to look at where the current system is failing. Local authorities had additional responsibilities loaded on to them, and at the same time they had powers and resources taken away. It has become harder for them to plan shared resources, and that is a major cause of delays and cost increases in the system. I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the GMB. We cannot lose sight of the role of school support staff in this equation. I appeal to the shadow Minister to please rethink the opposition to reinstating the school support staff negotiating body. Classroom-based school support staff spend the majority of their time supporting SEND learners. We cannot resolve the SEND crisis without resolving the workforce problems. I am proud to have been a SEND pupil. I am open about my differences as an MP. I hope that, on a cross-party basis, we can look back at the end of this Parliament and say, “We found a system in crisis, and we changed it.”

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Even if I accepted the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, which I do not, does he accept that there are some issues with the amendment as drafted? For example, subsection (1)(b)(i) is about protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute at the premises of a company. I have been part of protests at the premises of a company that were not on land owned by the company but were immediately adjacent, on the public highway. If that were tested in court, that could conceivably fall under the definition of “at”. Similarly, the amendment seeks to carve out an exemption to the protection of protests at the private residences of senior managers. Conceivably, protests could be organised outside the home of a middle manager or someone lower down the organisational structure. I am sure that is not what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think we have all followed with interest, and perhaps some entertainment, the shadow Minister’s embrace of red tape and pettifogging bureaucracy in as much as he wishes to apply that to trade unions. It is of course important to state that each trade union member has opted in to the political fund, has the right to opt out at any time and has a means of recourse, through the Certification Officer, if there is a complaint about any attempt to opt out that is not successful. The comparison drawn by the shadow Minister was completely ill-founded. The amendment not only seeks to inform trade union members of their right to opt out of the political fund—that is already well understood—but requires them to continue to opt in annually. Throughout the history of the Conservative party’s relationship with trade unions, it has repeatedly sought to apply punitive legislation in respect of the political fund. That is what the amendment represents: it is nothing more than a transparent attack on the funding of the Labour party and on the wider political activities of trade unions. Let us not forget that many trade union political funds are directed towards not only party political activity but welcome campaigns, including some taken up and implemented by the previous Conservative Government. I draw attention to one: the campaign to introduce the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. Had the amendment been in force, that Act would have been much harder to accomplish, and paramedics, prison officers and police officers assaulted in their line of duty would have had less recourse to legal protection. I am sorry but, to return to the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles, this is a ridiculous amendment. Were it to be implemented, we would have to look closely to ensure that there was not a two-tier approach to donations made by other entities, such as publicly listed companies. Should there be a requirement for shareholders to be informed of, and be able to veto, any donation in furtherance of a political activity? What about other civil society organisations? That is an enormous can of worms that is not particularly pleasant to smell once opened up, and it is a naked and transparent political attack that should be given short shrift.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Throughout these proceedings, we have talked a lot about evidence bases and the likely impact of particular measures on business. The clause might be short and to the point—I do take the points made by the shadow Minister that we will come on to more detailed discussions, and it is right to debate the general principles here—but it does have precedents. In terms of the dilemma or decision over whether the qualifying period should be two years, one year or, as in the Bill, day one—but with that important provision for a probationary period—the issue has been road-tested. The period was set at two years for many years. Then it was reduced to one year in the late 1990s, and economic growth continued. When the qualifying period was raised from one year to two years in 2012, the impact analysis that the then Government produced said that one year was easily sufficient in the overwhelming number of cases. On this aspect of the Bill, the businesses I have spoken to in my constituency and in the general Birmingham area have told me that, in almost all roles, employers are not still talking about whether someone is suitable for the job 12 months in; it is usually apparent within weeks. That circumstance is still covered by the initial period of employment provided for in the Bill. According to the impact assessment, the estimated saving to business across the entire the economy, after the familiarisation cost period, was relatively small—I believe it was around £2 million to £3 million in 2011 prices, so probably somewhere around double that today. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles used the word “grandiose”. We are really not talking about that, but about a relatively small number of cases that could fall under that initial period of employment provision. Let me return to an argument that has been made previously in the Committee, but that is relevant here. One undesirable effect of that change in the qualifying period was that because a worker who faced detriment and unfair treatment in the workplace had no recourse to an unfair dismissal claim through the employment tribunal system until they reached their two years, they found themselves relying on equalities arguments instead—a day one right in law as it stands. The effect—another perverse outcome—has been to overload that part of the employment tribunal system. This change is sensible. It will help with the undesirable effects in the court system as it stands. The Chartered Management Institute, which we heard evidence from, surveyed its members and found that 83% of managers agreed that improvements in family-friendly policies and day one rights, including in respect of unfair dismissal, would positively impact workplace productivity. In some of the related provisions in the Bill, particularly around the initial period of employment, there is promise that we will see a light-touch regime, and we are all looking to see what the details will be. I know that the Government are due to come back on that.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. It is a shame that our Liberal Democrat colleagues are not able to join us, because we could have an interesting discussion about the consequences of the 1919 police strike, and the promises that Lloyd George made and subsequently broke, which led to the creation of the Police Federation rather than an independent trade union, but I will not detain the Committee on that matter. I will just say that we are operating under the international framework for employment law, which sets out very clearly that there are exemptions to the normal right of freedom of association—let us call it what it is—and that includes industrial action. I do not think that the Bill is the right place to diverge from that international framework. I had reached the end of my points. As I say, there are good national security reasons for rejecting the amendment.

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

  More

  I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and the hon. Member for Torbay, who both made very able speeches. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, asked about the justification for extending the current time limit from three to six months. One argument is set out in the Law Commission’s 2020 report, which argues that some of the current problems that employment tribunals experience are linked to late applications and the onerous requirement for applications, particularly in equalities cases, to demonstrate that there was a clear justification or inability regarding not submitting a claim in time. Those edge cases are adding to the current backlog and creating the incentive, which has been discussed already in this Committee, for people to bring cases under the Equality Act 2010, which is putting severe pressure on the limited number of specialist employment tribunal judges who deal with equalities matters. Another argument is that there is an inconsistency in the law, because the time limit for equal pay cases is six months. The effect of these measures would be to equalise the time limit for other unfair dismissal and discrimination claims with that of equal pay. In the previous Government’s 2021 response to the Law Commission’s report, they said—I hope this is taken in the constructive spirit with which it is intended—that the recommendations were welcome, but that it was not the right time to make such changes. I am therefore keen to hear the shadow Minister’s position on this extension, because the last Government’s position seemed a little like St Augustine’s prayer—“Let us equalise access to justice, but not yet!” I very much welcome the fact that these measures have been brought forward and that we now have a chance to equalise that time limit. Last week, we heard from one of the witnesses, Joeli Brearley, that: “I was pushed out of my job the day after I informed my employer that I was pregnant, and it was the tribunal time limit that prevented me from taking action against my employer.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 84, Q79.] There are many such cases where, because of someone’s particular circumstances, they are not able to bring a case, or the burden of bringing a case within three months is too onerous. The requirement in equalities cases for a claimant to prove that an extension was just and equitable, or that it had not been reasonably practicable to bring a case in time, is adding to that burden on the tribunal system. The Law Commission’s report was published in 2020, so the then Government had four years to model the impact of the changes that they were considering. If Conservative Members know of any impact analyses undertaken under the previous Government, I would very much like to hear about them.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  Crime and antisocial behaviour was the No. 1 issue on the doorstep during the election, and my constituents in Birmingham Northfield are paying the price for years of cuts to community services and neighbourhood policing. Figures released last week show that there was a 10% fall in recorded crime in Birmingham last year, but the number of shoplifting reports was up by a third. Will the Minister arrange a meeting with me, Simon Foster the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, and Birmingham city council, to discuss how respect orders and other measures can reduce the crime and antisocial behaviour that is blighting our communities?

• 29 Jul 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Congratulations on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to follow so many excellent maiden speeches this evening, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), for South Ribble (Mr Foster), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), for Smethwick (Gurinder Josan) and for High Peak (Jon Pearce), and the hon. Members for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), for Taunton and Wellington (Mr Amos) and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). I apologise if I have missed any. They were a tribute to the wealth of talent and experience in this Parliament. I am grateful for the opportunity to make my first speech in support of this Bill, which will hopefully lead the permanent way to better value for taxpayers and better passenger services. Transport has sometimes been seen in this place as an unfashionable Department—a stopping-off point for ambitious politicians on the way up, and occasionally on the way down—but it is clear that this attitude is not held by this Front Bench team or this new Government. There is, however, some historical basis for that view. When Barbara Castle was appointed Transport Minister, Harold Wilson told her: “Your job is to produce the integrated transport policy we promised in our manifesto. I could work something out myself given half an hour.” When Nicholas Ridley told Margaret Thatcher that he wanted to privatise the railways, she responded: “Railway privatisation will be the Waterloo of this government. Never mention the railways to me again.” Down the years, hon. Members on the Conservative Benches must have privately wished that Mrs Thatcher’s view had been taken to heart by those who came after. In fact, given the previous Government’s record of reclassifying Network Rail into the public sector, abandoning the traditional franchising model and nationalising a quarter of passenger services, I half expected to see Conservative Members joining Labour tonight in support of the Bill. It was a privilege to work as staff in the shadow Transport team during some of those long years in opposition. May I take this opportunity to say how welcome it is to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), in her place? She brings real expertise to the role from her time as Chair of the Transport Committee and in the shadow Transport team. She will be an outstanding Minister, and I am grateful for her support and guidance down the years. Another shadow Transport Minister in that team was Richard Burden, my Labour predecessor for Birmingham Northfield. Richard ably represented Northfield for 27 years. He is well remembered in this House for his boundless enthusiasm for the motor industry, and for his steadfast commitment to social justice, which has continued into what cannot be called a retirement, through his activism in pursuit of better local health services and support for the humanitarian cause in Palestine. His support meant a lot to me during the campaign, and I am sure his friends on both sides of the House extend their good wishes to him. I also want to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor. In the space of just one Parliament, Gary Sambrook became well known locally and, through the 1922 Committee, in the Conservative party nationally. He and other candidates fought a campaign that was untouched by the disgraceful tactic of intimidation that was witnessed elsewhere in Birmingham and which must have no place in our public life. I am certain that this is not the end for Gary in Birmingham politics, and I wish him well. To talk about Birmingham is to tell a tale of two cities. That is as true of the Northfield constituency as it is elsewhere. Pockets of relative affluence sit cheek by jowl with deprivation. The historic village centres of Kings Norton and Northfield lie a short distance from the new estates, like Weoley Castle, that were built to serve the needs of Birmingham’s growing economy. The fortunes of the constituency rise and fall with those of Birmingham, but the seat is also defined by its outer estates—New Frankley, Rubery and Allens Cross—which are distant and distinct from the city centre. All these communities face common challenges, including crime and antisocial behaviour, and the decline of the traditional high street. They have been hit hard by cuts to neighbourhood policing and by the decision last year to not proceed with the regeneration of Northfield’s high street. There is much to do. For most of the constituency’s history it was best known for the Longbridge car plant, which also drew in workers from the surrounding areas of West Heath, Rednal and beyond. For 100 years, Longbridge paid handsomely into the national purse, and it was essential to our defence in times of crisis. During the second world war, Longbridge and its shadow factories produced many of the armaments and aircraft that kept our nation free. If the House will excuse a diversion, I am reminded at this point of my grandad’s story, often repeated with pride to us as children, about his time stationed at the air defences at Billeseley Common, when he—almost—fired a rocket at an encroaching German plane. The site that began as the Austin works was an important part of our national life. At its peak, it employed some 25,000 people. Models from the Austin 7 to the Metro became part of our shared culture. It is hard to believe that next year will mark the 20th anniversary of Longbridge’s closure. That occasion must be marked appropriately in Birmingham and in Parliament. The site is now home to an ambitious redevelopment project and, importantly, some manufacturing jobs are returning, but travel just a short distance and the scars of that closure are still plain to see. The male employment rate remains a staggering 10 points lower than in Birmingham as a whole. Shamefully, average monthly wages are £300 lower in the constituency than they were in 2010, after inflation. The scourge of in-work poverty is never far away. Today, my constituents are most likely to be employed in public services. I am proud to be the son of two teachers even if, sadly, the headquarters of the NASUWT, the Teachers’ Union, which my parents were members of for many years, is just over the border in the neighbouring constituency of Bromsgrove. There will be more to say—much more—in this Parliament about the funding and delivery of services in Birmingham. It is enough to say today that after 14 years of severe cuts, the second city is bleeding, and I welcome the statements that the new Government have made about the importance of putting local government funding on a sustainable footing. The new Government’s plans to establish a fair pay agreement for adult social care, and to reinstate the school support staff negotiating body, will also make a real, material and long overdue difference to thousands of low-paid workers in the Northfield constituency, most of them women, who I was proud to help represent as an officer of the GMB union, and whose skills and professionalism have been undervalued for too long. If I could achieve one thing in the time I have in this place, it would be to secure improvements to special educational needs and disabilities provision. It is a cause that is close to my heart: I was one of those children. I know what it means to have to fight to avoid being defined by other people’s low expectations. I know the stigma that is the mark of attitudes that are still common and from words that I will not repeat in this place. I wish that I could say otherwise, but it never leaves you. I know, too, that a child’s life can turn on access to an identification or a single decision about adjustments and resources—or even for the want of a few encouraging words. So if I speak for a moment in anger, it is because too many children and families in Birmingham and beyond face barriers that are higher now than they were 25 years ago, in breach of the promise that life for each generation will be better than for the last. It is not enough to fight for people within a failing system; we have to change it. That is one of the causes I came to Parliament to advocate for, and I welcome the commitments on SEND made by the Education Secretary and the Prime Minister in the early days of this Parliament. I would like to end by talking about family. Before me came generations of factory workers, electricians and shopkeepers, painters and polishers, cleaners and coachbuilders, jewellery makers and japanners—some escaping famine’s shadow—who were born in Birmingham or who came to call the city their home. In the last few weeks, I have thought about those I knew and those I did not, and what they might have said if they could have seen this day, just as the hard accumulated years of millions of working lives form the prologue to the new deal for working people and the history that this Labour Government will make. I have thought, too, about public service—about the challenge of proving to be equal to the task ahead and to the hopes of the people who trusted us to represent them in this place; Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope to be.