Laurence Turner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I think every Member of this House would agree that welfare needs reform. I think about the constituent who was asked in a PIP assessment, “How long have you been autistic?” I think about other stories that are close to my heart, which I cannot repeat because they are not my stories alone to tell. The words come easily; the path to reform is harder, and I think many of us have walked that hard path in recent weeks. We have heard many points made in this debate, and in the short time available to me, I would like to respond to some of them. A number of Members have sincerely suggested that there is something inherently wrong about creating a system where people’s treatment depends on the date of application, but I ask, how many people in this Chamber who have been a negotiator or a trade union member have voted for an agreement that involved red-banding a particular rate of pay? I think every representative of every party that has served in government has passed cut-off points into legislation. I remember leaving school around the time that the statement system in special educational needs started to be phased out in favour of EHCPs, and the consequences of that are with us to this day. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) said that we are being asked to place trust in Ministers, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability. Following many discussions in recent weeks, I do have that trust, and I know that many Government Members have that personal trust. The fact that the review will now be co-produced with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations is a real and material change. In this age of snap judgments, when we are expected to respond immediately to every manner of change and when politics in public is rewarded more highly than the politics carried out in private, the party system perhaps is not in good repute. But I know that many Members—I am one of them—have wrestled with their individual concerns and the desire to have collective discipline, without which there is no party and no programme, and nothing would ever get done. These are good and honourable principles to have. They must be moderated by a willingness to listen, and however it came about, people have listened today. The changes that have been made, as Ministers and officials will know, have been the subject of many long and, at times, difficult conversations. We now have a Bill that removes the critical problem for many of us, which was that the change would have begun next November before the review was completed. That has been addressed. We are in the business of making material change for the people we represent. I think about the 10,037 PIP recipients in my constituency, with perhaps 1,000 more recipients of DLA, and the many more family members who will have the ease of mind of knowing that the changes we in this place have made will protect their income and security in life. The Bill still has some way to go over the course of the next week, but we must recognise progress when it has happened. I thank everyone in my constituency who has contacted me and taken time to meet. In all those discussions with officials and Ministers—

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the right hon. Lady would not want an inaccurate statement to stand on the record. Unemployment fell under just two 20th-century Governments: the first Labour Government and the 1970 Government of Ted Heath. I know that she is repeating a standard Conservative party message, but it is a really cynical and silly misuse of statistics.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, as I do not wish to deny other Members the chance to speak. All those representations were helpful and made a difference, and I am grateful to everyone who shared their story. I will be voting for the Bill tonight.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I will not; I am sorry. I do not wish to deny another Member time to speak. A few days ago, under the version of the nBus scheme agreed by the previous Conservative mayor, Andy Street, operators exercised their legal right to hike seasonal fares, which they did by 8.6%. Low-paid bus commuters deserve better, and that is why we need the new powers that Labour is introducing in this Bill to better protect passengers from such increases in the cost of living. One of the great pleasures of following other members of the Transport Committee is that they have made points about the forthcoming inquiry report much more eloquently than I can. I hope that that report is published in time to shape the final drafting and implementation of this important Bill, which I look forward to supporting through its later stages.

• 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.

• 27 Mar 2025 · PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for the constructive and thoughtful way in which he has engaged with Members over the past week. I have written to him in the past couple of days on two matters, and I would like to take the opportunity to put them to him. First, he is leading a review of the PIP assessment—will its terms of reference be made public? Secondly, there is a case for looking again at the PIP criteria, as set out in secondary legislation, which were opposed by Labour 12 years ago. Will he continue to engage in the manner that he has been doing with Members now that we are in the consultation period, including on that point?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Non-league Football Clubs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to talk about our local non-league football clubs, such as Northfield Town FC and Alvechurch FC; I pay tribute to them for their community work. Does he agree that many clubs face a challenge in finding funding to bring on more women’s and girls’ teams, and to invest in the infrastructure? The same applies to disability teams. That can be a barrier to accessing wider funding. I believe he knows both football clubs well. Does he share my hope that they will find that investment?

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

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that, in those cases where someone has ended up taking the equalities route because that is the only route available to them, it can be particularly reputationally damaging to the employer? Does he also agree that, because by the nature of those claims—particularly where they relate to disability discrimination—the system requires the claimants to stress an impairment of some kind, that process is also distressing for the claimant in a way that is wholly unnecessary? Making these changes would at least avoid those circumstances for both employer and employee.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I was struck, in the impact assessments, by the statements that a number of the costs, but particularly more the benefits, or potential benefits, of these measures cannot currently be quantified. There are, of course, well-advertised problems with UK labour market statistics at the moment. Realistically, what more could the Government do in respect of future measures to better capture the full range of costs and benefits associated with employment law? Nye Cominetti: You are right: labour market statistics are not currently in a good place. The Office for National Statistics’ labour force survey is in the doldrums in terms of response rates; so if you wanted to increase the resources going into that, I would welcome that, as a researcher. Realistically, many of these knock-on benefits are incredibly hard to estimate. Personally, I think we have to accept a world where we say, we know that workers will benefit in terms of wellbeing from some of these measures. I do not think you need to put a monetary value on that to say it is worth doing, personally, but I know that is not necessarily the way that Government Departments think about these things. In terms of the costs—businesses will be saying, “If you do this measure, I will have to reduce hiring by this much”—I think we could be moving from relying on what businesses say. I know that many businesses will be engaging with these processes in good faith, but the history, for example with the minimum wage, is for businesses to say, “If you raise this cost there will be dire consequences: job losses will look like x and y,” and in the end that does not turn out to happen because businesses find ways to adapt. That does not mean that will happen this time—there is no guarantee that you can keep pulling off the same trick of raising labour costs and not triggering an impact on employment—but looking for evidence on what has actually happened in response to similar changes in the past or in other countries, rather than relying on what businesses say, might be a better guide. But that might be controversial.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to follow so many excellent maiden speeches today. I am glad to have this opportunity to talk about schools and education because there is no doubt that schools face very real funding constraints. In my constituency, there are state schools that have been forced to let staff go because the funding just is not there. The Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that, after school-specific inflation has been deducted, per-pupil funding rose by 0.7% in primary schools over the last 14 years and that spending shrank by 0.5% in secondaries. That compares to real increases of between 5% and 6% over the preceding 13 years. Figures released in response to a written parliamentary question show that over the last five years, per-pupil funding in Birmingham grew less fast than in the west midlands and across England as a whole. In fact, while per-pupil spending will have risen by just under 21% between 2020-21 and 2024-25, CPI inflation will have increased by about 24.5%. In other words, this is a real-terms cut of around 3%, or a loss of around £179 for each child. Some of the schools in my constituency have some of the highest pupil premium rates in the country. These are not just statistics; they represent a loss of opportunity, a loss of skilled and dedicated staff, and the overcrowded classrooms that flow from that. At this point I draw the House’s attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my background as an officer of the GMB, one of the unions that represents school support staff. There is much for schools and parents to welcome in this Government’s approach, including ending single-word inspection judgments, funding free breakfast clubs, reusing space from falling pupil numbers to create new early-years provision, committing to a new child poverty reduction strategy—the first since the Child Poverty Act 2010 was repealed—and reinstating the school support staff negotiating body. It has been welcome in this debate to hear the concern for school support staff roles in the independent sector. I am sure that will extend to the state sector and I hope that we will see cross-party support for that measure. I want to make a point around SEND. The motion would exempt all children on SEND support from the VAT policy, but SEND support status is determined within schools, and schools in the independent sector do not have the same budgetary restrictions as state schools, which are obliged to set aside nominal SEND budgets. There is a real risk of creating false incentives, as the “Today” programme’s 2017 investigation demonstrated. Ours is the right policy, and this is the wrong motion. I look forward to voting against it later today.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I declared my background in the trade union movement, and I note that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) wrote the manifesto, which he stood on, that proposed cutting the winter fuel allowance. Now that the winter fuel allowance is to be means-tested, we must boost the uptake of pension credit. I welcome the measures Ministers have announced today, so that the allowance can be protected for the very poorest pensioners.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, there are approximately 2,600 pensioner households that do not receive pension credit—that is one of the legacies of the previous Government—but are entitled to it. The Conservatives suggest that they would have rejected the pay review body recommendations, forgetting that one of the first acts of the Margaret Thatcher Government in 1979 was to accept the recommendations of the Clegg commission on pay comparability. If only the Conservative party had more courage today. The winter fuel allowance exists because of a Labour Government: a Government who increased the value of those payments fivefold in 13 years, compared with an increase of zero under 14 years of the previous Government—a real-terms cut of 33%.