Laurence Turner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When privatisation happened, the Government of the day fought hard to keep state-owned foreign railways out of the running of the railways, but they were compelled to accept them by European Union legislation. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman described the involvement of state-owned foreign railways as “a gift from abroad”, so may I congratulate him on his bravery in taking a more pro-European approach on this question than John Major?

• 3 Jun 2026 · General Strike Centenary Commemorations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great honour to bring this Adjournment debate before the House to mark the centenary of the general strike of 1926. Twelve years after the general strike, the Welsh miners’ poet, Idris Davies, asked, “Do you remember 1926? That summer of soups and speeches,” which was a reference to the bitter months endured by the miners and their families after the general strike ended. He also referred to the strike itself, which he called “The great dream and the swift disaster”. I am really grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker for granting parliamentary time so that we can answer that question in this place and do so in the affirmative, just as it has been answered at events across the country during the past month. The general strike remains the most extensive confrontation in our national history between organised labour on the one side and employers and Government on the other, and it remains contested history.

• 26 Mar 2026 · National Savings & Investments · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s statement and the way in which he has addressed the House. I want to pick up on the important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns). The administration of a deceased loved one’s affairs is a lengthy and difficult process at the best of times. It will come as a tremendous shock to many of our constituents to learn that matters that they thought were settled are in fact not so. We can also all think of examples of public agencies that have promised tact and sensitivity, but have not always followed through in practice. Will the Minister look at individual cases that we might raise with him as constituency Members, and will he meet with groups of Members who have constituents affected by the issue?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as chair of the GMB’s parliamentary group. The week after next, there will be another strike, when GMB members of the BMA’s own staff go out on industrial action, as has already been referenced. Their employer’s offer is 2.75%, which is lower than the 3.5% for doctors that the BMA called a “crushing blow”. Does the Health Secretary agree with the GMB union when it says: “These strikes have laid bare the BMA’s ongoing hypocrisy”?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Official History Programme · Hansard source

  More

  1. If he will commission new works under the Official History Programme.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that Birmingham’s exit from section 114 status is an important moment for the city? Does she further agree that it is time to start scaling back the central Government intervention?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am thinking about the hon. Member’s arguments about clause 64(3). Does she not think that there may be circumstances where higher charges actually help to get private investment into the railways? For example, GBR could agree to fund infrastructure improvements in exchange for an operator paying higher access charges over an agreed period and, through that mechanism, recoup at least some of the costs of that welcome upgrade to the network.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  If I have understood the hon. Member’s point correctly, the key is openness and transparency. We need some degree of understanding that, if GBR itself is responsible for delays, that information should be recorded so that improvements can be made. I am not convinced that GBR paying money to itself in a legal or quasi-legal process is the best use of public resources. That transparency is lacking under the current system. The Delay Attribution Board does not publish any records of its proceedings. Some months ago, I made a freedom of information request for the minutes of the board, and the response was that they were too commercially confidential to disclose. Given the vast amounts of public money that are spent through this process at the moment, I think that is a severe limitation of the current system. This is a real opportunity to do things better.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Would the shadow Minister follow the logic of his argument as far as to say that the Conservative Government that passed the Railways Act 1993 were ideologically motivated and acted in an ideological manner, given that that Act barred the public sector from taking on franchises?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Much of the investment that has been channelled through the private sector since privatisation has in fact been underwritten by the state, and by Government guarantees. I will not put her on the spot to list specific examples but it would be helpful if Opposition Members could give examples of an at-risk capital investment that would actually be endangered by this Bill. I do not believe that such examples exist.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I again draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am a member of Unite the union. Does the Minister agree that changes to terms and conditions, if they happen at all, often take place on a very long-term transitionary basis? Indeed, that is my understanding of what happened the last time that the railways came under public ownership, when many people remained under pre-1948 terms and conditions for several decades. I would not wish to make assumptions or pre-judge future discussions, but can he confirm that nothing in the Bill would prevent similar transition arrangements in future?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we have to consider the new clauses before us as drafted. Does he accept that almost no railways in the world run without subsidy on a net basis and that, where they do, there are unique geographical circumstances? The railways in Great Britain have operated with subsidies under all models since the early 1950s, and the effect of the hon. Gentleman’s new clauses, if they were to be implemented as written, would be Beeching on steroids.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and we could point to other examples where franchises being taken in-house under previous Governments led to a service improvement. The Opposition’s problem has always been that public ownership works in practice but not in their theory. I am heartened by what the Minister had to say on my amendment. This is not an issue of dispute; this is sensible scrutiny. I welcome the commitment the Minister made to take the issue away. I recognise that this Committee is probably not the place to resolve this detailed and technical consideration. I am encouraged by his comments and on the basis that we may return to this matter at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 Crown status etc

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert— “(2) A body corporate may be designated under this section only if— (a) it is limited by shares, and (b) it is wholly owned by the Crown. (3) Regulations under subsection (1)— (a) must specify the time from which the designation has effect, and (b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable. (4) The designation of a body corporate terminates— (a) if the body corporate ceases to be wholly owned by the Crown, or (b) if the Secretary of State revokes the designation. (5) Any notice of revocation under subsection (4)(b)— (a) must specify the time from which the revocation has effect, and (b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after the notice is given. (6) For the purposes of this section a body corporate is wholly owned by the Crown if each share in the body corporate is held by— (a) a Minister of the Crown, (b) a company which is wholly owned by the Crown, or (c) a nominee of a person falling within paragraph (a) or (b). (7) Great British Railways is exempt from the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 relating to the use of ‘limited’ as part of its name. (8) In this section— ‘company’ means a company registered under the Companies Act 2006; ‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act).”

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It was 1948.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member particularly mentioned workforce productivity.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think we just heard an Opposition Member ask, “What were they doing?” in respect of the 1997 to 2010 Government. The answer, of course, is that capital investment had to be directed to safety in the aftermath of Hatfield and other disasters. When we look at where exactly that money was spent, it was on the safety improvements necessitated by some of the disasters caused by privatisation. I am a strong supporter of electrification, as I know the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is, but I thought it was important to place that on record.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Two per cent.

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

  More

  Q Returning to freight, I understand there is a problem at the moment with the ORR refusing longer-term applications, which presumably has a dampening effect on investment—at least, I would assume so. Do you think there is least the potential under GBR to take a longer-term view, and hopefully to reflect that in longer-term access agreements? Maggie Simpson: There are two parts to that question. Certainly, the provisions in the Bill allow for a core contract to be longer, because it removes the cap in law today. For that contract to be meaningful, though, it needs to have some committed capacity in it, because there is no point having a contract to run if you have no paths. That comes back to the access and use policy, the capacity commitments and how they will work out through those capacity plans. We simply do not have the detail on that yet to know whether we will be able to get meaningful, long-term capacity commitments. That is an open point.

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

  More

  So that is privileged information. John Davies: It is certainly information that I do not have access to.

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

  More

  Q But for inter-city, something similar to franchising? Steve Montgomery: Yes, you can put it out.

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

  More

  I have one final question, if there is time.

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

  More

  Q The ORR has taken an interest in the transfer of ownership to DFTO of individual franchises—I think that is recorded in the board minutes from last year. As far as I can see, it has been some time since the discussion was recorded at the board—it is possible that I may have missed one. How do you think those transfers have gone? John Larkinson: We have a very specific role there because, effectively, the safety management system has to be revalidated when that transfer is made. It has not been debated much by the board because it is all going extremely smoothly. We have done our role effectively on that: we have hit our deadlines and all has gone according to plan in terms of the transfer of safety responsibilities. I will be saying that again at the board next week.