Laurence Turner
MP for Birmingham Northfield · Labour · United Kingdom
“We repeatedly heard that shortages in those key skills are holding back the UK’s ability to deliver major products, as well as raising costs for taxpayers. This statutory instrument is necessary to continue the provision of essential skills training.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members will recall when a former member of the Revolutionary Communist party—an organisation that acted as an apologist for the IRA’s mainland bombing campaign—was appointed to the other place a few years ago and has never disavowed those views.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is difficult to imagine a role in the modern economy for the Wool, Jute and Flax Industry Training Board, but it is worth reflecting that, in the past, training boards oversaw some important skills transitions—particularly the Gas Industry Training Board’s role in the highly successful conversion from town gas to natural gas.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We cannot create the prospect of British citizens being tried in absentia by states they may never have stepped foot in and then effectively being barred from running for council or parliamentary positions.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is worth pointing out that while it is right that we debate the petition’s important proposals, the people of Sparkhill rejected Mr Butt’s candidature. He lost decisively and two Labour councillors were returned. In that case, we needed good organisation and trust in the people of this country. I hope that my hon.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is also a valid question to be asked about the effective five-year prohibition against standing for election that applies in practice for domestic convictions of terrorism but not for overseas convictions.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
740 held · 600 searchable for Laurence Turner. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I draw attention to my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group, a union that represents workers in the distillery and retail trades. I will limit my comments to the uprating of excise duty, but I welcome this Budget more generally. It represents the right choice—investment and renewal over austerity and decline. Clause 86 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill represents a simple uprating of alcohol duty in accordance with the retail prices index. In that sense, the clause represents continuity with the policy of successive Governments over many years, going back to the early 1970s, and of course the principle of excise duty predates that by many more years. Having noted the shadow Minister’s comments, it is telling that none of the amendments we are considering today would actively reverse that increase.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Office for National Statistics has been developing the alternative household costs indices measure. That is particularly useful, because it captures the different rates of inflation experienced by households of different income levels. I hope that in future we can look at the HCIs as an alternative means of uprating the various charges, levies and escalators that the Government apply. We are not in that place yet, and it is important that the ONS makes progress in this area. On the whole, I welcome the Minister’s statement. Compared with some of the other debates we have had in this Parliament—particularly on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, where it was suggested that there was some secretive and sinister plot to change sales of the pint to some metric measure—this has in contrast been a sober debate.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That important matter has not been raised in this debate, so I will touch on it briefly. Although CPI and CPIH are both of use as macroeconomic indicators, RPI remains the only measure that is in general circulation and is updated regularly that actively seeks to measure the cost of living as it is experienced by working people. Criticisms can be made of the retail prices index, but it is important to place on record that in the early 2010s, regular changes to the methodology for RPI were discontinued. That is behind the formula gap that has led to the widening between the headline rates of RPI and CPI. I am not convinced that moving to a different rate at this time is appropriate, given some of the limitations of CPI and its twin CPIH, which we can discuss on another occasion.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I sit on the same Select Committee as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), and I know better than to speak for him. I have a degree of personal sympathy with the case that the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) sets out. I also think there is something to be said for giving more powers to our councils, because these decisions—particularly when they relate to areas at risk of complex interactions between homelessness, lack of mental health provision and the sales of these at times dangerous products—are best made locally, in addition to national policy setting. My final point is that there have been calls outside this place for uprating to be moved to a different inflation index, principally the consumer prices index or the consumer prices index with housing.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for all her hard work over many years to bring this excellent statement to the House. Some 500 people are killed or seriously injured on Birmingham’s roads every year, including in my constituency. Sadly, due to the historical layout of many of our estates, schools, shops and other amenities are in some of the areas at the most acute risk. Can she assure the House that her Department is working with other public agencies to ensure that efforts are targeted at those most at-risk areas? Once the consultation has closed at the end of March, will every effort be made to respond to them as soon as possible?”
House of Commons8 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and all the staff of the House. There is no such thing as cruelty-free fur, as the last Labour Government recognised when they banned the fur farming industry in the UK. That case has been made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and organisations like Respect for Animals. Beyond the animal welfare strategy, and when the Animal Welfare Committee reports, will full and favourable consideration be given to finally banning the fruits of this vile trade by ending the import of real fur products?”
House of Commons18 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Merry Christmas to you, Mr Twigg, and all the House staff. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on a topic that is close to my heart, and close to the hearts of many of my constituents. My union, the GMB, has done a lot of work on this issue through the “Thinking Differently at Work” campaign. Does my hon. Friend agree that when workplaces are inclusive by design, and there are clear routes for reasonable adjustments to be made, employers benefit because they get the best out of all the talents in their workforce?”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One problem experienced by neurodivergent workers is that, when reasonable adjustments are put in place, the manager changes and they have to start again. The TUC did some very good work on a reasonable adjustments passport, as did the civil service unions. I encourage all colleagues to look at that work to see if it can be adopted more widely.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The debate is on the Employment Rights Bill, although I struggle to follow the line of logic in the hon. Member’s speech. He said that the effect of the change would be to benefit the wealthiest employees, but chief executive officers and other senior executives rarely seek recourse to employment tribunals, for a number of reasons. Can he name a single CEO or equivalent who has pursued a case for an employment tribunal?”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is no longer solely about workers’ rights; it has become a challenge by unelected peers to the primacy of the Commons and the greater legitimacy that our constituents lend us temporarily.”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to have been called to speak in this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my membership of the GMB and my chairship of its parliamentary group—an unremunerated role. The Bill has been the subject of 14 months of debate and scrutiny, and it should have received Royal Assent months ago. Let us not beat around the bush about why we are here tonight: the Bill has been deliberately delayed by some Members of the other place who disagree with the principle of what it seeks to achieve and with the electoral mandate behind it. The amendment that came from the Lords last week represents the last gasp of that approach, testing the limits of the democratic decision-making process and the constitutional relationship that binds these two Houses.”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I enjoyed many hours in proximity to the hon. Member. He will know that the only reason we are considering the measure in such a short time is that the Bill has been delayed, so close to the April implementation period, because of the Conservative party. The final proof of the implications of the constitutional limits of what we are now being asked to consider can be found in the fact that the Opposition’s amendment was carried last week thanks to the votes of Conservative hereditary peers, who owe their positions to an accident of birth.”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the Lords amendment were not rejected, it would have two immediate effects. First, it would collapse the agreement between employers and union representatives. It is not some reasonable call for a review; it strikes out the changes to the compensation cap, which was a key component of that agreement. The Conservatives know that it is a nonsense to call for a review if the legislation that would give it effect is not carried— [ Interruption. ] Secondly, the amendment would so delay the Bill that April’s extension of statutory sick pay and parental leave for millions of people—some on the very lowest incomes—falls into doubt.”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, he would know that I was referring to the review called for in the Lords amendment. That is not all that the amendment contains; it seeks to strike out the powers to change the compensation cap. It is a nonsense to say on the one hand that the Bill must be halted in its track while there is a review, when the powers in question have been removed. The delays to the April implementation of fundamental rights cannot be suffered. As the employers’ representatives have said, we are out of time. The opposition to the Bill is exhausted, and the Commons mandate must be respected. Parliament must pass the Bill.”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I draw attention to my membership of the GMB and my chairship of its parliamentary group. The BMA is currently in dispute with its workforce over an offer of 2% for this year, which is below the inflation rate on the retail prices index and the consumer prices index. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a striking inconsistency between the heads of claim that the BMA has advanced and its own record as an employer?”
House of Commons10 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on again reading into the record the names of the 37. I hope I might put two sentiments of my own on the record. First, I pay tribute to the work of Eddie Marnell who, over many years as a member of GMB’s north-west and Irish region and central executive council, championed their cause outside this House and, through the union, inside it. I also pay tribute to the work of my former colleagues at GMB; I can attest to the many hours that have been spent in support of that cause, and I understand that the union is due to meet the campaign again in the new year.”
House of Commons10 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has been a privilege to have had the occasional view of the development of this area of transport policy down the years. I look forward to voting for it tonight.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a multiplicity of such unnecessary contractual barriers, and public money and public confidence drains through each one. We should not expect a complete change of services on day one of operations under GBR, as there was not on the Attlee Government’s vesting day for nationalisation in 1948, but change over time it will, and for the better, including for my constituents who travel from Longbridge, Northfield and Kings Norton. The Bill is the instrument of that transformation. Tonight’s vote is on the principle of establishing Great British Railways. In the weeks ahead, there will be time for detailed line-by-line scrutiny, to which I look forward to contributing, including through the Transport Committee. But for tonight, I just want to say that there can be no doubt that this is the right policy and the right Bill.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is worth reflecting on the fact that the cost of privatisation is borne by all taxpayers, whether they use the railway or not. The railways received nearly £700 million in subsidy in 1990-91. By 2018-19, before the pandemic impaired the industry’s finances, the net subsidy requirement had increased to £4.3 billion—an increase after inflation of some 236%; more than doubling, even after passenger journey increases had been accounted for. To this day, subsidy is lower in Northern Ireland, where the railways remained in public hands. Everywhere, the railway’s contingent parts are divided and separated by contractual barriers. For passengers, that can mean station staff who cannot even board a train to help someone with mobility issues, because they work for different companies.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“And now we turn, at last, to a fundamental question which has perhaps gone unasked in this House for too long: what is the mass and acceleration of an average-sized peacock? The question does not spring from the pages of a script for “The Goon Show” or “Monty Python”. It is a real case that came before the rail industry’s Delay Attribution Board. A delay caused by a collision between a train and a small bird is the responsibility of a private operator, which pays the cost of compensation, but if the unfortunate bird is deemed to be large, then taxpayers are on the hook. And so it came to be that one day expensive lawyers gathered to compare calculations and precedent, and argue out whether the unfortunate peacock was more akin to a goose than a duck. Few incidents better illustrate the costly absurdities of rail privatisation.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) was the shadow Transport Secretary, he was recorded saying that his party would likely not reverse nationalisation because the public would be unlikely to think it was a good idea. If this Bill passes, will it be the policy of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) to privatise the railways all over again?”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I wish to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton). Something has clearly gone very wrong with the safety advisory group process in respect of Aston Villa, as the Minister, to her credit, has said from the start. I am particularly concerned by the apparent absence of clear decision-making processes, and of evidence and recording surrounding those processes, and I wish to know whether this is indicative of other decisions that might have been made by the respective police forces. Can the Minister confirm to the House whether, as part of her considerations, she is looking at new national minimum standards for the way that decisions are made and evidenced through safety advisory groups?”
House of Commons8 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady just said that she has been informed by business groups that were in the negotiations that this measure was not agreed. Will she name them?”
House of Commons8 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The OBR is a valuable institution, and the “Economic and fiscal outlook” is by far the most important document that it produces. Today’s report makes it clear that the OBR’s IT infrastructure was a point of critical failure that should have been identified as far back as 2013. Does the Minister agree that the chair of the OBR now cannot credibly lead the investigatory and reconstruction work, and that he should resign?”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As a local MP, I have previously expressed my concerns about the decision-making process. I welcome the Minister’s commitment today that a review is being carried out about how such risk assessments are made. I understand why some information may not be suitable for placing in the public domain, but can the Minister assure the House that the Government’s view is that as much information as possible should be made available for public scrutiny?”
House of Commons24 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister said in his response that the Treasury and the OBR are exchanging information, but that did not happen in the period immediately before the last election, when spending pressures were withheld from the OBR in a way that the chair said may have broken the law. Will the Minister confirm that that failure is being corrected under this Government?”
House of Commons17 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for becoming the human face of tax collection in this debate. A number of my constituents also work for HMRC, and they have told me that the period of cuts has impeded the agency’s ability to collect corporate taxation and get into the public purse revenues that are rightly due. Is that not a relevant factor when talking about the Opposition’s plan to cut 132,000 civil servants?”
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“According to the longer transcript, as reported by City AM , he said: “If I was in exactly her position” —the Chancellor’s, that is— “and I had to deal with tax, and I was down the end of the spectrum where the black hole was really big, I would probably go for income tax…I wouldn’t want to be in that position but that’s the cleanest thing to do.””
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Opposition motions are usually detailed—as, indeed, is the next motion on the Order Paper, relating to energy—so the brevity of this motion deserves comment. The most important line is, I think, the first: “That this House calls on the Government to control public expenditure”. In the hands of this Opposition, that short and seemingly innocuous phrase is a euphemism for cuts to essential services, and a return to the austerity agenda that the public rejected so decisively a year ago. All that follows in the motion hangs on that intent. After all, the Opposition accept that were the positions reversed, they themselves would probably be putting up taxes. Earlier in the debate the shadow Chancellor, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, said that he had been quoted out of context.”
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it brings me to my next point. The Opposition have come to the House today stating that all these difficult matters have been resolved and there is no need for tax increases at all. They say that they have a plan for cutting £47 billion of public expenditure. I have a copy of that plan with me, but it is not much of a boast, because it is a very sparse document. The right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) said, “Further detail will follow,” but a month has passed and we are still waiting. Perhaps the shadow Minister who winds up the debate can let us know whether the Opposition will be publishing a more detailed document.”
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have said it a number of times on the record and in this House before, so it is no evasion to say that I am no fan of the cap at all. As an incrementalist, I would like to see at least some solid progress on lifting that cap, and I hope that we will be in a position to remove it completely.”
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To give her credit, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said last week that she would be happy to share a further breakdown of those savings. Again, that has not been brought forward. If the Opposition are to ask the House to have any confidence in their proposals, they must provide that information—not examples of proposed cuts, but the cuts in their totality.”
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They tell us that they would save £3.5 billion by closing asylum hotels; I think my constituents would choke on their cornflakes on that one, because they know that the Conservative party was the originator of hotel use, just as small boat crossings were not an issue before 2019. I am glad that, under Labour, hotel placements in Birmingham are down by 50% compared with their peak, and I look forward to their use being eliminated completely. The greater part of the Opposition’s claimed savings is £23 billion of supposed cuts to the welfare bill, but, again, we have had only the scarcest of details. Let us be clear about the scale of what is being discussed: £23 billion is the equivalent of a quarter of the universal credit bill, more than half the disability social security bill, and two thirds of housing costs.”
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No. I have already taken two interventions and I want to make a bit of progress with my speech, but I might come back to the hon. Member. I hope that the Opposition do publish more detail, because, if they do not, it will be widely suspected in the country and the House that they know that their claims do not withstand the lightest of scrutiny. It will also be concluded that the real function of that document is to act as an exercise in wishful thinking, and that it is designed to avoid the taking of difficult and unpopular decisions. Some parts of the Opposition’s claims can be dispensed with briefly.”
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Not only is this pledge a rehash of a “here today, gone tomorrow” promise once announced by Boris Johnson and never seen again, but it is unclear where exactly the Opposition see those job cuts falling. Is it the additional trade and customs officials hired since 2016? Is it the additional Department for Education staff hired as a result of academisation—effectively a transfer of functions from local government to central Government? Is it the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government staff hired as a result of the growth in statutory burdens on our local authorities? I think all our constituents who work in those roles deserve at least clarity on what the Opposition’s intentions are.”
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When Opposition Members talk about defenestration, I do listen—because of their greater expertise in these matters. And, of course, “What’s past is prologue”—the hon. Gentleman tempts me to get on to the Zinoviev letter, but that might be one for another day. However, I have actually made only one brief reference to the last Government’s record. We are scrutinising their motion and their proposals; this is an Opposition day debate, and that is a proper function of Parliament. The other part of the Opposition’s document that I want to comment on is their intention to axe 132,000 civil servants. Some of those people are my constituents—as has already been noted.”
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is right, and we could all point to examples of waste and inefficient spending under the previous Government. That is, of course, part of the context of where we find ourselves today, as are the £9.5 billion of undisclosed spending pressures that were withheld by the Treasury on their watch from the Office for Budget Responsibility. I will just say this before concluding, because it has been part of the debate: we are today in a pre-Budget debate, and no Back Bencher knows the contents of what will be announced. But when we do look back on the past in that reflective way, I think the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) had—”
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Every Conservative Government and leadership from 2010 onwards claimed mitigating circumstances—some were great, such as the pandemic, and some less so—when they deviated from manifesto commitments. There is no doubt that the weakening of international trade, the imposition of tariffs and the forthcoming OBR revision on productivity estimates are new and relevant factors. That is why difficult conversations are currently happening in Governments and Parliaments across Europe. When the Conservatives demand consistency from others, they would do well to reflect on their own confounding record.”
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will happily say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think any of us come to this place wanting to raise taxes. I will just draw attention to one thing in the Labour party manifesto: an important statement that a growing economy needs strong public services. I welcome the record investment in our NHS—the biggest in 20 years—which has seen waiting lists in Birmingham fall by 20%. That is a philosophical difference between my side and his, but it was also a very important part of the manifesto that I stood on. Earlier, the right hon. Member for New Forest East suggested that he remembered when Hugh Dalton resigned in 1947. I am not sure that the numbers can be right on that one, but I will just say this.”
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister has just spoken about public services and touched on productivity. At the start of the debate, the shadow Chancellor talked about the importance of timely public sector pay settlements to productivity increases. Having been a union official in the aftermath of the strikes by ambulance workers, I have some insight into this issue. Ministers in the previous Government said that they wanted productivity increases, but negotiators for the Government had nothing to suggest on productivity links and they were asking the trade union for ideas.”
House of Commons12 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“T3. Dyspraxia is a common condition, but public awareness levels are still too low. Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done across Government and society to raise awareness of dyspraxia?”
House of Commons5 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman said the Conservatives “will repeal those most damaging elements of the Employment Rights Bill”. —[ Official Report , 4 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 776.] Could he inform us which elements of the Bill they will retain?”
House of Commons5 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I did not realise that was a genuine offer. I do not have the ctrl+F function in front of me to do a word count, but, again, I would be interested in hearing an answer to the question I posed to the hon. Gentleman. All I will say is that, as his colleague the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said in Committee, trade union-associated MPs have been assiduous at declaring donations. I think only one Member on the Conservative side has declared an interest throughout all these proceedings; I find that utterly incredible.”
House of Commons5 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is it not also the case that, within that graph, a number of the nations that the Resolution Foundation says have weaker protections actually have higher unemployment rates than our own? There is clearly not the relationship between the two that some in the Opposition have tried to suggest.”
House of Commons5 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given that time is short, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will endeavour to keep my remarks brief. I intend to speak to specific amendments today, but I feel compelled to start with a general comment in respect of financial interests. Throughout the stages of the Bill, and again today, it has been suggested by the Opposition that a number of Government Members speak not from genuine and sincere belief, but because of arrangements involving donations to their constituency Labour parties. I say to those on the Opposition Benches that that argument and line of thought betrays a laziness towards this issue that is reflected in their lack of effective scrutiny of the Bill, with the Opposition resorting instead to hackneyed and ancestral stereotypes and lazy assumptions that reflect nothing about the world of unions and the world of work.”
House of Commons5 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The effect of Lords amendment 121B would to be to create a two-tier arrangement between school support staff in local authority maintained schools and academies. It states that employers could introduce terms and conditions. I am concerned about the potential contradiction with the provisions in the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which that require such changes to be made on a collective and not a unilateral basis. Furthermore, it states that terms and conditions that could be changed should be “in aggregate” an improvement. That clearly leaves room for employers to introduce a weakening to some areas to the detriment of the 1,700 school support staff in my constituency. I am proud to have had an association with this Bill, and I look forward to rejecting those specific amendments tonight.”
House of Commons5 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance)—who is both honourable and a friend—made in respect of Lords amendment 62, but she covered it expertly. I will finish by talking about Lords amendment 121B on the school support staff negotiating body, which has not been discussed so far today. I recognise that this amendment is substantially different from other amendments that have been sent to us on this matter, but I still believe that it is unnecessary. First of all, the overwhelming majority of academy employers do subscribe to the National Joint Council terms and conditions for school support staff—terms and conditions which, as has been widely recognised for more than 20 years, are out of date in respect of school support staff.”
House of Commons5 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When that provision was originally repealed, the Attlee Government’s Attorney General of the day said—I think this bears repeating today—that the Conservatives relied on the “old delusion that the Labour party was being built upon the hard-earned pennies of honest Conservatives who were too timid to declare their true political colours and were being bullied by horrid, nasty trade unionists into supporting the political funds of a party to which they were so much opposed.” Anyone who has worked with trade union members will recognise that to be a delusion indeed, and we have heard much of that delusion from the Opposition through the passage of the Bill. I was going to make similar comments to those my hon.”
House of Commons5 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Look at the campaigns that have been run and the cross-party support they have won, such as GMB and Unison’s “Protect the Protectors” and GMB’s campaigns on domestic defence manufacturing—two campaigns that the Conservatives came to support—as well as USDAW’s “Freedom from Fear”, and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, the result of Unite’s campaign in the aftermath of the Morecambe Bay disaster, in which so many cockle pickers tragically and disgracefully lost their lives. Even today, in this place, trade union funding helps to address the abuse that has occurred within the confines of the estate, and which there is a risk will continue in the future. Trade unions are democratic bodies. Any member of a trade union can demand to see the receipts of political expenditure, and decisions on party donations are taken on a collective basis.”
House of Commons5 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the other place, the noble Lord Burns gently questioned whether this was a manifesto issue, but the Make Work Pay document, which our manifesto said would be implemented in full, clearly said that the Trade Union Act 2016 would be repealed. That must include this provision. The amendments before us seek to preserve the punitive restrictions that were originally imposed as retribution in 1927 and repealed in 1946, after which we had 70 years during which arrangements worked effectively. The actual impact of these amendments, were they passed, would be the same as any arrangement that moves from opt-out to opt-in, which is a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice. Let us not forget that trade union political funds do not exclusively fund donations to parties.”
House of Commons5 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗