Railways Bill (First sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

As per the register of interests, I am a member of Unite the union and vice-chair of the APPG on rail.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I am also a member of Unite the union.

Examination of Witnesses

Jeremy Westlake, John Larkinson and Alex Hynes gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

Q But the responsibility for the delivery of services will be theirs. Going back to my original question about how we hold it to account, are you effectively saying that when it comes down to the individual railway lines and the services, we as MPs will be going to that chief exec and then having to figure out how we escalate it if that does not work?

Alex Hynes: Under the current system, if you want to talk about the delivery of rail services in your area, you have to talk to the relevant train operating company’s managing director and the relevant route director in Network Rail, because there is no one in charge.

These integrated business units are going to be the powerhouse of Great British Railways. We have created three of them already, albeit using a workaround within railway legislation. In Kent, on South Western and Greater Anglia, we have now appointed one person to run track and train to ensure that that person is making joined-up decisions in an integrated way, and in the best interests of passengers and taxpayers.

Also, as an accountability mechanism, it works incredibly well because there is nowhere else to go—that person is the directing mind for their chunk of the railway. Having done one of those jobs myself for seven years in Scotland, it is very effective as an accountability mechanism, and it enables much better decision making, as well as decision making that can be undertaken faster than in the current system, where we have many organisations involved in the running of the railway.

[Laurence Turner]

Q Good morning. I first have a couple of questions to Mr Larkinson, but if other witnesses wish to come in, please do so.

Mr Larkinson, in the ORR’s last annual report and accounts, it stated,

“we began engaging with infrastructure managers on how to reduce the administrative burdens we impose”—

in the context of the Bill and rail reform. I do not mean to suggest that “burdens”, as expressed here, are always entirely one-sided, or that the ORR is doing anything other than working within the framework that has been established for it. Can you tell us a bit about what these “burdens” are, and what potential benefits might accrue from their removal?

John Larkinson: That work comes from the Government’s overall review of regulators and the remit that they have given to all regulators to look very carefully at administrative burdens imposed on regulated companies. We are the regulator that that applies to. The target is to reduce the administrative burden by 25% by the end of this Parliament. We are working on that process as set out by the Government and have already put a whole section in our business plan about the work that we are going to do. On that basis, we have had conversations with the companies that we regulate, such as Network Rail, about areas where we might be imposing unnecessary administrative burden, which is something that is always good to come back and look at.

Interestingly, we have had different responses from the different companies that we regulate, including, “We do not see any massive excess of administrative burden.” In the case of Network Rail, we have already identified some areas, such as the amount of data we require and the way that data is transferred around us—areas where things can be made faster and less resource intensive. So yes, we are getting on with it and reporting back. Indeed, I was at the regulators council with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Chancellor reporting back about a week and a half ago.

[Laurence Turner]

Q Does the removal of interfaces through the Bill make it easier to progress that work?

John Larkinson: We have to progress it now, so it is not conditional on the Bill in the slightest—the target is set now. We are getting on with it. It will be different with GBR, because we are dealing with a different organisation, but that is some way into the future. I have probably two years of work to do on this before we get to that point.

[Laurence Turner]

Q Moving on, the ORR will remain the regulator in Northern Ireland, as I understand it. It is quite a general question, but how does the role of the regulator under the Bill compare to the system in Northern Ireland, which, am I right in saying, broadly has a more European approach? Also how will it compare to other rail regulators on the continent?

John Larkinson: At a high level, they are largely non-comparable. The Northern Ireland railway is very small and has a very simple system. I remember the conversation I had with the people there when we first took on that role. Our regulation is proportionate to the size of the system. That means it does not cover safety: it is only an economic regulator. It is very narrow and focuses almost entirely on separation of accounts and issues like that. It really is not comparable.

[Laurence Turner]

Q Is it correct that, in theory, it has an appeals function?

John Larkinson: I think this is the thing: in theory, yes, but in practice there are very few issues that come to us as a result of that role in Northern Ireland.

[Laurence Turner]

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.

[Laurence Turner]

Q I have one final question for Mr Hynes and Mr Westlake. We talked on the Transport Committee some time ago about progress with shadow GBR and the preparations for implementation. As it has been some time since that was discussed, and this Bill has subsequently been published, could you give us an update on the work that shadow GBR has been undertaking?

Alex Hynes: Shadow GBR continues to meet very frequently under Laura’s chairship, and it is really helping to drive alignment and convergence between the Department for Transport, DFTO and Network Rail in this pre-GBR state. Whether it is developing a leadership academy for Great British Railways, looking at where the Great British Railways headquarters is going to be, in Derby, or working with the mayoral strategic authorities on how GBR will work in partnership with said organisations, it is helping to drive the alignment of the industry in this pre-GBR state.

On 1 April, about 200 civil servants will TUPE transfer out of the Department for Transport and into DFTO. One of the things that Jeremy and I are doing is trying to get our organisations and teams—of course, there is lots of good will in this area—to work together as though we were GBR, so we can start capturing the benefits of a more integrated railway system in advance of GBR. That is going well. It is Jeremy and I working together that is enabling us, for example, to put integrated leaders in place.

You talked about the public ownership programme, which I agree is going well; I pay tribute to John’s colleagues, who work well on the safety aspects of the transfer. Jeremy and I are working—in fact, we are discussing it this week at shadow GBR—on whether and when we can put integrated leaders in place, once we have brought the businesses into public ownership, to make track and train work together and create a single point of accountability by having one person in charge for certain chunks of the railway.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Q This question is directed at the chief executive of DFTO. You talk about the benefits of uniting track and train in terms of management and not having too many organisations. Transport for London obviously goes further, by working across buses, trains, cycle and tube. Is there anything in the Bill that improves the connectivity of rail with other forms of transport? I am thinking not just of my Isle of Wight constituency’s connectivity with privatised, unregulated ferry companies, but of probably every constituency with buses under different ownership models. Does anything in the Bill help to the improve connections between rail and other forms of public transport?

Alex Hynes: The answer to that question is yes. GBR will be required to take into account places’ local transport plans, and there is a process by which partnerships exist, particularly with mayoral strategic authorities—that obviously does not include everywhere, but does include some places. There is also a right to request mechanism, by which people can request further devolution from GBR to their area. There is very much a place-based focus on devolution, because the whole philosophy of GBR is that, other things being equal, decisions made closer to where rail services are delivered will be better than those made hundreds of miles away.

I also think that the combination of the creation of Great British Railways—a unified, publicly owned railway for the nation—with the Government’s intention to publish an integrated national transport strategy and the changes that are happening in the bus market will very much enable us to join up transport modes in places, so that we can deliver a better service to customers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

Q I want to pick a little further at the accessibility point, particularly on step-free access. By way of example, last week I got a letter from the Minister—neither of the two excellent Ministers in the Committee—saying that Sileby station in my constituency, which can be reached only by very steep steps, along with 40% of other stations in the current programme, was being cut from works to improve accessibility on the grounds of funding pressures.

The reality is that there will always be tensions between what is desired and what is affordable—that is in the nature of government. Building on what you have already said, how can those tensions be resolved to meet the duties envisaged in the Bill and the aspirations that all parties in this place have for improved accessibility, while recognising that there will always be a funding tension in anything the Government do?

I was a Health Minister and wrestled with such issues when deciding what to put in primary legislation, in secondary legislation and in statutory guidance. I would argue they have greater weight than, for example, a business plan, which is vaguer, less enforceable and less tangible than each of those other layers. You have to strike a balance of proportionality. Where do you think the specific obligations on accessibility would best sit in that hierarchy, from primary legislation in the Bill, which is right up at the top and cast in stone, to a business plan, which is much less enforceable, vaguer and can be changed?

Alex Robertson: That is a good question. You have set out the challenge and the dilemma that is true for this aspect of public services, as it is for many others. I will try to answer it in this way: wherever you put it, it must allow for the consideration of the ambition to significantly—it must be significantly—improve the service that disabled passengers receive, with decisions about funding. If you separate those two, you will get into a position where you have set a target, but it is not realistic and has no plan behind it.

You have to do that and, as I have said before, do it in a way that involves disabled passengers in the decision making. Whatever the scale of the ambition, it is perfectly possible to spend good public money inefficiently and ineffectively, and not on doing what is in the best interests of disabled passengers. It is about doing it right, as well as the amount you do.

Emma Vogelmann: From Transport for All’s perspective, as has been picked up by many others, unless accessibility is enforceable, it is treated as an optional and a nice to have: “We will get to it when we get to it, or when there is a surplus of money,” which of course there rarely is.

We have seen initiatives to make changes in the name of affordability; I am thinking particularly about the proposals to close ticket offices at stations in England a couple of years ago. That was very much an economic argument about staff not being confined to the ticket office, but in practice, for disabled people that meant that the network would become increasingly unusable and a completely unviable mode of transport for some.

I agree with what was said about needing a balance between ambition and the reality of how far those ambitions can go, but we need to be ambitious. We need to make sure that we are not accepting a slower rate of change because it is more economically secure.

Ben Plowden: Going back to a point I made before, I think the Bill should set the strategic intent that accessibility should increase over time, not just that it should be taken into consideration by GBR and the Secretary of State. The Bill should also set out how that increase is delivered. To Alex’s point, that could be done in a number of different ways, such as through service provision, infrastructure investment and so on, that would then be set out in the subordinate documents such as guidance, the licence and the business plan. The intent in the Bill would clearly be that, over time—in a way and at a rate to be determined by those other processes—accessibility would increase, not just be taken into consideration,

Michael Roberts: You have exposed exactly the difficulties in trying to navigate through all these challenges and priorities. At the risk of motherhood and apple pie, I think co-creation with the disabled community is extremely important in trying to find a way of managing these different priorities that carries the confidence that that is being done with the full consideration of the needs of the disabled travelling public.

I also think legislators ought to think, “What are the mistakes that we want to try to avoid next time around?” and then think about what levers can address those mistakes. It is extraordinary that the industry is spending over £1.5 billion building a new station at Old Oak Common, and there is no level boarding for the Elizabeth line, which is the busiest railway in the UK. I am not sure that legislation is going to fix that—that is as much about the quality of decision making within the industry—but thinking about what good looks like and then working back and thinking, “Right. What are the ways in which we can best promote that?” seems like a good way of trying to think around the problem.

[Laurence Turner]

Q I have a follow-up about passenger growth targets and freight growth targets. This question is not new: the freight growth target is inherited and was included or announced in the Williams-Shapps plan for rail White Paper. Mr Plowden, I am conscious that this was before your time in your present post, so perhaps this is for other witnesses. Given that we cannot question the previous Government in this Committee, based on your conversations and representations, why did the previous Government decide not to bring forward a passenger growth target alongside a freight growth target?

Alex Robertson: I do not know—I mean, I really do not know. We never got as far as having the Railways Bill in Parliament; we are fundamentally redesigning the railway, and that creates a different framework and a different set of responsibilities. I do not know; I have struggled with that question a little.

Ben Plowden: The Government did say, in their response to the consultation, that there are two reasons why, having considered the possibility of a passenger growth target, they decided not to include one. One reason was that GBR would be sufficiently incentivised through a whole variety of other means to increase passenger demand. The second reason, which I think is less convincing, is that it might lead to infinite growth over time in principle. Clearly and logically, that is possible, but the point is that the Secretary of State would set a growth target that would seek to strike a balance between what is feasible and practical, and what could be afforded in terms of taxpayer investment. It seems to us that neither of those arguments necessarily stands up, and that logically you would want to include a passenger growth target alongside the freight one.

[Laurence Turner]

Q Forgive me; I am particularly interested in policy development over time with this question.

Ben Plowden: I see.

[Laurence Turner]

A discontinuity or a change is that the draft Rail Reform Bill, published at the start of 2024, did not include a statutory freight target. I am interested in your views about the interaction between freight and passenger services, and whether the freight target is in place of a Bill or not.

Alex Robertson: I do not think I have a particular problem with freight—we represent passengers, and we have looked at it from a passenger perspective. I am comfortable that passengers are sufficiently represented in the Bill as it currently stands. That is the easiest, most direct answer I can give you.

[The Chair]

Andrew Ranger, you have 50 seconds for question and answer.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Wild]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me on to my next paragraph.

Instead of tinkering, the Chancellor should adopt Conservative party policies and abolish business rates for pubs, hospitality businesses, retail and leisure businesses, as well as slashing the average pub’s energy bill by £1,000. That is real help—the Minister can have those ideas for free.

The duty increases will also have an impact on the UK’s world-class wine and spirits producers, which together generate £76 billion in economic activity. Across our wine sector, there are more than 1,000 vineyards, including some excellent ones in North West Norfolk, which I recommend. Despite that success, we see the Government putting yet more costs on to the sector; some 60% of the price of a bottle of wine already goes to tax. Instead of listening to calls from the sector to freeze duty, the Chancellor has decided to increase it, and she has failed to fix the small producer relief so that it works for wine makers and distillers.

The picture is no rosier in the spirits sector. The Scotch Whisky Association has said that the increase piles additional pressure on to a sector already suffering from job losses, stalled investment and business closures. It estimates that the lost revenue to the Treasury as a result of the previous rise in spirits duty amounted to about £150 million. The UK Spirits Alliance has called the Budget

“a sad day for the nation’s distillers, pubs and the wider hospitality sector.”

WineGB joins its ranks in pointing out that higher prices will likely lead to lower sales and reduce the Treasury revenue, so the sector could not be clearer. The only people still pretending this is good economics are those on the Government Benches.

When the Government should be backing businesses, they are instead choosing to add to their costs. Increased taxes have consequences—they depress demand and revenue. In October, YouGov found that one in four regular drinkers was likely to reduce their alcohol spend this year due to price increases, and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association has called for the OBR’s forecasting assumptions to be reviewed. The Government are putting themselves and the UK on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) should read more about—he will be persuaded. Ministers should take fresh advice on the impact of these changes.

The UK’s brewers, producers and hospitality businesses are resilient. Frankly, in the face of this Government’s onslaught, they need to be. They are at the heart of our communities, creating jobs, driving local growth and giving many young people their first opportunity in work. Now is the time to support the sector, not tax it more, which is why we will be voting against these measures this evening.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

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. The effects of the escalator is also softened to an extent by the reduction for draught products, which, combined with pre-existing changes to the tax system, amount to a somewhat more favourable regime for the drinks most sold in pubs. This direction of policy is welcome, given everything we know about the attendant health and social harm that can be the result of solo drinking.

It is worth noting that the increase is in line with international best practice. It is timely that just today, the World Health Organisation published a new report titled “Global report on the use of alcohol taxes”. That report says that

“specific excise taxes need to be regularly adjusted for inflation or their real value risks erosion over time.”

It also establishes that the UK’s effective tax take is firmly in line with many other European countries, including Belgium and much of central and eastern Europe, and of course it is significantly lower than in Scandinavia. As such, uprating the duty strikes the right balance between the different objectives of encouraging social activity, supporting the hospitality and manufacturing industries, and not encouraging excessive consumption. It is true that there have been changes in alcohol consumption rates among the general public, changes that have been particularly marked since covid. As the 2024 living costs and food survey found, there has been a notable fall in real-terms alcohol consumption, both in and out of the home, which is why specific measures are needed to support the pub trade.

If I may, I will say a few words about the revaluation 2026 process. I have raised questions about this before, and the Minister has indicated that—as the phrase goes—discussions are ongoing, so in the interests of time I will not repeat my questions today. However, I would like to note two things. First, the Valuation Office Agency has been genuinely independent since the days of the increment value duty, and secondly, valuation 2026 has been coming for a long time. It was the last Government who changed the law to introduce three-year valuation exercises, and as successive annual reports of the VOA make clear, the risk of valuations in individual sectors that are not of sufficient quality was foreseen. A delivery plan was developed before the 2024 general election to mitigate that risk, as the VOA saw it. Presumably the Government of the day did not have concerns about the VOA’s approach, because if they did, they would have raised them on the record.

I will make two further brief points, the first of which is about the tax system’s treatment of different types of alcohol sales. Something needs to be done about the sale of high-strength drinks on our high streets in proximity to betting shops. If you were to go to Northfield high street, Ms Cummins, you would see a succession of small betting shops immediately next to off-licences where very low cost, but very high strength beers and ciders are sold. There is a revolving door between those premises, and it is a major contribution to some of the antisocial problems that we have on our high streets. I hope that future exercises will look at different treatments, whether that is powers for local authorities or changes to the tax system to try to remedy the problem.

[Dave Doogan]

I remember precisely the dynamic that the hon. Member sets out in his local high street. We used to have it in Scotland, too, until we introduced minimum unit pricing, which took the very large volume, high-strength alcohol products off the shelf in Scotland, or at least put them way up in price. He can check with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who I am sure would endorse that SNP policy.

[Laurence Turner]

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. 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.

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. I look forward to voting for the Finance Bill tonight.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Road Safety Strategy

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Government have done a great deal of work in collaboration with the Home Office on road policing. We know that this strategy will be effective only if there is enforcement. I cannot instruct chief constables on how they deploy their resources, but we are determined to work in partnership to ensure that this road safety strategy is effective, including the measures around enforcement.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

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?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. We are working very closely with those who have expressed a similar desire to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads, including the Mayor of the West Midlands, who has shown real leadership on this issue. I can give my hon. Friend the commitment that we intend to act to ensure that the measures we have set out lead to the changes needed.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I am sorry that the right hon. Lady does not welcome the fact that the Chancellor is in Wales today to promote investment in Wales, but I can point her to the fact that the decision to lift the two-child benefit cap will benefit children in Wales, that the money off energy bills will benefit people in Wales, and that the changes to the fiscal framework will benefit people in Wales. The decisions that this Government took will cut the cost of living and make sure that we cut Government borrowing, which will benefit people right across the UK.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

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?

[James Murray]

Events are moving quickly, and I understand that the chair of the OBR has resigned. That is what I understand from messages passed to me.

Budget: Press Briefings

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

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?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right to point out that the process between the OBR and the Treasury has been strengthened to be more robust and transparent under this Government. Of course, it is an iterative process whereby the OBR shares its forecasts with us and we share with it our proposed measures. It iterates throughout the Budget process, culminating in the Budget itself on 26 November.

Taxes

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So I cannot talk about my father’s and grandfather’s experiences—[Interruption.] No, okay.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

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?

[Chris Vince]

The ultimate point here is that an estimated £5.5 billion was lost to the Treasury in 2022-23 as a result of tax evasion, and an estimated £6.6 billion was lost in 2023-24. What impact does the Minister think the previous cuts to HMRC will have on the amount of revenue collected, based on the current taxation rules, which were also agreed to by the Conservative party? How different would the amount in the coffers be if those cuts to HMRC had not been made? Will he consider that fact in the Budget and look at how we can support HMRC to ensure that we collect the correct taxes? Let us talk about the tax that should be collected but is not being collected because of the starving of funding for HMRC. From personal experience, I know that my mum and her colleagues made money for the Government. I appreciate that I went a little bit off topic, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope you understand the point I was trying to make.

To reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his opening remarks, the Budget will be set on 26 November, which is why we will vote down this motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

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. 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.”

[Jerome Mayhew]

As we are looking for clarity, what the shadow Chancellor was saying was that if he was in the Chancellor’s position, that is, if he could not cut spending and had to raise tax, perhaps that is what he would do, but that is not what his intention is. His intention, very properly, is to control spending, as any responsible Government would. Why will the hon. Gentleman’s Government not do the same?

[Laurence Turner]

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.

[Gregory Stafford]

To bring the hon. Member back to the controlling of spending, may I ask him a question that other Members on his side have failed to answer? Would he be in favour of keeping or scrapping the two-child benefit cap?

[Laurence Turner]

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.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Laurence Turner]

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. 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.

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.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

One of the striking features of this debate is how much time the Government Benchers have spent discussing our record in Government and our future plans. It is almost as if they are lingering, cheering on, and desperately in need of a change of Prime Minister. Will they facilitate that?

[Laurence Turner]

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. 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.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is interesting that the Conservatives have put forward lots of fantasy proposals about various cuts they cannot make, yet strangely failed to mention any of the covid money that went missing on their watch, or its recovery?

[Laurence Turner]

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—

[Bradley Thomas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Laurence Turner]

I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Bradley Thomas]

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could tell the House whether he would be content if income tax, national insurance or VAT were to rise in the Budget in two weeks’ time.

[Laurence Turner]

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. 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

Let me make a bit of progress if I may—I will happily take a further intervention in good time. It is a sorry fact, but it is true that Conservative Members squandered their time in power, just as they squandered much taxpayer money. After 14 years of failure they left people paying more for less, and enforced a policy of austerity for too long, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) spoke about in his contribution. That policy brought public services to their knees—something we needed to fix—and saddled us with so much debt that we now pay £1 in every £10 of public money in debt interest payments alone. I agree with the contribution from a Conservative Member who said that that is not a morally acceptable situation, but that is the situation we inherited, and one that we intend to change. Over the course of this Parliament the international comparisons bear out, and we are on track to reduce the deficit that we inherited faster than any other G7 economy. That is the stability that the Chancellor is returning to the public finances.

[Laurence Turner]

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.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his years of work and experience supporting public sector workers and our proud trade unionists.

Conservative Members have mentioned the statistics that have been published of late. There is much that we need to do to ensure that the investment that we make in the NHS comes with improvements in productivity and output. The Health Secretary was talking about that today in reference to our reforms to NHS England, and about ensuring that we are not duplicating spending in both the Department for Health and Social Care and NHS England. I thought that Conservative Members were against quangos, but it turns out that they are against that reform.

Property Taxes

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be called in this debate, even if I must start by questioning the wisdom of the Opposition’s decision to bring forward today’s motion. After all, the memories and consequences of their so-called mini-Budget are still fresh—the culmination of Liz Truss’s economic policies, which the present Leader of the Opposition said were “aspirational and inspirational”. Their dreams became our constituents’ nightmares—to say nothing of the Conservatives’ failure to pass renters’ rights reform, which this Government are now putting through, or of their dreadful record on wages, which left people in my constituency with £300 a month less, after inflation, every month.

It cannot be reasonably denied—although the Conservatives have tried—that the incoming Government faced a bedevilled inheritance last July. For all the sound and fury, there is little mystery about this now. As Richard Hughes, the chair of the OBR, told the Treasury Committee:

“When we had a high-trust relationship with the Treasury those things were being well managed, and managed within the total. That system very clearly broke down… there was about £9.5 billion-worth of net pressure on Departments’ budgets, which they did not disclose…which under the law and under the Act they should have done.”

What a disgraceful set of affairs, and decisions that awaited the Government on public sector pay had been ducked and delayed until after the election.

We need to be clear about this: Conservative Ministers already knew the recommendation of the schoolteachers review body. They also knew that the recommendations of each pay review body tend to be similar. Why were those recommendations delayed, given that the pay year started not in July or even at the beginning of the pre-election period, but in April? It was because Conservative Ministers and their Departments submitted the remit letters and their evidence late.

As the Office of Manpower Economics said in its 2022 efficiency review:

“The work of the PRBs is demand led and essentially non-negotiable—departments set the remits and timetables.”

There we have it: the additional cost was always coming, and the only reason why it came seven months into an election year was because Conservative Ministers were content for it to be so delayed. Today Opposition Front Benchers claim that they would have rejected the recommendations, but not once has any Opposition Member had the courage to say how much less they would have paid nurses, paramedics, teachers, police officers and armed forces personnel in each of our constituencies.

Are any Opposition Members able to enlighten us today? No. The reality is that they want the investment that means 25,000 fewer people are on a University Hospitals Birmingham waiting list compared with last year, and which is almost doubling the free school meals entitlement in my constituency of Birmingham Northfield, but they do not support a single measure to pay for it. We should be clear in saying that strong public services create value. Businesses and working people in all our constituencies need roads, schools and hospitals that are resourced and decent.

[Mr French]

As the hon. Member represents Birmingham Northfield, does he believe that residents in Birmingham deserve to get their bins collected in return for their council tax payments?

[Laurence Turner]

The hon. Member tempts me to get drawn into a discussion to which, in one minute and 30 seconds, I do not have enough time to do justice. Of course we need a bin service that is fit and decent—I have spoken about that many times in this House.

What my constituents did not need were the sharpest cuts in resourcing of any unitary authority in the entire country, coupled with the sharpest increases in council tax, and those were signed off by Conservative Ministers. I have in front of me the impact assessment of the 10% council tax increase from January last year, which says:

“The decision for Ministers across Government, as No. 10 and HMT clearance will be needed, is whether to grant these increases.”

That is the legacy of the hon. Member’s party for my constituents: the highest spending cuts and the highest tax rises. The last thing they need is a return to the failed approach of the Conservatives, who deserve to be reminded of that every time they bring such a debate to this House.

Government Performance against Fiscal Rules

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I agree. As the House knows, when the Chancellor presented the Budget last year, she said that this Government “chooses investment over decline” for Britain. That was reflected in our spending review, which was investing in the renewal of Britain, unlocking billions of pounds as a consequence of the fiscal rules that the Chancellor had set out in the Budget—which were non-negotiable, and will therefore stay in place.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

In the context of spending decisions taken by the Johnson Government, the last Conservative Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, told the Transport Committee last week:

“A lot of promises were made to MPs and others as to the ambition, but it did not match the amount that was actually being set down.”

He went on to say:

“By the time I came into post I ended up with a list that was much longer than could be funded.”

Does the Chief Secretary share my anger at the way that the Conservative party tried to take all our constituents for fools?

[Darren Jones]

I do. It is good that my hon. Friend has been able to raise that testimony from the Transport Committee, because it reminds us why the British people were so angry with the Conservative party after 14 years of failed promises, and why this Labour Government will always make sure that we deliver on our promises.

Spending Review 2025

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

It absolutely is.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I was delighted to hear the official commitment today to backing the midlands rail hub. I thank the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary for listening to the, at times, persistent representations in support of this essential project. We inherited a set of engineering plans with no money behind them. Now there is a chance to turn them into something real, and that is good news for Birmingham and for the economy of the west midlands.

At the centre of those works is Kings Norton station in my constituency. We need the works there to unblock the cross-city line. On a matter of literary heritage, Kings Norton is also the birthplace of Thomas the Tank Engine—the Reverend Awdry lived a few yards down the road. Would it not be a great tribute if spades could go in the ground for the 80th anniversary next year? Will the Chancellor and her officials work with local representatives so that we can understand which of those individual projects are going to be started first and finally restore Kings Norton station to its former glory?

[Rachel Reeves]

I once spent a day at Thomas the Tank Engine world. I hope that the trains and the tram lines that we are going to be investing in will be a little less talkative and a bit more productive. The reason I mentioned my hon. Friend in my speech today is that he has persistently lobbied for the midlands rail hub, and we are very pleased as a Government to be able to make that commitment today, which will benefit his constituents and many others as well.

Regional Growth

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

As I have alluded to many times today, this Government are committed to investing in every region and nation of the country. Today’s announcement is about city regions and city region transport, but the spending review next week will show how this Government are delivering for people, irrespective of where they live.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Transport in the midlands has been historically underfunded, and today’s announcement is a welcome turn of the tide. Many Birmingham City fans in my constituency will also strongly welcome the metro extension, and this feels like a good opportunity to congratulate the Blues on their record-setting, promotion-winning season. This is yet more good news. We are also campaigning for upgrades to the Cross-City line, and in particular to the Kings Norton station works, to make the most of this new investment. Will the Minister confirm that he and his Department for Transport colleagues remain open to constructive representations, so that we can finally make this important project happen?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning for his constituency and for welcoming this historic funding of £2.4 billion today for the west midlands. He asked me about future projects. The good news is that the Mayor of the West Midlands has not spent all of this money yet, so there is definitely potential for lobbying him on how he might wish to spend the rest of that money in due course, and if there is anything I can do to help, I will be glad to do so.