Labour Party MP for Birmingham Northfield since (elected). An MP continuously since .
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
402
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
2
As currently published
Declared while sitting for Labour
£4,000
1 of 2 entries state an amount
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | MP | Birmingham Northfield | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Parliament's party history for this member: Labour ( – present).
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
| Date | Category | Entry | Declared value | Sitting for | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| date registered | 2. Donations and support | GMB Midlands - £4,000.00 | £4,000 | Labour | Register record |
| 8. Miscellaneous | Chair of the GMB Parliamentary Group. This is an unpaid role. | — | Labour | Register record |
I do not wish to dwell too much on this point, because we will all come back to it later, but in the interests of accuracy I think it is also important to record that 90% of people in the Sparkhill ward did not vote for that candidate.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on the thoughtful and able way in which he introduced this important debate, and I thank the 583 Birmingham Northfield constituents who took the time to sign the petition. This petition raises important questions about democratic participation and the potential abuse of our political systems, and it is right that we are debating it. I understand and share the sentiment behind the petition. Most people would hold the view that terrorists should not hold elected office, and certainly not positions of executive authority. 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. Those overseas convictions are not always straightforward, as has already been acknowledged, and I am sure that we will come back to that point during the debate. It has been said that there are important matters of detail to work through. One of those is that the petition calls for people who hold such a conviction to be barred from standing for public office, but it would not, as drafted, debar appointments to the House of Lords or to senior civil service positions. I do not want to spend long on this point, because I suspect that it is a drafting issue, but hon. 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. That is a particularly important point for colleagues in Warrington, and for all those affected by the Brimingham pub bombings. We must also be mindful of the precedent set by the peace process in Northern Ireland. One of the aims of the Good Friday agreement was to permit people to move from physical force republicanism and physical force loyalism to democratic participation. That peace was built on the primacy of the ballot box, and I am sure that it is not the desire or the intention of the petition’s drafters to undo any part of that settlement.
I think I have made it clear in my remarks about other representatives that I hold no truck at all with apologism for or the glorification of terrorism. There is one more problem. The petition seeks to disbar from public office all those who hold overseas terrorism convictions, but such a disqualification could, if drafted without the greatest of care and precision, effectively allow foreign Governments to determine who can stand for election in the United Kingdom. Authoritarian regimes routinely misuse terrorism laws against political opponents and democracy activists. One example is Russia. UN special rapporteurs have said that the Russian Government deploy a “repressive toolbox targeting civil society…A key part of the government strategy has been to abuse anti-extremism and counter-terrorism provisions by designating civil society organisations as ‘extremist’ or ‘terrorist’, and bringing criminal charges, including extremism and terrorism-related, against their members or anyone associated with them, including victims of human rights violations.” We need only to think about parliamentary colleagues who have been sanctioned by regimes overseas because of comments they have made in this place. Critics of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine are now routinely labelled as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. 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. However well-intentioned the petition’s aim, we cannot hand Vladimir Putin a veto over our political representation or any other aspect of British public life. It is helpful to return to the case that led to the petition—that of an independent candidate in Birmingham, the city of which I am proud to represent a part. While I do not seek to tar them all with the same brush, Birmingham had no shortage this year of independent candidates who preached messages of division and seemed to enjoy bringing the circus of national and international media attention down on parts of the city. We even had candidates who took their direction from or co-ordinated with George Galloway, a man who used to make a pulpit out of the Russian and Iranian state broadcasters and who now apparently lives in Russia. In Sparkhill, one of the independent candidates was a man called Shahid Butt. Mr Butt holds a Yemeni terrorism conviction dating back to 1998-99. We can also look to more recent events to see why Mr Butt is utterly unfit to be a community representative or elected politician. Before the planned Aston Villa match against Maccabi Tel Aviv, he said this on social media—I have seen the original, and it is not taken out of context: “if someone comes into your face, you knock his teeth out. That’s my message”. 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. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) would forgive some comments about part of his constituency. Much has been said in the national press about Sparkhill, egged on by inflammatory comments made two years ago by a former Member of this place who should have known better. My mum was born on Evelyn Road in Sparkhill, and I feel a certain defensiveness when that area or any other part of Birmingham is used as a national political football. Many of us are fed up, and I am fed up of the national and social media tourists who think they can use Birmingham as a passing canvas to propagate stereotypes for cheap clicks, and who give the oxygen of publicity to unrepresentative ideologues and self-obsessed narcissists who crave attention. I am very glad that this year, in Sparkhill, their politics was defeated.
At the outset, I draw attention to my membership of GMB and Unite, both of which organise workers in the engineering construction sector. It is a pleasure to speak in this SI debate, which may be auspicious as, depending on the Government’s future reform of the sector, we may be moving towards longer-term settlements for levy changes on account of the consultation that closed two weeks ago. Industrial training boards once covered a much wider share of the economy, before many of them were sadly scrapped in the early 1980s. 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. As we think about the future of home heating, perhaps we would be in a stronger position today if that body still existed. Thankfully, both the CITB and the ECITB have survived, and are now modern, 21st-century institutions. Engineering construction refers to that aspect of the construction industry that crosses beyond design into implementation, covering everything from bridges to tunnels, and from energy from waste-plants to High Speed 2 and new nuclear sites. In other words, if we are to build the infrastructure that the UK needs, we need that steady pipeline of skills. Industry training boards are not the whole of the answer, but they are an important part of it. Construction productivity is lower in the UK than in some comparable countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands. The problems in our country are deep seated: 38% of engineering construction workers are aged 50 or over, rising to 40% in the oil and gas sector. Although some progress has been made, there are still critical shortages for skills such as plating and welding. That is an issue that the Transport Committee, of which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) is a member, looked at. 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. It carries forward an effective 1.2% levy on on-site net labour costs and 0.33% on off-site costs—rates unchanged since 2023. There is clearly a good level of satisfaction in the quality of individual courses, because the share of employers who voted in favour of the levy went up slightly in this round. This statutory instrument should raise around £138 million over the next three years. To give an idea of the scale of the training that it delivers, in 2024, the ECITB supported almost 2,200 new entrant starts, and 64,000 people were trained on ECITB courses and other products. We have heard a lot, rightly, about employment in the North sea oil and gas sector. Many workers in that sector feel a great sense of frustration because they know that their skills are transferable, but there has not always been sufficient recognition across related sectors of the transferability of those skills. Indeed, attempts to create a skills passport under the previous Government ran into some frustrations and ran over in terms of timing. I think it is important to quote the three North sea trade unions—GMB, Unite and RMT—in respect of the ECITB’s connected competence programme: “The Trade Unions have been calling for a standardised, fair and transparent approach to competence and skills assessment for several years and we welcome Connected Competence. We sincerely hope this initiative is adopted and utilised by all contractors and industry bodies… This would truly enable workers to transition around the energy sector and help maintain and develop a…skills base. This is good news for both workers and the wider UK economy.” Clearly the value of the ECITB does extend beyond the provision of training courses, as important as that is. We have heard about the Government’s reform programme, which, in fairness, was prompted by the independent review commissioned under the previous Government. At the heart of those proposals is the proposed merger of the CITB and the ECITB, with the justification being more effective long-term planning and strategic decision making on which courses should receive investment. I am sure that the whole House will agree that it is important that we realise those aims. At the same time, however, while the construction industry and engineering construction are allied trades, they do have important differences. I think it would be helpful if we could hear about how the distinctive nature of engineering construction skills requirements would be protected should the merger go ahead. The consultation, as we have heard, has closed only recently, but it would be appreciated if the Minister was able to give any information on when he anticipates that the Government will respond in full. I wonder whether in the short time left I might make a point about workforce representation on the ECITB—I have previously raised a related point about the CITB. When these boards were established in the 1960s, there was equal 50:50 representation on the boards of the industry training schemes for trade union representatives, representing the workers, and employer representation. Over the years—it was not an immediate process—the trade union representatives were gradually squeezed off both boards to the point where there is now no trade union representation on the boards of either the CITB or the ECITB. The trade unions are represented on a subsidiary advisory board, but this is of lesser status, and it means that they are not in the room when the core decisions are made. As we approach the point of potentially wholesale ITB reform, I wonder whether we could take this opportunity to right what was, I think, a mistake, which was removing that direct worker voice from the boards of these organisations, whether through the continued stand-alone, separate existence of the ECITB or CITB or otherwise. I wonder whether the Minister would provide some information on that proposal either in writing or when he sums up.
I was born in Nottingham City hospital, and while the Ockenden report was necessarily bounded by the last 13 years, I think it is important to record that women and children were avoidably harmed and avoidably died in those settings many years before, and the pain is not diminished by the passing of time. As I have listened to these exchanges, I have had at the forefront of my mind those friends and people I grew up with who, many years later, found themselves close to death in circumstances that could have been avoided. As my right hon. Friend said in his compassionate and thoughtful statement, the description of what happened in Nottingham will be all too familiar to families well beyond that city. He will know that Sandwell and West Birmingham hospitals NHS trust is one of the trusts that are subject to particular attention as part of the national investigation. What assurance can he give people in cities such as Birmingham that this time, after these reports and their recommendations, things will change and NHS senior management will be held to account?
I commend the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for her words in this place. My constituents will have been horrified by last night’s scenes in Belfast, just as they were horrified by the attacks on police in Southampton. Both followed horrifying individual incidents that were subsequently exploited for extremist political ends, including online, as the hon. Lady said. The only difference between shouting something through a megaphone and posting it on social media is that the latter might reach millions, so what consequences will be faced by those who meet the threshold for encouraging acts of criminality, including online?
When privatisation happened, the Government of the day fought hard to keep state-owned foreign railways out of the running of the railways, but they were compelled to accept them by European Union legislation. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman described the involvement of state-owned foreign railways as “a gift from abroad”, so may I congratulate him on his bravery in taking a more pro-European approach on this question than John Major?
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being able to speak so early in this debate. I wish to focus on Government amendment 92, amendment 166 on devolution, which stands in my name, and the Transport Committee amendments on disability access. At the outset, I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for her leadership on this issue. Public ownership as a means to the end of improving passenger services has always implicitly been at the heart of this Bill, and Government amendment 92 makes that intent explicit. I warmly welcome its presence on the amendment paper. I hope the House will forgive a few words on the origins of this amendment. As the Minister said, a drafting issue was identified. In essence, although the requirement for public ownership was contained in other legislation, it was contingent on the circumstances of transition and on definitions set out in secondary legislation. I am sure that Members across the House will agree that, whatever their views on the merits of particular ownership models, such an important decision as public ownership or privatisation of the railways should be taken only by the majority consent of the whole House, and that is exactly what the amendment will achieve, safeguarding Great British Railways from the spectre of privatisation through the back door. I thank the Minister, the Minister of State the noble Lord Hendy and the Bill team for their constructive engagement on this issue. I am optimistic about the Bill’s devolution provisions and I hope that under them Birmingham and the west midlands can enjoy some of the improvements that passengers in London and Liverpool already benefit from. Great things were done in the past through the old section 20 agreements under the Transport Act 1968, not least the creation of the cross-city line which runs through my constituency, but such agreements proved impossible under the fragmented post-privatisation railway. I hope section 5 proves to be a worthy successor to Barbara Castle’s section 20. In the west midlands, we have a particular issue. We have a well-established devolved body, the West Midlands Railway Executive, which covers counties beyond the combined authority’s boundaries, such as Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Staffordshire. Clause 5, as it stands, specifies that devolution agreements will cover services in the area of a combined authority. It is important that such devolution agreements reflect the natural railway geographies of those areas, so I hope that reassurance can be given from the Government Front Bench. Several amendments would take forward the Select Committee’s recommendations on disability access. We can judge our transport services on the ability of all passengers to use them and the Bill contains some welcome provisions. Clause 18 states that GBR must “in particular” advance the interests of disabled people. I believe this is the first time any such commitment requirement has been set out in railway legislation. GBR will be subject to the public sector equality duty, but new clause 39 would ensure that when the passengers’ council is constituted disabled people are represented on that body in accordance with the old commitment, “Nothing about us without us”. I hope Ministers will look carefully at that issue. We heard from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), that they wished to advance a passenger growth target. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will know that that was the subject of some constructive disagreement on the Select Committee. Freight has historically been the poor relation on the railway network, in particular when it comes to pathing agreements. I fear that if a passenger growth target was in the Bill on the same basis and weight as the freight growth target, the advantages for the freight growth target in those decisions would be lost. That is an argument we heard in the Public Bill Committee’s evidence sessions from the Rail Freight Group.
The hon. Member describes the railway as it could be—and he tempts me to get on to Red Star Parcels, but that might be one for another day—but we must have regard to the railway as it is now and the fact is that the railway the Bill inherits sets up that binary choice all too often. I very much hope we can get more interaction between modes, as he describes. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said—I hope I do not misrepresent her—that the Bill carries forward, in a different form, an idea created by the previous Conservative Government, but I think that is really too short a horizon.
I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but it is contradicted by the record and our own experience. She says that integration of track and train is an idea that came from that review, but we were advancing that idea for railway reform on the Labour Benches in 2011 and 2012. The Bill is the culmination of all that reform effort over many, many years.
Held . Recorded result: Lab Gain. Majority 5,389. 37,652 votes cast from an electorate of 74,048. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laurence Turner | Labour | 14,929 | 39.6% |
| Gary Sambrook | Conservative | 9,540 | 25.3% |
| Stephen Peters | Reform UK | 7,895 | 21.0% |
| Robert Grant | Green Party | 2,809 | 7.5% |
| Jerry Evans | Liberal Democrat | 1,791 | 4.8% |
| Altaf Hussain | Independent | 310 | 0.8% |
| Dick Rodgers | Common Good | 215 | 0.6% |
| Dean Gwilliam | Independent | 163 | 0.4% |
| Seat | Dates |
|---|---|
| Birmingham NorthfieldElected 1 time | – present |
| Post | Dates |
|---|---|
| Assistant WhipWhips Office (Commons) | – present |
| Committee | Dates |
|---|---|
| Social Housing Bill [Lords] | – present |
| Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill | – present |
| Railways Bill | – |
| Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] | – |
| Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] | – |
| Employment Rights Bill | – |
| Transport Committee | – |
Constituency office
The Factory Young People's Centre, 5 Devon Way, Longbridge, Birmingham, B31 2TS
Website
X (formerly Twitter)
Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site
Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .