Liz Jarvis MP: speeches
4 Jul 2026–16 Oct 2026 · year in progress
How these years work
Our reporting years run from 4 July to 3 July, starting with the 2024 general election. They are not official parliamentary sessions. Office costs keep IPSA’s April–March financial years. Records may cover only part of a year; a missing record does not mean no work was done.
Read what this MP said, asked and contributed in Parliament.
4 published records · newest first.
Speeches
- 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source
More
As someone who grew up in rented accommodation, with all the uncertainty that goes with it, I fully understand the pressures faced by so many families who just want a permanent home of their own. So I welcome many of the provisions in this Bill, notably the reforms to right to buy and the strengthened protections for tenants who are victims of domestic violence. Right to buy transformed the lives of millions of social housing tenants, letting them own a home when that seemed a distant dream. However, its implementation ravaged the social housing stock in this country, with over 2 million homes sold, but only 500,000 new social rent homes built since 1980. That is why I welcome the provisions protecting what remains of that stock by extending the minimum tenancy requirement, curtailing discounts and the number of times a tenant can exercise the right to buy, and giving local authorities first refusal when a social home is resold. These are positive steps towards redressing the balance between social and private rented housing. The Liberal Democrat-run council in Eastleigh has invested heavily in housing across the borough through partnerships with house builders and housing associations, and by commissioning homes directly. The recent announcement that Eastleigh will be one of three strategic partners in Homes England’s social and affordable homes programme for 2026 to 2036 is testament to its success. For too long, the victims of domestic abuse have been forced to escape their homes. Clause 14 and schedule 1 begin to correct that, giving survivors a simplified legal mechanism to remove an abuser from a joint social tenancy, so it is the perpetrator who loses the home they use as a weapon of control. Crucially, this Bill closes a loophole that has too often been exploited. Currently, an abuser can end a joint tenancy on a technicality through a notice to quit while possession proceedings against them are ongoing, leaving the survivor with nothing. This Bill stops that, giving housing associations the clear, workable powers they have lacked to help survivors remain safely in their own home or move to suitable alternative social housing without losing tenancy rights. My constituent Karen and her two children fled domestic abuse. She was refused social housing because she jointly owns a property that her ex-partner deliberately keeps off the market as a form of control. After a year spent living in a single room in a refuge, Karen and her children were served a notice to leave with nowhere secure to go. They have since found a home, but she should never have had to fight this hard to get one. Her case shows that a joint tie to a property can trap a domestic abuse survivor just as surely as a joint tenancy can, and the same is true of housing-related debt caused by an abuser. Clause 17 removes uncommenced provisions from the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies. I strongly support this. It gives tenants housing security and lets a family build a life within a community, not just occupy a home. The Bill would simplify what never needed complicating, and protect what matters to tenants. I support it, and trust that Members will ask in Committee how it could go further to ensure everyone has a home to call their own.
- 8 Sept 2026 · Vehicle Theft · Hansard source
More
I absolutely agree. Although the Crime and Policing Act closes one gap, the right to repair allows another to remain wide open. Right to repair legislation exists to stop manufacturers overcharging drivers for repairs, which is a necessary principle designed to protect consumers. However, the practice of providing car owners with detailed insights into how a car’s security systems work is being exploited by criminal gangs, who are using that information to build new theft devices. While the Act starves thieves of one tool, right to repair is handing them the blueprint for the next. Will the Minister commit today to reviewing the connection between right to repair legislation and vehicle security to help combat vehicle theft? Despite the Crime and Policing Act, the odds remain stacked in the thieves’ favour, with just a 6.7% chance of being caught, and fewer than one in four thefts even investigated. There is a widely held view that vehicle theft has effectively been decriminalised, with the perception that law enforcement has neither the will nor the resources to respond. In fact, Liberal Democrat research has found that police did not even attend the scene in over 70% of car theft cases, reinforcing the sense among many victims that no one is coming. We are no longer dealing with opportunistic criminals. Organised operations are laundering stolen parts through online marketplaces and are adapting faster than our current systems can respond. This is a sophisticated, technological criminal industry and it requires a response to match. This is not just a regional concern: at a national level, intelligence collection on vehicle theft rests with a single Opal analyst. Does the Minister believe that one analyst is sufficient to build a national picture of an organised, cross-border crime? If not, what is being done to help resource these things properly? Intense pressure on police force funding has resulted in forces scaling back their vehicle theft investigative units, causing not only a decline in manpower but a loss of officers’ expertise and skillsets, which are not being replaced. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing to ensure we have a trusted presence in all neighbourhoods, focused on preventing and solving crimes. In December 2024 the Government announced their neighbourhood policing guarantee, pledging 13,000 more officers in neighbourhood policing roles. However, since that announcement the number of officers has actually fallen. By March this year we had 4,000 fewer frontline officers protecting our streets than the year before. If the Government are serious about this crisis, they need deliver, not promise, more officers on our streets. Crime reporting is processed primarily through helpline reporting. That has diminished the relationship between local police forces and the communities they serve. We call for a police front desk to be set up in every community to allow people to report crimes and to share information with the police face to face in accessible locations. I am proud to have helped to secure a police station for Eastleigh. More personal contact means that more crimes are properly investigated and more criminals are caught. Vehicle theft has become an epidemic in this country. It is organised and evolving, and it is being met with a system that has neither the resources nor the co-ordination to keep pace. We have seen through the Crime and Policing Act what good legislation can achieve, but a single loophole is enough to undo that progress. We have seen manufacturers innovate, only to be outpaced by criminals who innovate faster still, and we have seen police forces stretched so thin that catching a car thief has become the exception not the rule. My constituents in Eastleigh deserve better than a 6.7% chance of justice. I hope the Minister will use this debate not simply to acknowledge this crisis but to act on it.
- 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source
More
Communities like mine in Eastleigh are being denied funding opportunities because they do not yet have an elected mayor. With the timeline for local government reorganisation and elections now thrown into doubt, will the Secretary of State ensure that funding opportunities are offered to all local authorities, whether or not they have an elected mayor?
- 16 Jul 2026 · Bus Services: Hampshire · Hansard source
More
We know that buses are important to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham). They are also important to my constituents in Eastleigh. The 61 and 46 bus routes were axed after Hampshire county council withdrew subsidies, leaving my constituents struggling to get to work, school and hospital. Will the Minister ask the new Prime Minister to ensure that everyone in Hampshire can access bus routes? Does he agree with me that the hours of local concessionary bus travel should be extended?
Explore activity by topic or department
Contributions by debate topic
4 Jul 2026–16 Oct 2026. Existing keyword taxonomy applied to official debate titles and contributions; a contribution may appear in more than one topic and unclassified records are retained.
View as listWhat this shows and doesn't show
Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →