Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  The steel sector is a vital UK industry. We must support it in the face of numerous challenges, including China’s unfair practices and Trump’s trade war, but I am extremely concerned about the impact on parts of the steel industry supply chain if these proposed tariff changes are implemented. We all want businesses to buy British, but that is just not an option if there is no domestic supplier that can meet the grades and certifications that its customers require. Businesses simply cannot buy British, and will be punished by new tariffs as a direct result. The specialist steels needed by aerospace, defence and precision engineering are not made in this country in the grades or volumes that those sectors require, and qualifying a new source takes not a fortnight, but several years. The Government are already having sufficient difficulty funding their defence investment plan without loading additional costs on to the defence manufacturers. Tariffs on steels not available in the UK will materially damage downstream manufacturers, with serious implications for their competitiveness, as well as for investment and jobs. What response did the Minister give experts in the manufacturing industry when they warned him about these matters? What conversations has he had with Tata Steel in determining the Government’s tariff position? Will he remove categories from the regime where no domestic production capability exists, such as product codes 14 and 27, which are critical for the viability of many aerospace and defence manufacturers? Will the Secretary of State commit to delaying or tapering implementation until proper mitigations have been put in place?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. The Government’s proposed high-value council tax surcharge will be collected by councils but retained by the Treasury. If councils neither control the charge nor keep the revenue, why is it being called a council tax? Will the Minister commit to changing this misleading policy title? Given that most of the revenue from the surcharge will be raised in London, will the Government ensure that a fair proportion is reinvested in the capital?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 7, page 34, line 15, at end insert— “(5A) Compensation scheme regulations must include provision which specifies that payment of compensation may be made until any written estimate under section 54 (4A) is laid before Parliament.” This amendment works with Amendments 8 and 9 so as to require regulations to specify that payment of compensation cannot be made until the Secretary of State has published a written estimate of the environmental liabilities of the steel undertaking, provided to them by the independent valuer.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for your guidance, Madam Chair. I will reframe my remarks slightly, because they relate to the intervention that I took. Steel producers in the UK are heavily integrated into international supply chains, and continued access to frictionless or improved export arrangements is vital for sustaining jobs and production. From 1 July, the Government will limit tariff-free steel imports. Although in many ways that will support business, there is a lack of certainty about costs and the impact on downstream manufacturers is still opaque.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for underlining the real importance of the steel industry to our defence industry and the heightened importance of sustaining our defence industry, and all the companies and the jobs associated with it, in this time of heightened global instability. Liberal Democrat Members certainly believe that support for our defence industry is paramount at this time, but it is important that Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise all the costs associated with the proposed undertaking should the Government choose to exercise the powers in the Bill. That is the purpose of amendment 7. Clause 52 will give the Secretary of State broad powers to establish compensation arrangements linked to the exercise of transfer powers, including transfers of shares, property rights and liabilities. Amendment 4 would require the Government to report not only on the existence of compensation schemes under the clause, but on the compensation actually paid under those schemes. My new clause 6 would strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of any future financial assistance. It would require, before any assistance is provided, the Secretary of State to lay a detailed proposal before Parliament, setting out the nature and amount of assistance and the intended beneficiaries, the purpose and expected effect, and any associated conditions, including repayment terms, guarantees, indemnities or other liabilities. In a similar vein, new clause 4, in my name, would introduce parliamentary oversight, and compel the Government to bring forward a resolution for any expenditure by the Secretary of State under part 2 that exceeds £500 million, which is roughly equivalent to the annual cost of keeping the Scunthorpe plant running, based on the publicly available figures. The clause reflects the principle that, where significant public funds are being committed, there should be clear parliamentary control and oversight of the overall financial exposure. By setting a defined limit, it would ensure that expenditure does not escalate beyond what has been explicitly agreed by Parliament without further democratic approval. The measure is designed to ensure a balance between enabling necessary intervention and maintaining proper oversight of the total level of public expenditure involved. I urge hon. Members to vote in favour of the new clause. Steel is a valuable sector with far-reaching benefits across the UK for critical infrastructure projects, defence and the future of renewable energy. The steel industry is vital to so many of the UK’s national strategic priorities. The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s pace and urgency in taking action to assist the steel industry, but there is a significant need for greater transparency and accountability relating to how these measures will be exercised. There is potential in the Bill to improve training opportunities for steel exports, and I urge Ministers to consider our proposals on that matter.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 7. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 52 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 58 Financial assistance Amendment proposed: 20, page 39, line 7, at end insert— “(1A) The Secretary of State may only provide financial assistance under this section if they are satisfied that financial assistance will secure value for money.”—( Dame H arriet t Baldwin. ) Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady referred specifically to our new clause. Does she not accept that we are merely asking for a further parliamentary vote if the proposed consideration for transfer exceeds a certain level, and that that is a sensible and workable way forward? Not only do we need to be open to the possibility of enabling the Government to take steel into national hands, but taxpayers’ interests need to be protected, and Parliament needs to have oversight of any decision of that nature.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We heard throughout yesterday’s debate from Members across the Committee about the importance of steelmaking as a vital strategic sector in the UK, and no doubt we will hear about it again today. We rely on the sector for essential parts of our national infrastructure, for transport and for advanced manufacturing. Steelmaking and the industry more broadly create thousands of good jobs across the country, helping to power our economy and boost our local communities, and in increasingly uncertain times, it is essential to support our defence industry. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches therefore broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step aimed specifically at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector, and we note that it is in that spirit that British steel producers also support these measures. We need to see more ambition and clarity in the delivery of the steel strategy—for example, when it comes to boosting domestic production to meet 50% of domestic steel demand, further incentivising the use of British-made steel in the private sector and managing the transition to electric arc furnaces. I wish to speak in favour of amendments 7, 8 and 9. These would strengthen the treatment of environmental liabilities in relation to the steel undertaking and ensure that they were explicitly identified and accounted for before compensation payments were made. They highlight the principle that the true financial position of an undertaking cannot be properly understood without a clear and transparent assessment of its environmental liabilities. By accepting the amendments, the legislation could work as a package to ensure that environmental liabilities were not only considered but formally assessed, published and laid before Parliament. In particular, the amendments would require an independent valuer to prepare a written estimate of the environmental liabilities associated with the undertaking, including contamination of land, water or air; compliance with environmental obligations; and current and future remediation or restoration costs. That would ensure that the full environmental cost of the undertaking’s operation was properly captured, including liabilities that might not yet have crystallised but were none the less foreseeable. Crucially, the amendments would link the process to the timing of compensation payments, specifying that compensation could not be paid until the environmental liabilities estimate had been produced and presented, and ensuring that taxpayers were not left to pick up the bill for any environmental damage caused by the company’s previous owners. Furthermore, I wish to speak in favour of amendment 6. This amendment would require that when carrying out a valuation of the steel undertaking, consideration was explicitly given to the impact of external tariffs and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. It reflects the reality that the value of a steel business is not determined solely by its internal operations and that it is also significantly influenced by international trade conditions and environmental policy frameworks. The previous Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and interim last-minute packages. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and they erected new trade barriers, making it harder for our steel producers to do business with their biggest export market across the channel. This legislation should be much more ambitious on an improved agreement with the EU for steel exports. Given the international nature of the steel market and the growing importance of carbon-related border adjustments, it is reasonable that these factors should be explicitly included in valuation methodologies. Amendment 6 would help to ensure that any valuation was not artificially insulated from key external drivers of cost and competitiveness. It would also provide a more accurate basis for decision making.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is not the specific purpose of the amendment, but I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. I know that the Minister has heard about this issue on a number of occasions, throughout the debates on this Bill and during the urgent question last week in the Chamber. I would like to take this opportunity to reinforce the point that has been made on multiple occasions across this House about the tariff regime and the changes that are coming in. I have spoken to a number of manufacturers about the very real concerns right across the sector about the changes in tariffs. I know that the Minister is focused on that, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving us another opportunity to raise concerns with the Minister, which I know he has heard. Amendment 5 would extend the Government’s reporting obligations to include progress on negotiations with the European Union—

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It would take just hours to do that. All we are asking for is a safeguard. Without any kind of safeguard, what does the hon. Lady think would be an acceptable amount for the Government to offer in exchange for taking on a steel undertaking? Does she think that no limit at all would be acceptable? We are merely proposing that a motion should be laid before Parliament to be voted on, and that does not take much time.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Steel provides vital materials for our national infrastructure, from defence to renewable energy, and creates thousands of jobs across the UK. The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the action that the Government are taking to protect British Steel and ensure that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe do not go cold, but we are clear that the nationalisation of British Steel must be a temporary step to rescue the business before it can be returned to the private sector. We believe in a thriving, privately run steel industry, supported and empowered by the Government through an effective steel strategy. Although the Liberal Democrats support this step, the Government must provide more detail on the plan, including how they will find private co-investors who can help to modernise the sites and put the money in to help to create more jobs. They must also ensure that the key stakeholders, including industries that rely on steel such as defence, are properly engaged in and represented through the process. We cannot afford another collapse of British Steel in a few years’ time, and we must move on from interim short-term measures to create a robust long-term plan for the future of the plant and sustainable domestic steel production, with an emphasis on national security. I wish to speak first in favour of amendment 1, which stands in my name. Fundamentally, it is about parliamentary accountability. If the Secretary of State is to exercise a significant transfer power, Parliament should, at the very least, be told why that action is necessary and in the public interest. The amendment would not prevent the Government from acting; it would simply require Ministers to explain their reasoning before exercising the power, providing far greater accountability and transparency. Requiring a statement to both Houses would help to ensure that the use of the powers is proportionate, justified and open to democratic oversight. The Government already argue that the powers will be used only where necessary. If that is the case, there should be no objection to setting out those reasons clearly before Parliament. Amendment 1 proposes a modest and reasonable safeguard. It does not create a veto or impose an onerous process; it merely asks Ministers to account for their decisions. I wish to speak in favour of amendments 2 and 3, which seek to ensure that regulations relating to property transfers and share transfers are made subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. The transfer of property or shares by ministerial regulation is not a minor or purely technical matter. These provisions are the heart of the Bill and give the Government significant powers with substantial financial, operational and public consequences. Given the importance of such decisions, does the Minister not agree that it is entirely appropriate that Parliament should approve such regulations, rather than having to rely on the limited scrutiny afforded by the negative procedure? The affirmative procedure would guarantee a debate and a vote in both Houses, ensuring proper democratic oversight before the powers were exercised. At their core, amendments 2 and 3 are about reinforcing accountability, transparency and parliamentary sovereignty in the exercise of delegated powers, and I urge Members to support them. New clause 2, which also stands in my name, would establish a stakeholder advisory committee to ensure that decisions made under the powers in the Bill included input from the relevant groups and those most affected. The exercise of principal transfer powers could have major implications not only for the steel undertaking itself, but for workers, local communities, supply chains and strategically important industries across the country. The proposed committee would bring together voices from industry, the workforce and local authorities, ensuring that decisions were grounded in practical expertise and real-world consequences. The inclusion of sectors such as defence and critical national infrastructure is particularly important, given the strategic significance of the steel supply to national resilience and economic security. A structured advisory mechanism would improve transparency, strengthen confidence in decision making and help to ensure that interventions are sustainable and effective. New clause 2 is about ensuring that the public interest is determined not behind closed doors, but with the benefit of broad expertise and stakeholder input. I wish to speak in favour of new clause 3, which recognises that intervention in a steel undertaking cannot simply be about ownership or transfer powers in isolation. It must be about people, jobs and the long-term future of industrial communities. If the Government exercise these significant powers, they should be required to set out a clear strategy for protecting workers and supporting economic transition. Not only is the steel industry strategically important to the national economy; it is often central to the identity and prosperity of the local communities within which it is situated. Workers in these industries possess highly valuable and specialised skills. Any transition strategy should therefore prioritise the protection of skilled employment wherever possible. Where change is unavoidable, there must be a serious commitment to retraining, reskilling and redeployment opportunities so that workers are not left behind. New clause 3 would help to ensure that Government intervention was accompanied by a coherent industrial strategy, rather than being another short-term fix and crisis management. Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. It creates thousands of jobs across the country and is central to many communities, and we rely on it for essential parts of our national infrastructure, from defence and transport to clean energy generation and advanced manufacturing. Although the Liberal Democrats are supportive of the pace and urgency of the Government’s action to protect British Steel, nationalisation must be a temporary step, and the Government must ensure adequate transparency and accountability throughout the process. I therefore urge the Minister to support these amendments, to ensure that the legislation can deliver the necessary support to the steel industry, while balancing the needs of local communities and workers and ensuring that the necessary steps are taken to ensure thorough parliamentary accountability.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that one of the worst aspects of the new system is how it treats husbands and wives separately? If a husband has gained five years of work experience but the wife has stayed at home to look after their children, she will be treated separately under the new rules such that her path to indefinite leave to remain will become much longer than his. That is having a damaging impact on families.

• 21 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  According to reports in both the Financial Times and The Times , the Government have asked supermarket retailers to reduce the price of essential food items, such as milk, bread and eggs. The chief executive officer of Marks & Spencer has described the proposals as “completely preposterous”. Can the Secretary of State confirm that instead of trying to impose price controls on private businesses, his Department will look to reduce the cost of Government-imposed burdens on retailers, such as business rates, national insurance contributions and energy costs?

• 21 May 2026 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The Government announced their intention in the industrial strategy to use their procurement power to shape markets for innovation in the longer term. Tech start-ups in my constituency complain that the process of getting Government contracts is slow, risk-averse and structurally biased in its financial viability tests and paperwork requirements towards incumbents and US suppliers. As one of them put it to me, no one gets sacked for buying IBM. That surely prevents the Government from achieving their goal of greater innovation. What conversations is the Minister having with his Cabinet Office counterparts to ensure that our ambitious home-grown small and medium-sized enterprises are not being squeezed out of the competition for public contracts that could provide these firms with valuable growth opportunities and the innovation that our economy and public services so badly need?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We rely on steel for essential parts of our national infrastructure, including in defence, transport, clean energy generation, and advanced manufacturing. Steelmaking creates tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs across the country, helping to power our economy and boost our local communities. However, for too long, our steel industry has been neglected. The last Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and last-minute rescues. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and erected new trade barriers, making it harder for our steel producers to do business with their biggest export market across the channel. We have a duty to stand by this vital sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges, including President Trump’s unfair steel tariffs, China’s anti-competitive state aid practices, and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are going to foster a thriving steel industry, we cannot allow more producers to collapse and more jobs to be lost, and we cannot risk our last blast furnaces going cold. The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step, aimed specifically at turning around British steel, before returning it to the private sector. It is in that spirit that British steel producers also support this measure. The Liberal Democrats are clear that our country needs a vibrant, privately run steel industry. In the long term, only private enterprise—not Government Ministers—can ensure that the sector powers forward. We will be closely scrutinising these measures, and indeed the Government’s broader steel strategy, to ensure that they move us in that direction. We need to move on from a patchwork of last-minute rescues to a long-term plan that will set the industry on a truly sustainable footing. Right from the get-go, we would have liked to see plans to find private co-investors who can help modernise the sites and create more jobs. Putin’s barbaric war in Europe threatens our national security; Donald Trump’s reckless tariffs are undermining our economy; and the continuing conflict in the middle east threatens business supply chains. All those factors make the future of reliable domestic steel production more important than ever for whole swathes of our economy. That is why the Government should ensure that industries that rely on steel, such as defence, are represented and involved in decision making relating to this legislation. We need stronger action from the Government on improving trade with the EU, so that our steel exporters can benefit from easier access to their biggest market, and so that our manufacturers get easier and cheaper access to the materials they need. A new UK-EU customs union would be hugely beneficial in that respect. Last but not least, we need more ambition on the use of UK-made steel in our domestic market. We welcome the Government’s target of boosting domestic production from 30% to 50% of UK steel demand, although there is no clear timeline for that, and we cannot help but note that the equivalent target in the EU is 75%. While we understand the difference between the two markets, we hope that the Government will keep the target under review in the light of uncertain supply chains, and will consider further incentives for the use of UK-made steel in private sector projects. The Liberal Democrats know that nationalising steel producers is not the answer in the long term; I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government also view this as an interim rescue measure. What specific steps do Ministers plan to take to ensure that British Steel becomes investable for the private sector, should the legislation be triggered? As the Bill progresses through the House, the Liberal Democrats will be carefully scrutinising the use of secondary legislation, with the aim of maximising accountability. Many of the Bill’s measures will be implemented through secondary legislation subject to negative resolution procedures. I hope the Minister agrees that the affirmative procedure would offer more meaningful parliamentary engagement. I urge the Government to ensure that there is proper transparency for Parliament about costs associated with the legislation. Clauses 53 and 54 set out the process for the valuation of relevant businesses and the calculation of any compensation that might be paid to previous owners. While we understand that valuations will depend on factors specific to each business, the Government should publish detailed information about the criteria taken into account, and must ensure that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise proposed valuations and compensation amounts. Have the Government considered granting powers to the Business and Trade Committee to scrutinise spending on these measures? Lastly, will the Minister update the House on whether and to what extent the Bill will affect employee pension schemes? What conversations have been had with the Pensions Regulator to that effect? Looking at the broader state of the steel sector, from 1 July the Government’s new UK steel and trade measure will impose tariffs on imported steel. While we understand the need to bring in such protections temporarily, due to the disruption caused by US steel tariffs and cheap, subsidised Chinese exports, the measure will have a significant impact on manufacturers who depend on steel as a key business input. In Business and Trade questions this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) mentioned Dynamic Metals, a firm in her constituency that is facing about a £3 million bill to import the specialist steel grades it requires for its services. While I welcome the Government’s aim of encouraging domestic production and the purchase of steel from UK steel companies, some specific grades of steel are not domestically produced, so the Government are harming the purchasing power of UK businesses. Will the Government commit to re-examining the application of tariffs on certain grades of steel to ensure that they do not inadvertently damage domestic buyers? The Bill’s measures are subject to a public interest test, but there are limited details about what that test will involve. Will the Government allow Parliament to scrutinise the criteria for the test, and publish a detailed report setting out why they believe they have been met? How will the Minister ensure that the aim of protecting the vital infrastructure and manufacturing sectors is balanced with sustainable energy commitments? Will he confirm that when compensation is calculated, Jingye will be financially responsible for any environmental damage caused? What consideration will be given to the affected workforce, and to ensuring that jobs and skills are protected? The Government are right to take action to protect British steel, but nationalisation must be a temporary step, taken in order to rescue businesses before they are returned to the private sector. We are supportive of the Government’s pace and urgency of action to assist the steel industry, but we need more details on the longer-term vision. I would be grateful if the Minister gave, in his response, the reassurances that I have asked for. How will the Government ensure that the steel industry becomes investable for the private sector, following nationalisation? How will Parliament have oversight, once the powers in the Bill are triggered? How will Parliament be provided with transparency regarding the costs associated with nationalisation?

• 20 May 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. I am sure the Prime Minister will join me in congratulating the 54 Liberal Democrats who won all 54 seats on Richmond upon Thames council at the recent local elections, but does he agree that the first-past-the-post system that produced this result does not give our communities the representation that they voted for, and that this failure to respond to voters’ preferences is fuelling disengagement with our democracy? Will the Prime Minister declare his support for changing electoral systems in the UK to ensure that every vote matters?

• 20 May 2026 · Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  Inconsistencies and U-turns have become characteristic of this Government, but this is more than just a redirection of policy; this is a betrayal of Ukraine. This Government are abandoning our European ally in its moment of need by putting more money into the pockets of President Putin to fund his war machine. Last month, the Liberal Democrats urged the Government to implement a bold plan to keep Britain moving, which included a 10p cut to fuel duty, but also featured proposals to boost public transport by slashing bus fares to £1 and cutting rail fares by 10%. This would have taken pressure off our forecourts, but the Government sat on their hands. Instead, the Government believe that our best course of action is to abandon all morality and to indirectly fund Putin’s illegal war. I would like to ask the Minister how much money will be spent on Russian oil products as a result of this decision, and will he admit that lifting these sanctions will indirectly fund Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

• 14 May 2026 · Heathrow Airport: Third Runway · Hansard source

  More

  The debate surrounding a third runway at Heathrow has stretched over the past three decades. The Liberal Democrats have long stood by communities who oppose a third runway, arguing that the economic benefits are overstated and the environmental consequences are unavoidable. Although I have always opposed a third runway at Heathrow, the current proposal could not have come at a worse time. The cost of expansion has doubled over the past 10 years, and the addition of nearly 300,000 more flights, which expansion implies, will make our net zero targets almost unachievable. It is widely rumoured that even Heathrow Airport Ltd did not believe the timing of expansion to be practical. Despite that, on 29 January 2025, the Chancellor announced her support for a third runway to be built at Heathrow airport. This endorsement was the landmark announcement during her speech on growth; as such, it has a significant amount of political weight behind it. My plea to the Minister is that any decision taken on a third runway at Heathrow should be based on merit and unbiased data, not politics. The decision has an enormous impact on millions of lives, and it must be more than just a signal to investors to compensate for the Government’s economic mismanagement. The Chancellor believes that expansion at Heathrow will produce economic growth. Nearly 18 months later, however, the Government have yet to produce their economic analysis to support that assertion, and the figures raised in the Chancellor’s speech on growth were drawn directly from an internal business case prepared for Heathrow airport and have not been independently verified. The Department for Transport’s own updated appraisal report from 2017 shows that the net present value of a third runway ranges from just £3.3 billion to minus £2.2 billion. Now it has been admitted that even that figure is a generous estimate, as the DFT’s guidance suggests that international transfer passengers, who are estimated to make up 75% of a projected third runway’s capacity, do not contribute to the UK’s economy. When discounting those passengers, it is estimated that the net present value could be reduced by as much as a further £5.5 billion. In addition, the New Economics Foundation asserts that twice as many people fly out of the UK than fly in, thus exporting more money out of our economy. An assessment of the impacts of inbound and outbound tourism flows is currently missing from the economic analysis of aviation’s contribution to the economy. Will the Minister provide reassurance that that research will be conducted and published with the airports national policy statement? Heathrow Airport Ltd has cited that the cost of building a third runway will be an eyewatering £49 billion, before factoring in an estimated £100 billion in carbon abatement costs and at least £15 billion of investment on surface access upgrade improvements. Without that upgrade, there will be no way to deliver sufficient passengers to Heathrow to utilise the additional capacity and deliver the supposed economic benefits. The Government have said that funding for a third runway at Heathrow will be privately financed. With Heathrow already drowning in over £15 billion-worth of debt, I am not convinced. I would therefore like to ask again, will the Minister provide reassurances that none of the costs associated with building a third runway at Heathrow will be pushed on to the taxpayer?

• 14 May 2026 · Heathrow Airport: Third Runway · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to see the economic case and to look at it in the round—not just the specific costs associated with building the runway, but all the additional costs associated with operating it at capacity and all the impacts that that will have on Heathrow, along with the whole of London and the south-east. The economic argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny, while the social and environmental consequences of a third runway are unavoidable. Communities would be severely impacted by the additional flights that a third runway would bring. It is expected that nearly 325,000 more people will fall within the Department for Transport’s “significantly affected” decibel level measurement. That does not even reference the increased bombardment of noise that houses already impacted by Heathrow’s flights are likely to experience. Not only would that noise disturbance affect people’s everyday lives, whether their sleeping pattern or their ability to work from home, it would have serious physical and mental health repercussions for local residents. People living in communities surrounding Heathrow have a 24% higher chance of stroke, a 21% higher chance of heart disease and a 14% higher chance of cardiovascular disease compared with people exposed to low levels of aircraft noise. Will the Minister confirm how many people will be exposed to noise at 45 decibels, the level that the World Health Organisation estimates that health impacts begin? Will the Government commit to setting a minimum acceptable level of noise by which any expansion proposal can be judged? Will the Government also commit to ensuring that there is no increase in night flights? People deserve a full night of undisrupted sleep, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government do not plan to approve anything that would mean more planes fly over households during night hours. Yesterday, the Government outlined their plan to introduce the civil aviation Bill in this parliamentary Session. Will the Minister outline a timeline for the introduction of that Bill, and will he explain how the Government can provide communities with reassurances that a third runway will not bring new or extended disruptions when airspace changes are yet even to be drawn up? On the environmental argument, it should almost go without saying that adding nearly 300,000 extra flights to our skies each year will have a profound impact on air pollution and climate change. This Government have used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from Heathrow expansion. They are yet to provide any evidence that shows how Heathrow can expand while complying with their legal air pollution limits. International uncertainty over China’s introduction of their SAF mandate, which accounts for more than 90% of our imported SAF, and challenges to UK-US trade have meant that the UK’s SAF targets, which in themselves would not mitigate pollution from Heathrow expansion, are even more difficult to deliver. The challenges to the UK’s ability to produce and import SAF were underscored by the Climate Change Committee’s report last year, which estimated that only 17% of the UK’s aviation industry will use SAF by 2040. That is 5% lower than the Government’s mandated targets and 8% below the EU’s target. The estimate does not even take into account the additional flights that would come in and out of the UK as a result of the proposed airport expansion. Heathrow is already the single biggest source of carbon emissions in the UK, and expansion will add an extra 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of CO 2 every year. The Climate Change Committee’s balanced pathway to net zero estimates that aviation will contribute 23 megatonnes of CO 2 by 2050. A third runway at Heathrow would increase emissions at the airport alone to 20 megatonnes. Does the Minister still believe that the UK can be compliant with our net zero targets with the expansion of Heathrow airport? This Government have repeated that they will honour and respect the Labour party’s four tests, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). They are: growth across the country, noise issues to be addressed, air quality to be protected and our climate change objectives to be met. They must be passed before expansion can be approved. As I have just laid out, I do not believe that any of those tests can be passed, let alone all four, but I ask that the Government honour the principle of the tests and do not attempt to circumvent them by using biased data. I hope I have underlined the importance of this decision for our economy, environment and local communities. Moreover, I hope that this speech has impressed on the Government that this decision cannot move ahead solely on the basis of political expediency.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. More than 1.3 million people use lifetime ISAs to save for their first home. The property cap of £450,000 has been frozen since 2017, despite rising house prices, but those buying their first home over that threshold face a 25% penalty. First-time buyers across London are disproportionately affected. Data from February this year showed that the average price paid by a first-time buyer in London was £463,000. Can the Chancellor tell us how she is ensuring that first-time buyers in London are not unfairly disadvantaged by using this saving scheme?

• 28 Apr 2026 · National Accident Prevention Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) on securing this extremely important debate. Four weeks ago today, I was at the funeral of a young man who was killed in a road traffic collision in Sussex, just after Christmas. His mother is one of my constituents. Seeing how broken-hearted she was, and seeing the young man’s friends who were there at his funeral, really brought home to me how important it is that we take all the steps we can to mitigate these kinds of accidents wherever we can to avoid the future suffering of the families and friends of those who die in accidents. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for highlighting the importance of water safety. My constituency has one of the country’s major rivers—the River Thames—as a boundary, so water safety is a constant issue for the young people whom I represent. I will take the opportunity to highlight the particular risks around locks in the summer months. In my constituency, Teddington lock attracts a great deal of young people who find it appealing to jump off the lock and into the river, which is incredibly dangerous. A couple of years ago, there was a fatality in the river in Sunbury, which is not far from my constituency, so I highlight to young people, particularly those in my constituency, the enormous danger of playing around the locks. I also pay tribute to the British Standards Institution and all its work, in what is its 125th year. It is also the 75th year of the consumer and public interest network and the BSI consumer forum, which ensure that consumer voices are heard in the development of standards so that they reflect real-world experience and mitigate accident risk. The Liberal Democrats believe that investing in prevention through public health initiatives is the most effective way to enhance wellbeing and reduce the burden on NHS services, so we support the introduction of a national accident prevention strategy, as advocated by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Accidents are a leading cause of preventable death and injury in the UK. The Health and Safety Executive, the NHS and local authorities all have a role to play in accident prevention, but there is no single, overarching national strategy co-ordinating activity across settings such as roads, workplaces, homes and public spaces. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has also long advocated for a joined-up, national approach to home safety, particularly for children and older people. Despite that, no Government have been forthcoming with legislation that would bring together all those strategies in an effective framework. The Liberal Democrats understand the benefit of a national strategy. Road safety strategies have previously driven significant reductions in deaths and serious injuries, with the UK historically being among the safer countries in terms of road casualties, but the Government are yet to introduce a successor strategy of equivalent ambition, so progress has stalled. We have consistently pressed the Government to adopt a road safety strategy, so we welcome their action, but we are disappointed that much of the strategy is simply made up of commitments to undertake consultation, kicking meaningful activity down the road. The Liberal Democrats are calling for action to be taken much more quickly, as well as for investment in road safety infrastructure, better enforcement on speeding and law breaking, educational programmes and improved safety technology across the motor industry. We are also campaigning for the roll-out of active ageing programmes and falls assessments for anyone over the age of 75, to prevent falls, avoid unnecessary hospital admissions and promote healthy ageing. Ill health, which can be caused by accidents, is a key cause of workforce shortages. To tackle that problem, the Government should invest in our NHS and in social care so that people can get the healthcare they need and rejoin the workforce more quickly. We have called on the Government to fix NHS backlogs, cut ambulance waiting times and raise the minimum wage for care workers by £2 an hour to help boost our social care system and get people out of hospital quicker. Social care is essential to enabling people to live safely and independently at home, but the Government are kicking the issue into the long grass, as their commission is not set to complete for another two years. We would complete it within a year and deliver the answers and investment needed to tackle the social care crisis. Beyond the obvious physical and mental impact of accidents, they have a broader economic impact. Each year, accidents cost UK businesses £6 billion in lost working days and output. We want the national prevention strategy to set out clearer expectations for enforcement and employer compliance. The Health and Safety Executive oversees workplace safety regulation, but budget cuts have reduced its inspection capacity. While the NHS continues to be under huge stress, the need to introduce a strategy to reduce preventable accidents is even more pressing. Accidents cost the NHS 5.2 million bed days, which amounts to almost £6 billion. Therefore, will the Minister tell us whether the Government will accelerate plans to conclude the social care commission before 2028? What action are they taking now, in advance of the conclusion, to support people through recovery and back into work? What steps are they taking to ensure that their road safety strategy works effectively and cohesively, alongside other Government strategies, to reduce the number of preventable accidents and injuries across the country?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disability Living Allowance for Children · Hansard source

  More

  6. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the proportion of disability living allowance for children applications that have been approved by his Department within its target timeframes in the last two years.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disability Living Allowance for Children · Hansard source

  More

  Over the past two years, only 3.5% of applications for disability living allowance for children have been approved by the Department for Work and Pensions within its own target timeframe. Parents of children with disabilities work tirelessly to ensure that their children can have the same opportunities as everyone else, and the disregard the DWP has shown towards supporting their claims is unacceptable. One of my constituents has experienced those lengthy delays first-hand and an administrative error meant she did not even receive her first payment award. Will the Minister commit to urgent action to ensure that the DWP’s pathetic processing time for children’s DLA applications does not continue?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Allied Health Professionals · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Members for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for bringing this important debate to the House. I echo the sentiments of other Members who have underlined the important work that allied health professionals undertake and recognised the role that these clinicians play in saving lives, providing care and keeping our NHS running. At a time when some patients experience corridor care, the service of allied health professionals is even more pivotal as their work helps to keep people out of A&E. These clinicians lend their expertise to help treat and care for people or to diagnose illnesses before they require urgent attention. These practitioners have also volunteered to take even more strain off of emergency services, writing to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care last month to request additional responsibilities. In the letter, the allied health professionals asked for the Department of Health and Social Care to consider extending additional independent prescribing powers to their sectors. Currently, they are provided with negligible independent prescribing responsibilities despite many of these clinicians having undertaken the exact same training as other medical professionals. For example, podiatrists can prescribe medicine for their patients, but dietitians have only supplementary prescribing rights and have to be overseen by a doctor. This issue was raised with me by one of my constituents who is a dietitian and who supported the allied health professionals’ request for additional prescribing responsibilities. She states that this change would not only reduce GP waiting list times, but recognise the studies that allied health professionals have undertaken and the expertise they possess. My constituent highlights the bureaucracy and farce of an allied health professional who runs their own clinic having to go and find a consultant to sign off their prescribing, even though they will have had all their prescribing permissions checked and signed off by the chief pharmacist in the hospital. That creates duplication of work at a time when we desperately need to make the NHS more efficient. The Government’s Pharmacy First initiative has had success in encouraging patients away from GPs and towards pharmacists, who can prescribe medicine for common ailments. My constituent merely asks that the Government build on their own good work in this area and extend prescription powers to all allied health professionals equally. I would be grateful if the Minister considered my constituent’s request and responded to the letter sent to the Department for Health and Social Care last month.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Although I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate and on her excellent opening speech, I know she shares with me the sincere wish that, before the end of our parliamentary careers, we may one day be able to stop talking about Hammersmith bridge. I fully acknowledge the severe consequences that the closure of the bridge has had on the hon. Lady’s constituents in Putney, but, obviously, my constituents in Richmond Park, where the bridge lands on the southern bank, have also faced extreme disruption and reduced opportunities as a result of the closure. It was seven years ago this month that Hammersmith bridge closed to traffic, and it has not reopened since. That means that for seven years buses have not been able to cross the bridge; emergency ambulance journeys from Barnes, in my constituency, to Charing Cross hospital, on the northern bank of the Thames, have taken significantly longer; and local businesses and families have suffered. Since 2019, Hammersmith and Fulham council has spent nearly £50 million just to maintain the bridge, while successive Governments have failed to act. That is disgraceful. The failure to repair Hammersmith bridge has become a matter of national embarrassment. In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, said about the bridge: “The next Conservative Government will not allow this just to remain closed.” I imagine that that comment was made with the intention of supporting the Conservative candidate’s bid for re-election in my constituency of Richmond Park, but nothing then happened. The Conservatives had five years to take action, but the business case for fixing the bridge sat on their desks for years without being picked up, and they did not even bother to reconvene the taskforce during their last three years in office. All the while, the estimated costs of repairing the bridge doubled. In 2022, after the bridge had to be wrapped in tin foil to prevent it from collapsing, I pleaded with the Conservative Government to release the funds for the bridge’s repairs. At that point, the repairs were estimated at £140 million. Now, estimates put the cost of repairs at £250 million. If the Conservatives had kept their promise, they could have saved the taxpayer more than £100 million. The failure of the Conservatives to act has had real-life impacts: Hammersmith fire station still officially serves Barnes, despite it taking 25 minutes to attend a fire in Castelnau. Even the temporary bus routes put in place to connect Barnes and Hammersmith have been cut, and many women and students feel unsafe walking over the bridge in the dark on their return from work or school in the winter months. Barnes residents deserve better. The last Conservative Government were characterised by lies, scandals and a complete disregard for the public; their contempt for the public was evident, whether they were partying while people could not visit sick relatives in hospital or crashing our economy. It is hardly surprising that breaking their promise to fix Hammersmith bridge was merely a footnote. Labour has now had a chance to right this wrong, but I have been disappointed by the Government’s lack of engagement on this matter. Despite my cautious optimism following the reconvening of the taskforce in January 2025, there has been almost radio silence on plans to fix the bridge. That was until two months ago, when the Local Transport Minister remarked that Hammersmith bridge would be an excellent candidate for funding via the Government’s structures fund. The sceptic in me worries that that is lip service to residents prior to the local elections, but I am choosing to be hopeful. I believe that this Government are serious about fixing a problem that impacts my constituents in Barnes, East Sheen and Mortlake every day. In the past year, I have written to the Department for Transport five times to request a meeting, and each time, my request has been refused. I say to the Minister today: I do not want to play politics with Hammersmith bridge. Reopening it to emergency vehicles and buses is what my residents want, and like everyone else in the room, I was elected to serve my constituents. Local activists have joined me in protests and succeeded in keeping the repair of the bridge on the agenda. It is my duty as their MP to amplify their voices and to ensure that they remain up to date with the Government’s latest plans, but I cannot keep local residents informed about developments if the Department for Transport does not engage with me. Transparency is a key tenet of governance, and I am extremely disappointed that local residents have not been afforded it for over seven years. They need answers about the Government’s plans. When will the Hammersmith bridge taskforce reconvene? What criteria are the Government using to assess candidates for the structures fund? Have funding agreements been reached among Hammersmith and Fulham council, Transport for London and the Department for Transport? When will the Government announce whether funding will be provided for Hammersmith bridge via the structures fund? The list goes on, and so, for the sixth time, I request a meeting with the Minister to discuss the future of Hammersmith’s bridge.