Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Court and Tribunal Transcripts · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening the debate so well, and for acknowledging my campaign on this issue. I also thank the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who is no longer in her place. I know that she has particular experience of this issue, which she talked about so bravely in the Chamber the other day. It is a reminder to all of us that there are victims at the heart of this, and that it is their rights that we seek to protect and uphold when we call for free transcripts. Three years ago, my constituent Juliana Terlizzi contacted my office to request a meeting. She had been quoted £7,500 for a copy of her court transcript. Juliana was a victim of rape. The perpetrator was convicted for the offence. Juliana did not attend the trial due to the emotional toll that it would have taken on her, as is so common for victims who are still battling with the harm left from their traumatising experience. As someone with no personal experience of ever attending a trial or being involved in a trial, I was really surprised to learn from Juliana that it is not routine in criminal trials for the victim to attend. I guess my impression was from television cop shows and court shows, and I assumed that victims were always there, but it is not routine. Indeed, it is often discouraged. While still dealing with the scars that the assault left behind, Juliana consulted a psychiatrist, who told her that reading over the transcript of the trial might help to provide some closure, but Juliana was subsequently informed that a copy of the transcript would cost £7,500. How can the UK claim to support victims of rape and sexual assault when such barriers to their recovery still exist? Although I was frustrated at the length of time that it took me to make the case to the last Conservative Government, I am pleased that Members across the House are now more supportive of this campaign. I am also grateful that this Government seem to have understood the importance of the issue and have backed it with their commitment to making sentencing remarks free for all victims. This issue unifies the House. As I have done for a number of years, I again call for all transcripts of court proceedings to be free of charge. Every single Member of the House will have the chance to make this call a reality by supporting Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Brinton’s amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill when it returns to the Commons. So I ask the Minister: will the Government support this amendment? More than 200,000 people have signed this petition. Access to court transcripts is not a minor issue that will impact only a small minority of people. The change will impact all victims and their loved ones and be a significant step towards enhancing the rights of victims while making our courts more transparent. I have been proud to lead this campaign in Parliament to amplify the voices of victims who have been met with this injustice. Victims of sexual assault and rape already face significant barriers when attempting to achieve justice. They are effectively a statistical anomaly when it comes to conviction rates. According to the charity Rape Crisis England & Wales, only 2.1% of reported rape results in a conviction. That effectively means that 98% of people accused of rape will not face punishment. The current system is weighted against victims. Making court transcripts free and accessible is a step that can be taken to enhance the rights of victims, and I urge every Member in this House to support Baroness Brinton’s amendment.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Social Enterprises and Community Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on her work in securing this debate. The current landscape is extremely challenging for businesses of all kinds across all sectors, including social enterprises. I am sure that colleagues from across the House have heard from countless local businesses in their constituencies, on their high streets and in the heart of their communities, about the challenges they face, which range from the Government’s national insurance rise to sky-high energy bills and uncertainty over what the Employment Rights Act 2025 might mean for them. Social enterprises are a major part of the UK economy, with around 131,000 social enterprises operating across the country. Together, these organisations generate around £78 billion in turnover every year, which shows that they make an impact economically as well as socially. They reinvest their profits to support social and environmental missions, with around £1 billion being reinvested annually into local communities. The sector also provides jobs for millions, with around 2.3 million people working in social enterprises across the UK. Social enterprises are often more inclusive employers, helping people from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter the workforce and tackling barriers around gender, race, class and disability. Community-owned organisations help to strengthen local economies by keeping wealth circulating locally and giving residents a direct stake in the services and businesses that shape their communities. However, many of these organisations face major challenges, including limited access to finance, rising operating costs and difficulty in navigating complex procurement systems. Without stronger support from the Government, many social enterprises risk being unable to scale their work, despite the enormous benefits that they bring to their communities. As we have heard from so many contributors today, community ownership also plays a growing role in protecting important local assets, such as pubs, shops, energy schemes and community centres, ensuring that they remain viable and locally accountable. As we see unemployment at alarmingly high levels, the Government should be doing everything they can to support these organisations, which provide vital opportunities to local people. However, with employment costs rising sharply, access to a skilled workforce is an increasing issue that affects businesses of all kinds across the country. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the industrial strategy last summer and the commitment to an increase in skills and training, but the apprenticeship levy does not work: many businesses cannot get the funding that they need to train staff, and hundreds of millions of pounds of funding go unspent. We have been calling for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced with a wider skills and training levy, which would give businesses more flexibility over how they spend their money to train their staff. It is welcome that the Government are focusing resources on training young people, but it is essential that opportunities for training and reskilling are available throughout life. The decision to defund level 7 apprenticeships for the over-22s risks limiting opportunities at a moment when it is more important than ever to provide opportunities for our young people. More broadly, social enterprises, like many other kinds of businesses across the country, are struggling under Government decisions such as the rise in employer national insurance contributions. That continues to be the No. 1 issue raised with me when I speak to stakeholders and business owners. Small businesses in particular have been left struggling under the heavy burden of this jobs tax, and the Government must take steps to support those businesses, which are at the centre of communities and local economies. Thousands of social enterprises, which often provide community services, have felt the damaging impact of those changes. That is why I and all my Liberal Democrat colleagues have repeatedly called on the Government to reverse the rise in national insurance contributions and will continue to campaign for them to scrap this damaging policy. The Liberal Democrats have also been calling on the Government to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. In 2019, the Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of business rates, but failed to deliver it. The current Government pledged in their manifesto to replace the system, but their recent Budget did not bring forward welcome changes for business. The Chancellor announced lower business rate multipliers, but the new, higher rateable values from the Valuation Office Agency will wipe out any benefit that businesses get from the lower multipliers, so I ask the Minister how the Government now plan to meet their own commitment in the small business strategy to introduce permanently lower business rates. Liberal Democrats have always believed in helping individuals to be involved in the decisions that affect their lives. We believe that employee participation in the workplace, together with wider employee ownership, is important for diffusing economic power, promoting enterprise, increasing job satisfaction and improving service to customers. As we see business confidence down and unemployment up, I urge the Government to consider urgent steps to ensure that those vital policies will allow these important organisations to thrive.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Job Creation · Hansard source

  More

  Research from the Entrepreneurs Network shows that 54% of Britain’s 100 fastest growing companies have a foreign-born founder or co-founder. International entrepreneurs play a vital role in driving innovation, investment and job creation across the UK, yet this Government are recklessly introducing unworkable visa regulations for those very people. Since the Budget in October 2024, 110,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector and 74,000 in retail, and 700,000 graduates are currently unemployed. Youth unemployment has just hit 16%. What impact assessment have the Government undertaken on the impact of their proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain on job creation, and what conversations has the Minister had with the Home Secretary regarding this damaging disincentive to those looking to build their businesses and create jobs here in the UK?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Marriage Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this debate, which has made me reflect on the hurdles I had to overcome to get married. I am a Roman Catholic; my husband is Church of England. We got married in the ecumenical chapel of my old university. That meant we had to apply for a special licence, which turned out to be an extraordinary document in calligraphy and with a seal. We had to get a letter from both our dads to confirm that neither of us was already married. We had to get permission from our local parish church and consent from the Catholic Church. It took a very long time to arrange all that paperwork—obviously because of the religious requirement, rather than Government administration. I am happy to say it was worth the trouble, and my husband and I will be celebrating our silver wedding anniversary next year. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I take this opportunity to send my best wishes to anyone in my Richmond Park constituency or, indeed, across the country who is planning a wedding this year, whether in Gretna Green or not. The Liberal Democrats firmly believe that couples should be able to celebrate their marriage in the way they want. Changes to marriage regulations would be small, but they would change the lives of so many people who want to demonstrate their love for one another in a manner that reflects their own religion or beliefs. That includes humanist celebrations. The Liberal Democrats made this case during our time in the coalition Government, but it was blocked by the Conservatives, despite 90% of the public supporting the legislation. We will continue to back full legal recognition of humanist marriages, in this Parliament and beyond. In 2020, the High Court found that the failure to recognise humanist marriages was discriminatory, and in the summer of 2022 the Law Commission recommended modernising marriage law and breaking down unnecessary barriers to weddings for engaged couples. The Law Commission concluded that the law in its current state was out of date, complex and uncertain, yet still the Conservatives failed to act. I welcome this Government’s intention to modernise our marriage law to recognise humanist weddings, as well as to permit legally binding religious ceremonies in the UK to take place, including Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu weddings. Many of those weddings involve beautiful ceremonies, joyous moments and ultimately the declaration of love and commitment by couples. Ruling such marriages as unlawful does not represent modern-day Britain, our values or the acceptance and welcoming of other cultures. The Liberal Democrats firmly support the liberalisation of marriage law through the Government’s proposals, and we have long supported the need for reform. Enabling couples to commit to spending their lives together is a fundamental principle of British culture. Although we term these proposals as modern, the reforms should have been introduced a long time ago. The Government have stated that they will consult on their proposals in early 2026, and I would like clarity on the date the consultation will be opened, considering that we are nearing the end of the first quarter. The legal recognition of more marriages will provide a boost to our economy, as the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale recognised in his opening speech. Allowing more couples to take part in legally binding ceremonies is expected to add over £100 million to the public purse, while providing a significant boost to the events and weddings business sectors, which are important parts of the hospitality industry in all our constituencies. The Liberal Democrats are proud to have been instrumental in securing the legalisation of same-sex marriage during the coalition Government, with the then Lib Dem Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone, fighting the Conservatives to introduce the legislation. We long campaigned for that change, and the announcement that same-sex marriage would be legally recognised is one of the biggest achievements of the coalition. Marriage for same-sex couples was a crucial step towards equality, and one that has touched so many lives for the better. The joy of getting to marry the person you love, surrounded by family and friends, is something everyone deserves the chance to experience. Although at the time it was considered a contentious issue, I am delighted that public opinion is now overwhelmingly in favour of same-sex marriage. That is not to underestimate the extent to which homophobia remains an issue in our society. In the year ending March 2025, nearly 116,000 hate crimes were recorded—an increase on the previous year—but recognising same-sex and other marriages has established a footing for social acceptance, and it is a step towards a more tolerant society. The proposed reform to wedding law will have positive implications for family law. It will ensure that more couples enter marriage with a secure legal foundation, and it will prevent issues from arising where couples assume their religious ceremony is legally binding, only to find that it is not. Issues such as a lack of financial protection causing significant hardship on separation can be a result of non-legally binding ceremonies. The Liberal Democrats believe that modern marriage should be recognised under the law, and therefore that these couples deserve exactly the same rights as any other married couple.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  In the Q4 2025 quarterly economic survey, 52% of businesses reported utility costs as a pressure that is driving them to raise prices, and there is a particular impact on the hospitality sector. Recent research by the British Chambers of Commerce shows that more than a quarter of businesses will struggle to pay their energy bills over the next 12 months, and this survey was conducted before the recent escalation in the middle east. Last week’s forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility also did not take into account any potential impact from the jump in oil prices triggered by the strikes in Iran. The fuel duty hike in September is already expected to hit families and small businesses hard, so will the Secretary of State speak to the Chancellor now about scrapping this damaging policy?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  In each year since 2023, Royal Mail has been fined by Ofcom over delivery delays, amounting to nearly £40 million. Following recent announcements, it would not surprise me if it were fined again in 2026. When Royal Mail was reprimanded in 2023 and 2024, its leadership promised that reforms would be made to improve its services, but following the £21 million fine in October 2025, the company said it could not publish its improvement plan until negotiations with the Communication Workers Union concluded. The takeover of Royal Mail, which this Government supported, seems to have done nothing to improve the service so far. Over the past several years, an average of roughly one in four first-class letters arrives late, and recent reports suggest that 219 million letters may arrive late this year. These letters are sometimes urgent and hold important information, so it is clear that Royal Mail is repeatedly failing to meet its universal service obligation. Despite that, its stamp prices have consistently risen. That includes next month’s planned rise of 10p to the cost of first-class postage, taking the cost of a stamp to £1.80. The sorry saga of Royal Mail has gone on for far too long. Does the Minister believe that the British public should be paying more for their postal service, despite Royal Mail repeatedly failing to deliver their letters on time?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I hear the hon. Lady, but I repeat what I said: the setting up of the Fair Work Agency is an important step towards ensuring that employees can assert their rights in the workplace and that employers will not be burdened unduly with the costs of tribunals. That is why the Liberal Democrats have supported the setting up of the Fair Work Agency from the start.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I was not planning to make a speech, but since the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, said she plans to vote against this statutory instrument and invited me to join her, I feel I should get some remarks on the record on behalf of my party. I thank her for her kind invitation, but I plan to vote with the Government on establishing the Fair Work Agency, in line with the policy of my party throughout the progress of the Employment Rights Bill. We support the setting up of the Fair Work Agency. It brings together the powers of several different bodies into one unified place, and that is really important. I hear what the shadow Minister is saying about extending the GLAA powers, but I think there is a bigger win here in setting up the Fair Work Agency: it would not only provide a better route for employees to establish their rights in the workplace, but relieve the burden of tribunals from employers, if it works as intended.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is very kind of the hon. Lady to ask me that. This is obviously the Government’s statutory instrument, so I am not entirely certain why I am getting all the scrutiny here. I repeat again that we have supported the setting up of the Fair Work Agency from the very start and support the measures in this statutory instrument that contribute to that. I hear the hon. Lady’s concerns, and the concerns of businesses in Bognor Regis. The Liberal Democrats are obviously concerned to ensure that any request for information from businesses is made proportionately, and only in response to legitimate concerns about employers treating their employees fairly. That is what we would expect the Fair Work Agency to do. I will finish by reiterating that we support the setting up of the Fair Work Agency and this statutory instrument.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  In the three months to December, unemployment reached 5.2%, the highest rate for nearly five years, and youth unemployment has hit a staggering 16%. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues affecting businesses of all kinds across the country. The 2024 Budget added over £5 billion of employment costs on to retailers, almost half of which came from the changes to employer national insurance contributions, with the cost of employing a full-time worker in a retail job rising by 10%, and by 13% for those working part time. One in five people’s first job is in retail, so what steps are the Government taking to tackle these unaffordably high employment costs for the businesses that provide entry for young people into our job market?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The people of Iran have suffered decades of atrocities under the rule of an oppressive regime. However, as we have seen from Iraq and Libya, the removal of an evil head of state without a future plan for governance can lead to countries becoming failed states. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s reluctance to involve the UK in another protracted war in the middle east, I remain unclear on the Government’s vision for the region. Does the Prime Minister want regime change? Have his officials contacted the leading opposition figures, such as Reza Pahlavi, to arrange such contingency plans, or does he wish to negotiate a diplomatic solution with the current regime?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she not agree that, since the House voted in favour of my Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill which I presented in December 2024, and since the Labour party voted overwhelmingly for a motion to bring in proportional representation at one of its conferences, there is a wide acceptance that it is time to scrap first past the post, which does not deliver the results that people vote for? Is the Bill not an enormous missed opportunity?