Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendment 87, which stands in my name, and in support of various amendments tabled by other Members and also signed by me. Prior to this legislation being laid before the House, I had not held strong feelings about the issue of assisted dying. I listened carefully to the arguments on both sides, including those of the many constituents who wrote to me on the issue, before deciding to vote against the Bill on Second Reading. I made my mind up very late in the day. I continue to be appreciative and respectful of the reasons why people are in favour, but, for me, the fundamental question was whether we were putting vulnerable people at risk by passing this legislation. I resolved that, on balance, we were. The lead Member, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), was keen to reflect the balance of opinion across the House, as well as within parties, in the make-up of the Bill Committee, and I was happy to volunteer as the sole Liberal Democrat “no” voter, as a service to my party and to the House. It was a privilege to serve on the Committee, and I wish to put on the record my admiration and respect to all Members, Ministers, Chairs and House staff who served alongside me, and my thanks to the many witnesses who gave oral and written evidence on which we came to rely. I regret to say, however, that my experience in Committee has only hardened my opposition to the Bill. My opposition is not rooted in a fundamental objection to the principle of assisted dying, but in the approach taken to framing the legislation. Amendment 87 seeks to tighten up the arrangement around the first declaration, to rule out the possibility of “doctor shopping”. In oral evidence we heard from the chief medical officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, that a diagnosis of terminal illness and a prognosis of life expectancy cannot always be made with a high degree of accuracy and that a degree of professional judgment is required on behalf of the co-ordinating doctor, which can result in differences of diagnosis and prognosis. That was backed up by the Royal College of Physicians this week, whose spokesperson was quoted in The Times saying that it is “extremely hard to tell” if somebody has only six months left to live. My amendment seeks to establish whether the patient has already sought and been refused permission to seek an assisted death so that the co-ordinating doctor can consider the reasons for the first refusal and whether the patient’s circumstances have materially changed since that time.

• 14 May 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Paymaster General for advance sight of his statement. The infected blood scandal is a harrowing story of people being failed not only by the medical professionals who treated them, but by the NHS, which should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment, and by a series of Governments who should have prevented such horror from ever taking place. As the Minister knows, I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome the introduction of the infected blood compensation scheme. The Government were right to introduce the scheme at the start of the Parliament, and I am glad to hear the Minister say that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is scaling up its operation. However, we are alarmed that the roll-out of the scheme has been far too slow, leaving victims without the justice that they deserve. Victims and their families have been waiting for decades for answers and recognition of the suffering they endured. So far, only 106 people have received payments from IBCA, and 54 others have received offers. Compensation payouts are not due to conclude until 2029, and that date would rely on a rapid increase in the rate of payments. We are deeply concerned by the speed at which victims are receiving their long-overdue compensation, and I am glad that last week’s hearings looked into the adequacy and timeliness of the Government’s response. To echo the words of Sir Brian Langstaff, “People infected and affected do not have time on their side.” To that end, and to provide confidence to victims and their families, can the Paymaster General clarify what deadline he has for the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations? Moreover, what further steps is he taking to increase the speed at which payments are being made, and can he confirm when all victims can expect to have received their long-overdue compensation? What more can be done to help those who need to provide proof of infection but whose medical records have been destroyed? It is crucial that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the concerns of charities, organisations and the affected individuals are heard. Supporting the work of those vital organisations and engaging with them to understand exactly the needs of those affected is crucial. The Liberal Democrats are backing the survivors’ call for a duty of candour on all public officials. As such, I am glad to hear the sentiment behind the Government’s response to recommendation 5, but when will the Government bring forward proposals to that effect so that such a scandal is never repeated? Can the Paymaster General clarify why there has been a delay, given that relevant legislation was originally meant to be published in April?

• 13 May 2025 · Venture Capital: Access · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree that we need to do more to bridge that gap. I am delighted to hear about some of the efforts already being made towards that goal in Northern Ireland. In 2022, 10% of first-time equity deals went to all-ethnic minority teams, with 19% of total investment value. However, while I welcome the broadly representative nature of these first-time equity deals, they are unequally distributed within ethnic minority communities, with only 0.24% of venture capital funding between 2009 and 2019 going to black founders. On a similar note, all-white teams accessed a mean investment of £224,000, whereas teams with one or more ethnic minority founders received an average of £49,000. All-ethnic minority teams received an average of £94,000—less than half of what all-white teams received. I am proud to be a member and former chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ethnic minority business owners, which has not only supported ethnic minority business owners, but considered the intersection of diverse characteristics, including gender and ethnicity, on access to finance, which I will come on to later. I am proud to welcome Diana Chrouch, who provides the secretariat for the APPG and does amazing work on behalf of ethnic minority founders. I am pleased to note the recent successes in the financial industry. In particular, I welcome the work of the Lending Standards Board on creating their access to financial services for ethnic minority-led businesses code. While that was an important and significant step towards greater equality, the Lending Standards Board does not directly cover venture capital, instead covering other financial instruments for investment. With the LSB acting as living proof that positive change can happen, and given the statistics I have mentioned, it is time for the Government to step up and ensure that that success is replicated in venture capital, and that we can tackle the inequality within VC. Lack of equality for venture capital investments is not only an issue in relation to ethnic minority communities; female founders are also far less likely to secure this kind of investment. In 2022, a report by the British Business Bank found that only 13% of first-time equity deals went to all-female founder teams, representing 6% of total investment value, and that there had been no statistically significant improvement in this during the past decade. The data is even more worrying for women from ethnic minorities: only 0.02% of the total amount invested through VC went to black women entrepreneurs. One of the most damning statistics of the inequality within the venture capital system is outlined in a 2023 British Business Bank report: only 3% of individuals in senior investment and non-investment positions were women from ethnic minority backgrounds, and concerningly, zero black women were found in positions of seniority in VC firms at the time of the study. I am sure that many of us are aware of this as an issue affecting founders and business owners across the country. However, this inequality was highlighted to me by a constituent of mine in Richmond Park, who is the founder of Parli-Training, a business that has supported the Northern Irish and Scottish devolved Governments, NATO and even parliamentary offices in this very House. In the years leading up to and including 2024, it employed 170 people and, at its peak, generated a £250,000 in turnover. Despite that strong performance over many years, my constituent, who is a woman from an ethnic minority community, was recently denied investment from the Greater London Investment Fund. In her correspondence with the fund manager, she was told that the fund would not be viable for someone like her because she would be viewed as a risk, that those who access the funds usually come from wealthy backgrounds, and that the only funds available to female-led businesses in London usually take the guise of a grant. My constituent was told that she should try to find a grant that suited her business, or start a GoFundMe. Clearly, something has gone wrong. Of course, a long discourse on the issue at hand can only go so far. What entrepreneurs from affected communities need is for the Government to take meaningful action to ensure that the UK’s venture capital industry is accessible and inclusive. The first thing we need is greater transparency in the reporting and recording of data, particularly for venture capital deals. That has been championed by many leading voices in the venture capital sector and by the APPG for ethnic minority business owners. Ladi Greenstreet, CEO of Diversity VC, has said: “There is a significant amount of power in reporting. Simply measuring the problem creates momentum for change”, whilst the July 2023 British Business Bank report stated: “Venture capital firms should participate in industry-wide surveys and make D&I data on their investments public”— an effective action to improve diversity. Furthermore, a November 2023 report by the British Business Bank in collaboration with other leading trade bodies outlined the “scarcity of comprehensive data on ethnic minorities particularly at the intersection of gender and ethnicity.” One measure that I hope the Government will consider is integrating the reporting of diversity data within venture capital tax reliefs. As recommended by the Treasury Committee’s 2023 report, provision of diversity statistics as a requirement for eligibility to receive the enterprise investment scheme or the seed enterprise investment scheme tax reliefs and the venture capital trust tax reliefs may be an effective way to improve reporting statistics, and to push companies to act on this important issue. Secondly, I urge the Government to take more robust action to support women in finance and venture capital, including through the Treasury’s women in finance charter and the British Business Bank’s investing in women code. Despite their success, the schemes continue to be voluntary initiatives with relatively low levels of uptake, meaning that their progress in improving diversity in venture capital is too slow and restricted. For instance, the women in finance charter is currently signed by 400 companies covering 1.3 million employees, but there are more than 80,000 companies and 2.5 million employees in the UK’s financial services industry. On the other hand, signatories to the British Business Bank’s investing in women code accounted for 47% of venture capital deals, meaning that over half of VC deals would not fall under the code. Therefore, I echo the calls made by the Treasury Committee in 2023: will the Government consider mandating the Treasury and the British Business Bank to adopt a “comply or explain” policy with regard to both the WFC and the IWC? I should note that the Treasury Committee also outlined that, should diversity statistics and reporting not improve quickly enough, it would be wise to consider calling for compulsory membership instead. With these changes, the Government can strengthen existing processes to ensure that women are not negatively impacted. Another key call from groups including the British Business Bank concerns diversity at the top, referring to the lack of diversity in key bodies, including investment committees, which often have ultimate decision making on where capital is allocated. Too often, investment committees are made up of members with similar characteristics and backgrounds, leading to groupthink and the preservation of the status quo—a status quo that we know is inequitable. In its July 2023 report, the British Business Bank recommended pushes for greater diversity in these leading committees as a crucial opportunity for greater accessibility and inclusion, with a correlation between diverse investing groups and diverse investment recipients. As recommended by the APPG for ethnic minority business owners, would the Minister consider requiring VC firms to adopt and implement a strategic investment inclusion framework, modelled after the Lending Standards Board framework, to dismantle structural barriers? In conclusion, the Government have said that their priority in this Parliament is growth, but what good is growth if it is not accessible to all our communities? We are cutting ourselves off from a key source of that growth if we continue to enable barriers to accessing investment for all the excluded groups I have mentioned. The Government are committed to supporting businesses, but what good is that commitment if a number of businesses are excluded, whether deliberately or not, from finance and investment? Our venture capital system continues to be unrepresentative of our communities, and the Government must do better to tackle the issue. The Government have long championed themselves as a Government of change, but many entrepreneurs looking for venture capital have so far seen more of the same from this Government. I hope that the Minister has heard the points made in this debate and takes meaningful steps to resolve the injustice we see in our venture capital industry, which hinders businesses, damages growth and continues a legacy of inequality.

• 13 May 2025 · Venture Capital: Access · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to highlight that part of my pitch was that we could do more to encourage that voluntary take up. Anything compulsory would be very much a last resort. We should be encouraging voluntary take up in the first instance.

• 13 May 2025 · Venture Capital: Access · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered access to venture capital for people from ethnic minority and other underrepresented backgrounds. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Venture capital in the United Kingdom is a unique and valuable industry that supports many smaller innovating companies with high growth potential. Our VC market accounted for £8 billion of investment in 2023. It is the largest VC market in the world after the US and China, and the largest in Europe by a considerable margin. As the CEO of the UK’s trade body for venture capital, the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association, eloquently put it: “Venture investment helps turn ideas, research and development into thriving businesses, generating economic growth, stimulating innovation and creating jobs and opportunities across all nations and regions in the UK.” However, while our VC market is growing and strong, it is highly inequitable. For ethnic minorities, women and many other communities which there is either insufficient data or insufficient time to discuss today, our system of venture capital does not work. Businesses with founders from those communities receive a disproportionately lower percentage of VC deals and of total VC funding. With their priority of growth, the Government must do more to ensure that the venture capital market in the UK is inclusive and accessible.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I was glad to add my name to new clauses 1 to 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). I speak to new clause 1 on the age of data consent. Currently in the UK, the minimum age of digital consent—the age at which children can consent to having their data processed—is 13. The new clause would raise the minimum age for social media data processing to 16, meaning social media companies would not be able to process the data of children for their algorithms. I hope that that would allow children to enjoy many of the educational benefits and relevant services that social media can offer, as well as continuing to enjoy the freedoms of engaging with friends but without the risks of addictive algorithmic content. The mental health issues associated with social media use in young people, particularly children, should be treated as a public health crisis. The Government are missing a vital opportunity with this legislation to reform how social media is used by not including provisions around children’s online safety. The Bill offers an important opportunity to start the process of removing harmful social media mechanisms and, as such, I urge the Minister to support the new clause. New clauses 2 to 6 would ensure transparency in how AI systems are trained and give rights holders more control over the use of their works. Concerns about the impact of AI on the creative industries have been raised hundreds of times by my constituents and I have been raising those concerns in Parliament for years. In my Westminster Hall debate back in February 2023 on artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights, I raised my concerns about the bypassing of copyright laws in relation to AI and intellectual property with the former Conservative Government. However, the former Minister blamed the lack of the former Government’s action to introduce regulation for creatives, associated with the rise of AI, on the political turmoil in the Tory leadership at that time, and their neglectful attitude towards leadership was mirrored in their attitude towards introducing protection for creatives in this space. Their conclusion from my Westminster Hall debate was “not to legislate in periods of political turmoil” —[ Official Report, 1 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 163WH.] and the need for “more deep consultation”, which did not materialise. I think we can all be glad that the chaos of that Government is in the past. However, we are yet to see the introduction of thorough and robust copyright laws relating to artificial intelligence, which is fundamental to the success of the UK’s world-leading creative industries. I hope this Government will act upon that today by accepting the new clauses. I wish to reiterate the importance of these new clauses in ensuring that AI models are bound by existing copyright law, increasing data and identity transparency for crawlers and models, and empowering creators to take legal action against developers who fail to comply. The creative industry, like all sectors, will have to adapt to accommodate AI, but the industry is capable of and already making progress with that. Creatives have largely accepted that AI-generated content will have its place in the market, and they are already using AI to enhance their work by driving efficiencies and extending their reach to new markets. However, a solid regulatory framework, which could be created with the addition of these amendments, is essential to protect their rights and ensure that they can take part in value creation and retain control over their work. My colleagues and I believe that existing copyright law should be enforced to protect the UK’s creative industries, which are a world-leading British export.

• 7 May 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Financial Times reported this morning that the Paymaster General has confirmed that the UK is looking to set up a youth mobility scheme with the EU. This directly contradicts the answer he gave in response to a question I asked in this Chamber just 13 days ago. On that occasion, he said: “A youth mobility scheme is not part of our plans. We have always said that we will listen to sensible EU proposals, but we will not go back to freedom of movement.” —[ Official Report , 24 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 1201.] That is only the most recent example, because he has previously told me that there were no plans for a youth mobility scheme on 5 December, on 6 February, on 6 March in answer to oral questions, on 21 January in response to a written question, and on 29 January in a Westminster Hall debate. The FT article states that the Paymaster General “has confirmed publicly for the first time that Britain is looking at setting up a youth mobility scheme as part of a new ‘strategic partnership’ with the EU”. He can be in no doubt about the keenness of Members of this House to be kept up to date on the progress of this issue. As such, why has this announcement been made to the media, rather than to Members directly?

• 1 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Sheen Uncovered is a clothing business in my constituency that the Secretary of State is welcome to visit any time. It has been significantly affected by the need to pay import duty up front, thanks to the Conservatives’ terrible Brexit deal, and that duty ranges between 6% and 12% and greatly impacts its cash flow. What are the Government doing to support businesses such as Sheen Uncovered to reduce the challenge of import costs?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Under the previous Conservative Government, fraudsters got away with claiming billions of pounds of covid support funds, as an eyewatering £39.8 billion went uncollected due to tax evasion and other criminal activity. While vulnerable members of our society have seen their benefits cut and our public services are in need of investment, it is not right that public spending has been misplaced into the pockets of fraudsters. I am therefore grateful for many of the measures in the Bill that will work to reduce instances of fraud. However, I have concerns about some of the broader measures regarding the powers the legislation would give the Department for Work and Pensions and the potentially intrusive impact that could have on the civil liberties of citizens. I speak in support of new clause 23, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), which would require a report to Parliament within six months on the causes and cost of public sector fraud during the covid-19 pandemic. The report would include an account of any fraudulent payments and a review of procurement practices during covid, including contracting for suppliers and the role of political appointments and personal connections in procurement decisions, as well as an assessment of the adequacy of Government oversight to prevent fraud against public authorities. Much of that work has already been undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee—I am a member, as I was in the previous Parliament—and it would be worthwhile for the Minister to take a look at some of our reporting on those topics. If failings are found, the new clause would require an outline of corrective actions, including a statement to this House to acknowledge the findings and to set out actions planned to ensure that any failings are not repeated. With public trust in politics at alarmingly low levels, we must take all possible steps to ensure integrity and the highest possible standards in governance. The cronyism, rule breaking and sleaze scandals of the last Conservative Government did huge damage to public trust in politics and politicians in this country. The new clause would lead to an increase of accountability and I urge the Minister to accept it. Even though I am glad to see the Government introduce measures that would crack down on instances of fraud, I have grave concerns about some of the broader measures in this legislation that would lead to an unacceptable increase in intrusion on individual privacy. That is why I speak in favour of amendment 2, which would revoke clause 74 and remove the requirement for banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts. Some measures in the Bill raise significant concerns regarding the privacy of individuals, and I have heard from constituents who are alarmed at some of the powers that could be introduced with this legislation. I believe that fraud must be rooted out and that more should be done to prevent fraud from happening in the first place. However, clause 74 is an unnecessary and invasive step that I urge the Government to refrain from taking. I have heard from people who are concerned about the powers granted in the Bill because it enables the Government to have direct access to individuals’ bank accounts and even enables the DWP to withdraw funds or revoke driving licences. That concern is particularly serious when it comes to vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, disabled people and those living in poverty, who could face devastating consequences as a result of wrongful penalties. I welcome the Government’s commitment to cracking down on fraud. There were clear failures by the previous Conservative Government during the covid pandemic, which we saw highlighted in the PPE procurement scandal and the bypassing of the usual procurement rules via the VIP lane. It is essential that proper rules are in place to ensure that public spending is carried out in an effective, efficient and transparent way, and I am glad to support new clause 23, which would strengthen transparency and accountability on this issue. However, grave concerns about the intrusive powers that this legislation could introduce have been expressed across the House today, particularly those that allow the Government to require banks and other financial institutions to share client data, and as such, I urge the Minister to accept amendment 2 to revoke clause 74.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Warm words about a reset in UK-EU relations are no longer enough. The summit that will take place in London on 19 May is an opportunity for real action. Will the Minister take the opportunity that the summit presents to commit to bringing in a UK-EU youth mobility scheme that will boost economic growth and enhance chances for young people in our country and across the EU?

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on his work in securing this debate. We have seen over the past few months the extent to which the current US Administration is no longer a reliable ally. We can see the extraordinary damage being caused by the implementation of Trump’s tariffs on trading relationships around the world. With the increasingly unpredictable and aggressive signals coming from across the Atlantic, this must be the moment to stand firmly with our European neighbours for our national security and economic stability, as well as to strengthen our trading relationships. The UK-EU summit next month in London, hosted by the Prime Minister, will be an opportunity that must be seized for us to move on from the warm words of pragmatism that we have heard from the Government, but which are no longer good enough. We must move faster, and the Government must commit to serious action to rebuild our relationship with Europe. While we know that the long-term wellbeing of the UK means being back in the heart of Europe, that requires strengthened trading agreements and a customs union. Closer ties with Europe are also key to our national security. We are glad that there are serious indications that the Government will commit to a defence agreement with Europe, but that must be just the beginning. There are broader partnerships with our European neighbours, which the Liberal Democrats will continue to call for, that will be advantageous to British businesses. We know that a youth mobility deal would be good for our economy, especially our tourism and hospitality sectors, while providing young British people with the opportunity to work and study abroad. That is exactly the kind of pragmatic step that we hope the Government will take at the upcoming summit. Having spent the last five years grappling with the bureaucracy of Brexit and with increased trading costs, many business owners across the country will now be deeply concerned by the additional challenges to businesses coming from Washington. The returning Trump Administration has fundamentally changed trading relations globally, which has created an obvious moment for us to take action to establish closer trading relationships with our European neighbours. The EU is our closest neighbour and our largest trading partner, but the botched Brexit deal has been a complete disaster for this country, especially for small businesses, which are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports. I urge the Government to acknowledge the damage that the Conservatives’ Brexit regulation has done and continues to do to not just to individual businesses but to the economy as a whole, and to take the sensible step of negotiating a new UK-EU customs union to ease the pressure that so many businesses are under.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Civil Service Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I have listened with a great deal of interest to what the right hon. Gentleman has had to say on the Government’s plans to make Whitehall more efficient and to make significant reforms to service delivery, and we on these Benches very much welcome the intention behind that statement. However, announcements have been made in the media about the intention to cut 2,100 jobs in the Cabinet Office and reduce the Department’s workforce by a third. Why have we not had a statement in this House about those job cuts specifically, and when will Members of Parliament get an opportunity to scrutinise exactly what that means for their constituents and their expectations about service delivery?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this debate and for his stirring opening remarks. The Government have repeatedly referenced the £22 billion black hole that they inherited, but there has been far less reference to the debt accrued by Thames Water, which is comparable with that figure. Company executives have received hefty bonuses, and shareholders have taken billions of pounds in dividends out of the company, but Thames Water customers are seeing their bills rise by an average of 35% over the next five years. During a cost of living crisis, and on top of other mounting bills, this rise is extremely concerning for many of my constituents. What is even more alarming is that Thames Water does not believe that the bill hike is sufficient to meet the targets set by Ofwat, and it has since referred the final determination to the Competition and Markets Authority. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for Thames Water to be placed into special administration, as it has shown that it cannot be trusted to provide a service that does not degrade our environment or line the pockets of its shareholders. In response to those calls, the Government have implied that Thames Water is not breaching its statutory duties, and therefore that intervention is not under immediate consideration. Thames Water has repeatedly shown an inability to undertake its basic duties. In my Richmond Park constituency, Kingston Vale residents have had to endure almost constant traffic chaos in their neighbourhood, as Thames Water has repeatedly had to attend to a burst sewage pipe. A constituent reported to my office that sewage spills over the road following a leak. Thames Water recently agreed to replace the pipe, having resisted it for years. I am sure that the Government would agree that people should not have to put up with unfiltered sludge spilling on to their pavements. Senior managers at Thames Water acknowledge that many departments are understaffed and, by their own admission, do not have the funds to invest in critical infrastructure to prevent leaks and sewage-dumping into our rivers. In a recent BBC documentary, some staff members even admitted to presenting favourable statistics when measuring the concentration of E. coli in the Thames. The cleanliness of our rivers should not be a public relations exercise. It is extremely important that Thames Water is held to account for polluting our rivers. In 2024, Thames Water was responsible for 298,081 hours-worth of sewage spills. A freedom of information request by the Liberal Democrats discovered that Ofwat has collected not a penny of fines for that disregard of our environment. By not replacing Ofwat with a regulator with teeth, the Government are not installing a sufficient deterrent to ensure that Thames Water takes action to prevent such environmental incidents. Given Thames Water’s current financial situation and operational capacity, as well as recent reports that KKR—which boasts a similarly poor environmental record with Northumbrian Water—plans to buy the company, does the Minister believe that Thames Water has the capabilities to prevent serious environmental hazards from repeatedly occurring?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents in Ham and north Kingston on the opposite bank of the river from my hon. Friend’s constituency in Twickenham are particularly concerned about how the construction impacts will affect the Ham Lands nature reserve. We have not heard enough from Thames Water about exactly what its plans are for that. Does she agree that Thames Water needs to be much more up front about what exactly it plans to do?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The use of hazardous chemical flame retardants in domestic furniture has been criticised by the Association of Master Upholsterers and Soft Furnishers and in a 2019 Environmental Audit Committee report, because those chemicals have been shown to cause more toxic smoke, increase the production of carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide and increase the prevalence of health conditions, including developmental disorders, breathing difficulties and reproductive disorders. As this Bill would provide the Government with more powers to act on that issue, does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers should outline how the Government plan to address the dangers associated with CFRs?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  During their time in government, the Conservatives broke our apprenticeship system and betrayed young people. The Liberal Democrats are thus calling on the Government, if they are serious about growth, to fix the apprenticeship sector by investing in education and training, including by increasing the availability of apprenticeships and career advice for young people. I wish to speak in support of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), which would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for the Executive agency to be known as Skills England. There should be greater emphasis on developing sector-specific skills that support the natural abilities and interests of each student. I believe that we should focus on strengthening careers advice and links with employers in schools and colleges to allow students clear alternative steps into a career that does not require them to go to university if that is not the best option. Any business will tell us that the apprenticeship levy does not work. Businesses cannot get the funding that they need to train staff, so hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of funding is returned unspent, only to disappear into the Treasury. If that money were ringfenced to boost the further education budget, it would at least benefit the employers that contribute, but it does not. I am glad that the Government are reforming the current system, but I urge them to accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, which would require a clear plan for their new proposals. We must improve not only the quality of vocational education, including skills for entrepreneurship and self-employment, but pupils’ awareness of such skills as they make initial decisions about their further education and career. I have spoken to young people in my constituency who are undertaking apprenticeships in the hospitality industry. They have spoken positively about the opportunities to develop their skills while earning a wage. However, I have also heard that many apprenticeship jobs do not pay enough for people to meet their living expenses. It is extremely important that young people are provided with a footing solid enough not to discourage them from pursuing apprenticeships in their field of interest. I believe that the lower minimum wage for apprentices should be scrapped. We should ensure that apprentices are paid at least the same minimum wage as other employees their age. I constantly hear from small and medium-sized businesses across my constituency who are struggling with workforce shortages. We need to build capacity in the workforce and within the economy to drive growth and ensure that British businesses can hire people with the correct skills to allow industries to thrive. Apprenticeships have a huge role to play in upskilling. Although I am glad that the Government are taking action to reform the current system, I urge them to accept new clause 1, which would give us proper detail on what the new system will look like. Apprenticeships could play a crucial part in addressing many of the staff shortages that businesses face, by equipping people across the country with the skills that they need to thrive. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to truly invest in skills. I urge the Minister to accept the new clause.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It clearly remains to be seen, but that may be an outcome as we do not yet know what model we are proposing for the delivery of assisted dying. Perhaps doctors will feel pressured to deliver an outcome because that is how the model has been set up. If we have a model that incentivises profits, particularly if we do not have a similar service within the NHS itself, it is quite possible that that will happen. It will not necessarily affect the care that doctors give to patients at the end of life, but the point is that we do not know. We cannot fully explore that matter in Committee, because we do not have the full clarity of exactly how the process will be delivered, so we cannot examine the proposed model and identify its potential risks and pitfalls. That continues to be a real concern. Perhaps doctors will feel that pressure; perhaps the service will be precisely designed to encourage them to, for example, diagnose someone with having fewer than six months to live even when it is a slightly more subjective judgment and a different doctor operating in a different system may come to a different view.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but those incentives are not about creating profits that make money for individuals. They are about directing the way that resources are allocated to ensure that a broader range of health outcomes are achieved. When I talk about a profit incentive, it is an entirely different kind of incentive from the one he has just raised.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think I said very clearly to the hon. Member for Stroud that it is not about the doctors. It is about the people who are commissioning them. I absolutely do not believe that about doctors operating in the private sector, who in my experience are often the same doctors as the ones in the NHS. It is about who is commissioning them and who is asking them to carry out this work, and whether those commissioners are motivated by a profit incentive as opposed to the incentive in the NHS to provide the best possible care.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The issue is who is commissioning the service. The issue is not the doctors or how they are recompensed for the work that they do, but who is doing the recompensing and what their incentives are. If the process is part of an NHS-provided service where it is agreed that it is a compassionate end of life choice, and where it is properly regulated within the wider NHS service and connects with other NHS services, that is one thing. If the person commissioning that doctor has any kind of incentive around making a profit—and any profit-making organisation will be incentivised to increase the amount of profits that it makes—then, however carefully regulated, there will be subtle influence, pressure, coercion or persuasion that assisted dying is an option that patients should choose, or possibly not-so-subtle influence, to take the example from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. Under other circumstances, in an NHS model, that may not have been a solution they would have been persuaded to choose. It is that issue of persuasion and of incentives that really troubles me.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Again, I am talking about the companies that are running the service. I am not questioning the ethics of the doctors involved. I am merely suggesting that the people who are commissioning the doctors to carry out the service will have their own priorities that are not directly related to the safety or welfare of patients.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not associate myself with his use of the word “corrupt”; I am absolutely not implying that in any way, and I want to be very clear about that. However, there is a grave risk—even for the most ethical person, if they are offered money to carry out an action that they are inclined to carry out anyway as part of their professional practice—that those incentives drive behaviour that leads to worse outcomes for patients, specifically in relation to assisted dying.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am reflecting on the earlier intervention on me by the hon. Member for Stroud about how the only payment under assisted dying would be made at the very end, so therefore there would no possibility of a doctor making an assessment at an earlier stage in the process being influenced. Now the hon. Member for Sunderland Central is saying—this is obviously implied by the drafting—that the different bits of the approval process would need to be delivered separately. Whether that involved a payment from the NHS or a private provider, the doctor making those assessments will clearly be paid at different stages in the process. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this points to the fundamental problem we have in this Committee, which is that we do not have a proposed model that we can properly scrutinise? All of us are just talking about potential suppositions about how things might work. We are effectively talking about a range of straw men.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will conclude my remarks by observing that the only reason that we are looking at contracting out assisted dying services to a private provider is that the country is simply not ready for assisted dying. We know how overstretched and under-resourced our NHS is, and we are looking at cutting corners in the Bill, in our policymaking, in our scrutiny of this legislation, and in how this legislation and the service is delivered.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  He paid a hefty fine, I think. The efforts of Henry VIII’s descendants to try to enclose the park and maintain the powers for the exclusive benefit of the royal family were defeated by a popular and somewhat genteel uprising of the residents of Richmond. I stand here today as the Member for Richmond Park to do a similar job: to assert the rights of the House of Commons and the Houses of Parliament to determine what legislation is, and not to allow it to be delegated under Henry VIII powers. The normal approach is that legislation made by Ministers is delegated legislation, and such legislation is therefore of subsidiary character to primary legislation. However, there is a type of power, known as a Henry VIII power, that gives Ministers the power to amend even primary legislation. The glossary on Parliament’s website says: “The expression is a reference to King Henry VIII’s supposed preference for legislating directly by proclamation rather than through Parliament.” We may in the course of time start to refer to them as President Trump powers—who knows?—but that is the precedent we act on. The Hansard Society, a non-partisan organisation that is neutral on assisted dying, issued a report that was critical of the power in the Bill. It said this: “little can be deduced about how it is thought this power will be used in practice, beyond the fact that it may, in particular, be used to enable the provision of assisted deaths through the National Health Service. But as the DPRRC”— the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee— “has previously stated, where a power provides that delegated legislation may ‘in particular’ include a specified matter, it implies the legislation may deal with matters beyond that specified matter. The explanatory notes shed little more light, except to clarify that the power could be used to make arrangements for the funding of any provision made by the regulations. Could the regulations thus be used to enable the provision of assistance through the private sector on behalf of the health service in England and in Wales? If the intention is that the regulations will be used only to establish an assisted dying service, either within or separately to the NHS, would they require that the service be free at the point of access to the person requesting assistance? A key principle that the House of Lords Constitution Committee has applied to delegated powers is that they ‘should not be framed in such a way that gives little indication of how they should be used.’ The DPRRC’s Guidance to Departments states that the Delegated Powers Memorandum should set out how it is proposed that a power should be exercised. In the current absence of the DPM, MPs may therefore wish to seek clarification from the sponsor of the Bill, Kim Leadbeater, about how she envisages the power being used, and similarly from Ministers how they expect to use this power if it were granted to them.” The drafter of the Bill, Dame Elizabeth Gardiner, appeared on the Hansard Society podcast and gave some further detail on this power and how it arose: “In other areas, like, is it going to be delivered through the National Health Service or in some other way, indeed the regulation of any substances that might be involved, in the time available, we didn’t have time to go into all the detail of how those regimes work and to make the provision on the face of the Bill, and so there are regulation making powers there, which enable that provision to be set out in detail, as you say, when the Government has looked at it and decided how it would implement it.” Given the time available and the constraints of the private Member’s Bill process, the hon. Member for Spen Valley can be forgiven for not including the detail of how assisted dying will be provided on the NHS in the Bill on its introduction, but she and the Government have now had months to think about it. Many people had hoped that clause 32 would be replaced with detailed arrangements for the delivery of the service, to be put on the face of the Bill by way of an amendment, which the Committee could properly scrutinise. On 5 March, the hon. Member for Spen Valley repeatedly said that it would be made clear by clause 32. When the hon. Member for East Wiltshire called for clarity in the Bill as to how the service would be delivered, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said: “It will be.” The Minister said: “Officials are working on amendments to later clauses to establish the operating model for her consideration.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 802.] This does not appear to have happened, which means Parliament will be limited to a 90-minute debate on this issue when the regulations are eventually made, and such a motion will be unamendable. Surely the issue of how the service is to be delivered is much more important than that and deserves greater scrutiny. It is disappointing to see new clauses 36 and 37 as the replacement clauses. Ideally, instead of the new clauses we would have had a detailed set of amendments to specify exactly how assisted dying is to be delivered. We do not have that; instead, we have a Henry VIII power that provides even more power than the one in clause 32, because the new one includes a power to modify Acts of Parliament passed subsequent to this legislation. New clause 36 provides very little guidance on how the Henry VIII power would be exercised. Will assisted dying be provided by the state? If so, would that be on the NHS or through another body? Subsection (1) one does not specify that it must be on the NHS. Subsection (4) gives the power, but not the duty, to change section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006—a foundational piece of Labour legislation if there ever was one, as the hon. Member for Banbury said—but subsection (5) requires it to be free at the point of use. The question of whether assisted dying should be provided as part of normal NHS services, or in a parallel service, as requested by both the BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners, is not answered by new clause 36, although hopefully it can be fleshed out in the debate on the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. Alternatively, it would seem that the power can be used to commission private providers to deliver the service on behalf of the state. Instead of deciding between the various models, new clause 36 simply leaves it open. It therefore gives very little indication about how it should be used. When giving the Gray’s Inn reading at Gresham College last year, Lord Falconer said: “The wider the power—because there is less material in primary legislation to define how it should be exercised—the greater the reduction in parliamentary scrutiny, but also the harder”— it would be— “to identify any legal basis of challenge.” He went as far as to suggest that such wide Henry VIII powers were “unconstitutional”. Given his great support for the Bill, it would be interesting to hear the response of the hon. Member for Spen Valley and the Minister to Lord Falconer’s remarks.