Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. Young people face so many barriers to accessing both education and employment, and that is very much a legacy of the last Conservative Government and their mismanagement. Young people are increasingly concerned about the fact that the links between education and employment have become weaker and weaker.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She speaks very passionately about businesses in Scotland and the situation they are facing. I am sure she is correct to say that it is even more challenging in Scotland. I am concerned that the Government’s sole focus on pubs and live music venues ignores the other retail, hospitality and leisure sectors which also need support. I therefore urge the Government to adopt Liberal Democrat proposals to cut the rate of VAT on hospitality, accommodation and attractions to 15% until April 2027, which would give our businesses the boost they so desperately need. Our high streets and town centres are in need of urgent help, and I urge the Government to act with all swiftness. With the hospitality sector struggling to employ new workers, damage is being done to the prospects of our young people who are struggling with unemployment levels, and that will be detrimental to the broader economy. At the heart of this debate is that regular people are finding it incredibly difficult to find a job to support themselves, their partners, their children and their families, and to pay rent, pay for groceries and pay for essentials. That is what must not get lost in this debate. While the Government seem to be weighing up their options on the EU re-set, they should be reminded that negotiating a new UK-EU customs union is the single biggest step that the UK could take to boost our economy, our businesses and our young people’s job prospects. The appalling agreement negotiated by the Conservative party has been a complete disaster for our country, particularly for small businesses who are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade. So many young people I talk to are simply frustrated that they are the first generation who have to start their career while reaping the consequences of the Conservatives’ botched deal. It seems evident from the Liberal Democrat Benches that the Government know that the UK must rectify the dismal trade deal negotiated by the Conservatives, and I am yet to hear a compelling reason from the Government as to why Ministers keep refusing to negotiate a new customs agreement with Europe. The steps the Government are taking to rebuild our relationship with the EU are welcomed by the Liberal Democrats, but I urge the Government to be bolder. This House voted in favour of joining a bespoke UK-EU customs union just last month. I urge the Government to seize that momentum, reach out to our European allies and negotiate a deal that would be mutually beneficial, creating countless new jobs for our young people here in the UK. The Government cannot ignore the difficulties facing our young people anymore. Our young people need to be provided with a pathway for success and fewer barriers to getting on to the career ladder, but I am afraid the Government are failing to facilitate that. I urge Ministers to listen and adopt a joined-up strategy to tackle youth unemployment, invest in young people’s skills, boost apprenticeships and work-based training, and support businesses to create quality jobs.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are groups of young people who are facing specific barriers to entering employment, and we need to do all we can to provide them with sustained support to get into and stay in the workplace. Much of the UK’s current workforce challenges are due to the mistakes made by the current Government, with perhaps no bigger own goal than the surprise increase in employer national insurance contributions in the Chancellor’s first Budget. Almost every business that I, and I am sure many other Members, speak to tells me that the NICs rise blindsided it and has since seriously damaged its cash flow and ability to hire and retain staff. That policy alone has been so damaging to the business sector and has created an environment in which companies are discouraged from hiring young people. Recent Government decisions include the devastating business rates hike in the Chancellor’s most recent Budget. This is causing huge damage to hospitality firms, with many now considering whether their business remains viable. Our hospitality businesses, which so frequently provide young people with their first jobs, are now on their knees. They need support from the Government. The Government’s statement yesterday on cutting business rates for pubs was a good first step, but we need wholesale reform of our business rates system. That is one more reason why the business community felt so betrayed by the previous Conservative Government, who promised reform but did nothing to help our struggling businesses.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman always makes constructive interventions. He is absolutely right that we need to look at what works. We need to focus on this issue not just for the health and benefit of our young people but for the economy as a whole. Although we should continue to invest in technological breakthroughs, I am concerned that the Government do not have a strategy for our young people who could be pushed out of the job market by automation. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that. There is also a lack of alternatives for young people who wish to upskill, as the apprenticeship pathway is so limited. Businesses tell me that the apprenticeship levy does not work, despite the Government’s attempts at reform. The Liberal Democrats have long called for reform to replace it with a wider skills and training levy, which would give businesses real flexibility about how they spend the money to train their staff and, consequently, provide young people with a better avenue to enter the workforce. The decision taken to defund level 7 apprenticeships for over-22s risks limiting those opportunities. In 2024-25, 51% of all apprenticeship starts were for those aged 25 and over. That is a critical skills pipeline in areas that are key to economic growth, and while the economy is changing so rapidly, we need to provide opportunities for older workers to retrain so that they can continue to find meaningful work later in life. The Liberal Democrats would fix the skills and recruitment crisis by investing in education and training, including the availability of apprenticeships and career advice for young people. The current system needs to be reformed. That would include boosting the take-off of apprenticeships by guaranteeing that they are paid at least the national minimum wage from the first year, creating new lifelong skills grants for adults to spend on education and training throughout their lives, and expanding vocational training. Although the Liberal Democrats welcomed discussions in the Budget regarding a wider youth guarantee and a growth and skills levy package, I have yet to understand the timeline for implementation. With youth unemployment rising, I encourage the Government to take quick and active steps to deliver that package.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q9. A month ago today, protests erupted across Iran. In response, the Iranian Government launched a deadly crackdown. They fired indiscriminately on protesters, and they shut off internet access to hide what they were doing from the outside world. In April 2024, the then shadow Home Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary, asked the Conservative Government if they would finally proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. Just two weeks ago, she described the Iranian regime as a “consistent threat” to the UK’s“stability, security and freedom and to the UK national interest.” —[ Official Report , 13 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 789.] The world order that we thought we knew is being shaken up. The US is no longer able to show moral leadership to Governments who kill their own citizens. Can this Government step up and take the lead, and will they now proscribe the IRGC?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency has a diverse and varied hospitality sector that supports lots of different communities, including those who do not go to pubs, such as parents of young children, people who do not drink, faith groups and—dare I say—people who do not want to watch the football. They have different needs. They want to go to cafés and to soft play centres. Why are the Government focusing this relief just on pubs? Can they not come up with a package that provides better business rates relief for those businesses that will still be struggling with the rates hike?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running · Hansard source

  More

  Richmond Park in my constituency is a very popular spot for runners and cyclists, but as my hon. Friend points out, it is so much darker during the winter months. Our dedicated police force, the Royal Parks constabulary, has recently been completely scrapped, leaving the park unpatrolled and even less safe. This means women are choosing not to run in the park at all, which reduces their options for safe running and cycling routes in the winter months. Does she agree that investing in neighbourhood policing, including the policing we used to have in the royal parks, is critical to women feeling safer?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In his speech this week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out his plan for the future of the civil service, in which he envisioned further sackings in a digital transformation. Last week, we saw the untested and potentially dangerous nature of artificial intelligence when the chief constable of West Midlands police admitted that his force had used AI to come to its verdict that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans should be banned from attending their European game away to Aston Villa. As Government Departments are already using AI to make critical and life-changing decisions, can the Minister clarify whether he plans to replace diligent civil servants with artificial intelligence?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Domestic Abuse-related Deaths: NHS Prevention · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this important debate. He is a real champion for the NHS, and it is a benefit to all of us that he brings his former experience as a GP to bear in this debate. The NHS has more contact with people experiencing domestic abuse than any other service and, therefore, it is vitally important that staff feel adequately equipped to comfort and reassure victims who take that brave step of reaching out for support, often for the first time. In turn, it is essential that victims can feel confident that when they confide in the NHS, the staff that they speak to have the knowledge to properly support them. While NHS staff do receive the statutory general safeguarding training, it can be easy, as the hon. Member for Stroud has detailed, to miss the signs of abuse and the cries for help, especially when staff are tired from working extensive and difficult hours. As a country, we have so much to thank our NHS for—whether it be for the sacrifices that staff made during the pandemic, or for working additional hours to take care of our loved ones—so my speech is intended to ensure that staff have the tools they need at their disposal to help the most vulnerable, rather than critique their best intentions. Victims are often hesitant to ask for support; they feel trapped by their abuser and fear the repercussions. The extent to which domestic abuse and sexual assault is known to the authorities is somewhat unknown. It is estimated that only 16% of people report their experiences to the police. One reason is mistrust of the authorities, which emphasises the importance of ensuring that those who treat victims’ injuries are prepared to provide them with the help and support they need. Of the 16% of people who do report an assault, only 2.6% of alleged offenders are charged or receive a summons. Even in cases where the offence takes place in public, the percentage of reported sexual assault offences that receive a charge is disproportionately low; fewer than 5% of reports on public transport resulted in a charge in 2025. While death is tragically the end result of too many domestic abuse cases, there will have been a point in almost every single case where a step could have been taken to better support the victim. A report commissioned by Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse underscored that fact; of the 47 reviews of deaths related to domestic abuse published in 2024, 89% contained reports of an instance in which our health service had the opportunity to step in and do more to help. While domestic abuse training is mandatory in the social care system, the same training is not always made available to other NHS frontline services. That is clearly something that could be rectified, so I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how the Government might ensure that domestic abuse training is stepped up. Will they release the funds to ensure that every NHS frontline member of staff has access to mandatory domestic abuse training?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to take this opportunity to say my personal thanks to the Minister and everybody involved in bringing the legislation to this stage. I pay tribute once again to my constituent Juliana Terlizzi, who came to see me when she was charged £7,000 for the transcript of the trial that saw her rapist sent to prison. The amendment in lieu is a huge step forward for victims of all kinds, and I am really pleased to see it in the legislation. I want to put on record my huge thanks to everyone for that.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have already imposed additional employment costs on our small businesses and those on our high streets. They are still struggling with sky-high energy costs that the Government have yet to alleviate, and now we have these massive increases in business rates. Is there anything at all that the Minister can say that will give hope to the small and medium businesses on our high streets that are wondering whether they can continue, or to our entrepreneurs who are wondering if they can get started?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  And certainly not in London, I can confirm. The hon. Member is absolutely right about the regulations that exist for the sale of fireworks, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she thinks more could be done to enforce the existing regulations, as the hon. Member suggests, or whether we need to look at a wholesale change of regulations on sale to address some of the issues that Members have raised. As I mentioned, I represent a constituency that is much blighted by aircraft noise. We know as well as anybody the impact that regular, ongoing noise, particularly late at night and early in the morning, can have on residents’ health and ability to sleep, particularly young children. Almost every Member here has called for the limit on the decibel level to be reduced it from 120 dB to 90 dB. Whatever fireworks are sold, whatever use they are intended for and whichever celebration they are intended to mark, reducing the decibel limit would strike the right balance between our human need for celebration and our need for sleep and peace of mind.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. You were not here at the beginning, so you will not have seen that this was the most crowded Westminster Hall debate I have ever attended. It is a bit of a blast from the past to see Labour Members sitting on this side of the Chamber; we have not seen that for a while. I have to say that it is the first time I have been pleased to have a reserved seat; otherwise, I would not have been able to participate in the debate at all. In that spirit, I particularly congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who made a really good opening speech. I am pleased to respond to the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats; there can be no doubt about the strength of feeling on this issue out there in the country given the number of people who signed these particular petitions. In my constituency of Richmond Park, there were 217 signatories, but that is a relatively small number compared with some of the other numbers that we have heard about today. The very fact that there were so many MPs in Westminster Hall for this debate shows the extent to which Parliament wants to see movement on this issue. I am really grateful to all the Members who contributed to the debate for sharing the stories of their constituents. However, I was particularly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who talked about her own experiences as a veteran. That really brought home to me the impact that fireworks can have on those suffering from PTSD. Many other hon. Members talked about the impact of fireworks on people suffering from conditions such as autism and ADHD and on shift workers. I can say from my own experience back when I was a parent of young children how terrifying it was for them and how difficult it was for them to sleep when the fireworks displays went on late into the night. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), who gave a really detailed description of the impact on livestock and farm animals, from which I learned a great deal. That is not a common experience in my personal inbox, but we do speak a lot in Richmond Park about the impact on pets. It was interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) about his experience as a vet and that no vets want to be on duty on 5 November because they know that it will be a very traumatic night. In a similar vein, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) talked about the impact on Paignton zoo in his constituency. I can only imagine how incredibly difficult it must be to manage the animals in the zoo on nights when there are lots of fireworks around. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) talked about the actual physical dangers of fireworks and gave a very graphic description of how dumped fireworks are an enormous fire hazard. It was—“enlightening” is maybe not a great word to use—interesting to hear everybody’s reflections on the different aspects of this debate. Fireworks are a sign of celebration. In this country, we typically associate them with Guy Fawkes night, but in my constituency and, I am sure, many other London constituencies, they are increasingly let off during Diwali. I tend to hear more on new year’s eve now than I do on 5 November. The occasions when people let off fireworks are increasing in frequency. Like many Members who have contributed to this debate, the Liberal Democrats certainly do not want to limit people’s enjoyment of fireworks—they remain a spectacular sight and perhaps one of the best expressions of celebration that we have—but there is no doubt that fireworks can have an incredibly harmful impact.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentioned drones, which I know can provide really spectacular sound and light shows, but I would be slightly nervous about endorsing the use of drones instead of fireworks. Richmond Park has some of the most contested airspace of anywhere in the country. We are very used to the impact of noise from aircraft in my constituency. I certainly do not want to add drones to the congestion in the skies over our heads. I will come to this shortly, but my hon. Friend is exactly right about needing to strike a balance between the enjoyment that fireworks can give and their impact on not just people, but animals. Fireworks are explosives and can be dangerous, so there are strict rules in place regulating their sale, possession and use. They include essential safety provisions, conformity to the relevant tests and correct application of kitemarks. The 2015 regulations categorise fireworks according to their net explosive content, discharge, safety distances and noise level. Category F1 fireworks present a low hazard and are intended for use in confined areas, although they must not be sold to anyone under the age of 16. Categories F2 and F3 are low to medium hazard and intended for outdoor use. Category F4 is high hazard and can be supplied only to persons with specialist knowledge. There already exists a range of regulations, although the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley made the important point that it is hard to enforce those regulations until after the firework has exploded, by which time it will obviously be too late.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Children’s Care Home Providers: Financial Oversight · Hansard source

  More

  15. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential impact of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on levels of financial oversight for children’s care home providers.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Children’s Care Home Providers: Financial Oversight · Hansard source

  More

  Last Friday, the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, published its report into the financial sustainability of children’s homes. The report highlights that there is very little financial and governance oversight of private companies, which run 84% of children’s homes in the UK. Given that the 15 largest private children’s homes providers make average profits of 22% on an average charge per child per year of £318,000, what more can the Government do to ensure that children’s homes have appropriate financial and governance oversight?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing this debate and for her excellent opening speech, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the time to debate this important topic. Small businesses and self-employed people played a vital role in sustaining communities throughout the challenges of the covid-19 pandemic, often at significant personal and financial cost. The pandemic placed unprecedented pressure on people, affecting the livelihoods of millions from all walks of life. There were additional concerns for self-employed people and small business owners, who faced even greater uncertainty because of the lack of support from the then Tory Government. The Liberal Democrats have stood by those people from the get-go. We were the first party to call for support for self-employed people during the pandemic, and we helped to secure the support scheme for them. The covid pandemic had a devastating impact on people across the country, and tens of thousands of people lost their life. We must never forget the tragedies of that pandemic, as people lost mothers, fathers, grandparents, siblings, friends, husbands or wives. People were left isolated, unable to see others for weeks on end. They were unable to visit sick relatives, attend the wedding of a loved one, or hug their family at funerals. It is possibly a measure of how much time has passed and how much has changed since then that only a minority of those in the Chamber were Members of Parliament during the pandemic; I think I am the only Liberal Democrat in the Chamber who was here then. Like many MPs during the pandemic, I received heartbreaking correspondence from my constituents. Their struggles will stay with me, and I will remember their suffering for as long as I continue to represent my constituency. I reflect with gratitude on the bravery of the doctors, nurses and carers who did everything they could; they often worked incredible hours to save lives and support those around them, and often put themselves at risk. I think of the thousands of people who selflessly helped their communities, be it as vaccinators, by picking up prescriptions, or by shopping for elderly and vulnerable neighbours. We must not forget those who suffered, and those who made sacrifices to ensure that the suffering was limited as much as possible. The strong sense of public service and neighbourliness shown by people across the country was not reflected by the Government of the day. The covid inquiry has confirmed that systematic and political failings worsened people’s suffering. A lack of scrutiny and accountability led to wrong decisions, often with catastrophic results—from the lack of preparedness for a pandemic to the failure to protect those in care homes, the cruelty and inflexibility of the isolation that people endured in the most desperate circumstances, including on their deathbed, and most shockingly of all, partygate. We must ensure that there can never again be such suffering or such a lack of preparedness. It is particularly important that the Government continue to recognise the contribution made by small businesses and the self-employed during the covid pandemic. The Government should ensure that they have learned the lessons of that period, and keep under review its long-term impacts. Ensuring that people and businesses can leave behind the series of economic challenges that began with the pandemic—including the energy crisis, the rising cost of living and the growing tax burden—and remain resilient is essential to our long-term economic and social wellbeing. The Government need to do more to recognise the value of the self-employed, contractors and small businesses to our economy. There is so much more that they could do to support them, and to show the value of what they contribute—the flexible working, the specialist expertise and so on. There is a range of ways that contractors, the self-employed and small businesses can support the broader economy. We need to do much more to recognise that value. The Liberal Democrats are calling for greater transparency and support for the self-employed in, for example, Making Tax Digital. That was originally intended to simplify the tax system, but it has created new burdens, costs and confusion. We must make sure that the self-employed are properly informed and supported through that reform. The Liberal Democrats strongly supported the expansion of workers’ rights during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, and we pushed for some of those benefits to be extended—

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wanted to reflect the value of the self-employed to our economy, and to reflect on how, as we learn the lessons from covid, that group of workers can be supported more broadly. That is a pressing issue for now, but I accept that we are debating what happened six years ago. The extremely challenging period that small businesses and self-employed people went through just a few years ago makes it even more important that the Government address the major challenges that they are experiencing here and now. For many, those challenges include repaying the loans that they took out to maintain their business. Today, as they face increased cost challenges, that continues to be a huge burden. I sincerely hope that the Government will listen to the impassioned speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and think about how they can do more to support self-employed people, contractors and small businesses, who contribute so much to our economy.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech; I am grateful that she has secured this debate. Airports are imposing drop-off charges primarily to increase profits, despite their stated claims of environmental benefits. On the point about transparency, when I inquired of Heathrow how many cars are using its drop-off point each year, it declined to answer. It said that the data was classified as “commercially sensitive”. If it truly believes that raising drop-off charges has a positive impact on customers’ transport decisions and provides environmental benefits, why is it reluctant to share that data?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to speak to amendments 42 to 47. The Bill fails to recognise the specific way in which family businesses are different from businesses whose shares can be traded. The tax changes announced at the 2024 Budget treat family businesses as though they are a liquid asset or as if their underlying value is expressed in tradeable shares, but family businesses are neither. Shares in a family business have only a nominal value, and it is this nominal value that is transferred upon death. No cash arises from the transaction—unlike with the sale of shares on an open market. That means that money to pay any tax charges arising on the transfer must be made out of the business’s current assets or by disposing of its fixed assets. The value of a family business is often in its fixed assets—typically land, buildings, plant and machinery, as well as patents, copyright and goodwill. The purpose of business property relief was to enable those assets to pass intact from one generation to the next in order for the business to be transferred as a going concern and to maintain steady revenues that guarantee employment and supply chains. Removing BPR from the inheritance tax regime will mean that assets will need to be sold to pay the inheritance tax. That will not only reduce the overall value of the company but limit its ability to generate future revenue. Asset sales will already be subject to capital gains tax before the net value can be released to the shareholder by way of a dividend to pay the individual IHT liability, and that dividend itself will be subject to tax, so the asset sale has to realise sufficient cash to pay three separate taxes. Members might argue that assets being disposed of by one company does not take them out of the economy, and indeed our tax system should ensure that assets are allocated to wherever they can be most efficiently exploited, but this change to BPR does not ensure the efficient reallocation of assets from one business to another. It forces the sale of productive assets that were being efficiently used, and there are no guarantees that the asset can be put to its most productive use under its new owner. Recent experience has shown that UK assets are increasingly being picked up by foreign investors, increasing the risk of job losses, restructuring and head office operations being moved abroad. Forced sales that need to be completed within IHT timescales are unlikely to make their full market value. In a specialised market in which there are few annual sales, one depressed sale value can influence the valuation of other assets in the same class, having a knock-on effect on all company balance sheets. Death comes to us all in the end, being the only certainty in life apart from taxes. The IHT regime recognises and allows for assets to be passed down the generations without being taxed as long as seven years has passed between the date of the gift and the death of the bequeather. For many family businesses, the change in BPR rules will just mean that they have to actively plan for an orderly transition of shares to enable them to take advantage of this provision. But for some families, it is already too late to plan effectively. The largest employer in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames is a family-owned business with the majority of shares owned by the founder, who is in his 90s. Even were the shares to be transferred now, there is little chance that seven years will elapse before his death, and therefore there is every risk that the firm will need to be broken up in order to pay the IHT liability, putting hundreds of jobs at risk. Of course, tragically there is always the risk of unexpected death. While not being its principal purpose, one of the advantages of BPR is that it relieves the families of the deceased from involving themselves with complicated business transactions while mourning their unexpected loss. I welcome, of course, the announcement of the raising of the BPR threshold from £1 million to 2.5 million, but that merely reduces the number of companies that will be liable for the tax rather than addressing the issue. There is currently no certainty on either the number of businesses that will be affected or on the amount of additional tax revenue that will be raised by the measure. The OBR has not delivered a costing based on the change to the policy announced in December. Given that the policy will trigger behaviour change, it is unclear to me that the benefits of this measure will outweigh the potential harm to employment in otherwise thriving businesses up and down the country. I am sympathetic to the Chancellor’s instincts in this matter—I too, think we should be prioritising the needs of entrepreneurs over the protection of inherited wealth—but the likely meagre returns to the Treasury as a result of this policy do not justify the likely impact on employment that will occur if otherwise thriving businesses are forced to be broken up.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. The period after Christmas can be a challenging time for many people, and consequently the month of January consistently sees higher rates of suicide than other times of the year, but suicide is preventable and lives can be saved. Education, raising awareness and targeting vulnerable groups are all effective suicide prevention strategies, and I was pleased to see them in the recent men’s health strategy, but I call on the Government to go a step further and launch a public health campaign to encourage discussions about suicidal thoughts and ideation. Will the Prime Minister agree to continue this conversation with me, and will he state his support for a public health campaign to tackle the worryingly high number of deaths from suicide in this country?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Therapeutic Play and Children’s Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Last year, two important reports were produced: “Mental health inpatient settings: overarching report of investigations directed by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care” and “Improving support for people with complex mental health difficulties”. They found that therapeutic input improves patient outcomes and results for adults with mental health difficulties. My constituency is home to the Cassel hospital, a tier 4 therapeutic community for adults with complex multiple-diagnosis presentations. Patients there tell me that the treatment is lifesaving and life-changing, but it is currently under a tier 4 review. Does the hon. Member agree that that review should consider the reports I mentioned? I would be grateful if the Minister could make reference to the tier 4 review in her summing up.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, “We owe it to future generations not just to have good environmental principles but to act on them. That is why I will be voting against the third runway at Heathrow”— not my words, but the words of the Secretary of State in 2018. Given that Heathrow is already the biggest single source of carbon emissions in the UK, and that expansion will add an extra 8 to 9 megatonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, can the Secretary of State confirm that it is still his intention to vote against a third runway at Heathrow?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Secretary of State a direct question about his former statements and how they conflict with current Government policy. Would you agree that the Secretary of State should have directly answered me?