Sarah Olney MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 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?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech on a topic that is very close to every Liberal Democrat heart. Thames Water is in £17 billion of debt, yet the company continues to progress with the Teddington direct river abstraction in my constituency, with a plant that would be operational for just six weeks a year at a cost of £1 billion. The project is strongly opposed locally on environmental, social and economic grounds. Does my hon. Friend agree that Thames Water should scrap the project and use that money to cut bills?