Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. London boroughs are collectively facing a funding shortfall of at least £500 million for the current financial year. Despite that, the money allocated to local authorities in London by the Government’s spending review fell 35% short of the amount requested by London councils. Under the Government’s planned changes to local authority funding, the two councils in my constituency—Richmond and Kingston—are set to lose out even more, while the cost of funding local services continues to rise. Is it the Government’s policy that London residents should continue to receive ever-increasing council tax bills, while their local authorities have less and less money to spend?

• 24 Jun 2025 · National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats welcome the publication of the Government’s national security strategy, because we recognise that we are living in a world that is less stable and more insecure now than at any time since the end of the cold war. Putin’s forces continue to wage their war in Ukraine, the middle east is teetering on the precipice of a fully-fledged regional war, and the actions of the United States under an unreliable President Trump are putting an enormous strain on the post-war settlement from which we have benefited so much. The nature of the threats we face continues to evolve, as has become immensely clear to millions of people across the country with the recent cyber-attacks on Marks and Spencer and the Co-op, and in other countries we have seen attempts by authoritarian states to meddle in free and fair elections. That is why we welcome so much of what is contained in the strategy. It is also why the Liberal Democrats have welcomed the Government’s decision to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, although we have urged Ministers to go further. Given the new NATO target of 5% of GDP, will the Government now urgently convene cross-party talks to establish a consensus on how to get there? We need to show our adversaries we are serious about that commitment. The strategy also has a welcome focus on resilience, something especially important given not just the scale of the threat we face but its varied nature. Will the Minister look at steps taken by our allies such as Estonia to inform their populations about how to deal with those threats, should they arise? To reflect the threat posed to our democracy by hostile actors, will he make protecting our democracy a national security priority? I also note the importance that the review places on sovereign independent capabilities. Is that an admission from the Government that, under President Trump, the United States is no longer a reliable ally? Will the assessment be carried over into defence procurement, where we look to maintain an inextricably close bond with the United States?

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Modern Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats have long been champions of the industrial strategy. We are proud that the strategy we introduced in government set out the Green Investment Bank, the British Business Bank and the regional growth fund, and we strongly opposed the Conservative Government’s damaging decision to scrap our country’s industrial plan. We therefore welcome the re-establishment of the industrial strategy and the fact that it focuses on many of the sectors we prioritised in government, including life sciences, professional services and clean energy. On energy, measures to bring down some of the highest industrial prices in the world will be welcome news for our manufacturers and energy-intensive firms, but we cannot forget that businesses across our entire economy struggle with high energy prices, not least our hospitality businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that small businesses across sectors have access to better energy deals? Will he look to bring forward the industrial competitiveness scheme from its current two-year horizon? On skills, while today’s announcement comes with a welcome funding boost, it stops well short of the fundamental reform that we need, so will the Secretary of State accelerate the reform of apprenticeships and empower Skills England to act as a properly independent body with employers at its heart? One key omission from the strategy is our world-leading agrifood industry, which has been relegated from being a priority sector to receiving only a handful of mentions in the entire document. I hope that the Secretary of State will admit that our farmers and rural communities deserve far better. On trade, if the Government are truly serious about backing British business and going for growth, will they show more ambition on trade with Europe and look to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union, which could put rocket boosters under UK plc? In the extra time that you have kindly granted me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State about access to finance and about addressing inequalities in particular. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on ethnic minority business owners, I have seen for myself the data on how much more difficult it is for those businesses to access finance, and similar data exists for women entrepreneurs. Addressing those inequalities would add a great deal to growth. Finally, when will we see more details about the National Wealth Fund?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The way that some of the infrastructure and transport investment moneys have been distributed in the recent spending review has raised some eyebrows. Investing in rural bus services would certainly boost our struggling town centres and high streets, which would lead to economic growth. The increase in the fare cap to £3 is a bus tax that will hit working people, rural communities and people on low incomes the most. Although the Government have made their red lines on taxation clear, a 50% increase to the bus cap is just taxation by other means. The Government have been left to make difficult choices, but they cannot allow the burden of fixing the Conservatives’ mess to fall on working people and small businesses. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives before seems to understand that for rural communities, having a reliable bus service is critical to enable daily tasks and commutes to be completed. I was also reflecting on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk about the impact of a lack of suitable transport infrastructure on training and the workforce. Last week, the Liberal Democrats welcomed many of the Government’s public infrastructure and public transport investment announcements. However, we are concerned by the lack of provision allocated to rural bus services. Many communities without combined authority mayors—from Cumbria to Cornwall, and Norfolk to Newton Abbot—seem to have been left without new support for their transport networks. The Liberal Democrats continue to call on the Government to make sure that these areas see the investment that they so desperately need. As the Government start implementing the new public infrastructure announcements, they must put the construction sector on a sustainable footing by introducing, in tandem, an industrial strategy to actually implement the projects. The general secretary of the Prospect trade union warned that the UK lacks the skilled workers required for new defence and nuclear infrastructure projects. Similarly, Make UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have highlighted a shortage of skilled works as a critical stumbling block for growth. Workforce shortages often disproportionately affect rural areas, with limited local training opportunities and housing affordability issues exacerbating the problem, making it harder for businesses to expand. As we await the much-anticipated industrial strategy, I ask the Minister to ensure that it will include a strategic framework to effectively address the needs of businesses in rural areas, by collaborating with local, regional and devolved authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to establish how the strategy will support and facilitate industrial regeneration and innovation across all UK nations and regions. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I look forward to scrutinising the details of the proposals as they are brought forward. Businesses and rural areas of the UK face a distinct set of challenges compared with their urban counterparts. Although Government support exists through various grants, loans and initiatives, several issues, including infrastructure challenges, the phasing out of EU funding and higher costs related to transport, energy and supply chains, can disadvantage rural businesses more severely. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk for securing this debate, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the steps the Government are taking to ensure that businesses in rural areas receive the additional support they so desperately need.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  London Members were hoping to hear more about infrastructure investment in the capital today. We are looking for spending on the Bakerloo line extension, and spending to deal with the Croydon bottleneck. I even dared to dream that Hammersmith bridge might one day be fixed, but all we have heard from the Chancellor is her reiterated support for the expansion of Heathrow airport. As she will know, Heathrow expansion is opposed by every political party in the capital, and by the Mayor of London. It is not welcome. The negligible economic benefits of expanding Heathrow do not compensate for the massive environmental and noise impact that expansion will have on many people in the capital, particularly my constituents. May I ask the Chancellor to look again at her support for Heathrow, and consider the greater merits of many other infrastructure projects across London?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a pleasure to be part of the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for bringing it forward. It would normally be customary, with so many contributors, to say that there has been a wide range of views, but I do not actually think there has been. There has been a wide degree of unanimity on the fact that banking services in this country are in crisis. The lack of access to banking for many of our constituents right across the country is leading to social exclusion, limiting entrepreneurship and having a devastating impact on many of our local economies. I have heard from many hon. and right hon. Members that services cannot just be replaced by online banking, particularly for those who have poor digital connections in their constituencies. The difficulty of accessing banking is a massive problem for those who are reliant on public transport, those who are disabled and those who are elderly or have additional needs. It is good to hear how banking hubs are making up some of the gap that so many communities are experiencing, but clearly there is a lack of banking hubs, and they do not do everything needed to close the gap in accessing cash or loan facilities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that. The Liberal Democrats are strong champions of their local communities. We want to see the reversal of the damage caused to our local economies by the lack of access to banking. One of the things I call on the Minister to look at is reversing cuts to the interchange fee paid to ATM providers, which would go a long way to increasing ATM provision in many of our communities. The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington gave a stark example of what happens when cash runs out in certain town centres. More needs to be done on digital inclusion because, clearly, digital banking will be part of our future banking provision, and for those who struggle to access it, more can be done to assist them. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to consider a fair banking Act to look at this problem in the round, to think about banking exclusion not just for individuals, families and small communities, but for the wider business sector, and to look at what more can be done to connect our communities and businesses. I will close by adding my praise to Nationwide for its commitment to maintaining banking services on the high street. I was privileged to join my local Nationwide branch in central Richmond just before recess. The branch celebrates 110 years of being on Richmond high street. While I was there, I chatted to the local staff, who generously gave me some of the birthday cake. Many members of the local community were coming in to do their banking face to face. It was clear not only that it was good for my constituents to be able to use that face-to-face service, but that the staff got great satisfaction from helping customers and being that point of contact in the community. Other banks should be making available that sense of satisfaction to more of their staff, and I would like to see more banks making that commitment to community banking.

• 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.

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

  More

  I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels that. The complicating factor here is that the criminal law is not devolved to Wales, but health is, as is safeguarding. One possibility is to seek to respect devolution strictly, by either changing the law or giving the power to the Secretary of State to change the law in respect of what is reserved, while giving to the Welsh Ministers the powers in respect of what is devolved. The problem is that the Bill does not quite do that, even with the amendments that have been tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Those amendments fail to properly identify what is and what is not devolved; instead, they kick the can down the road. Future litigation might be required to figure out the precise boundaries. For example, regulation of health professionals is a reserved matter, but adult safeguarding is a devolved matter, so is the training of those health professionals on spotting coercive control a reserved or a devolved matter? The Bill does not answer that question. The solution therefore carries a real risk. If Wales decides that it does not want assisted dying and therefore does not provide it on its NHS, and the Welsh Ministers decide not to set up proper training and regulatory programmes in respect of the safeguarding issues raised, the position in Wales will be that it is decriminalised, so the service can be provided by private providers charging a fee and not necessarily properly trained in safeguarding. That is not a sustainable middle ground, so it would naturally pressure Wales to move towards commissioning such services itself. In other words, the Bill either respects devolution at the risk of creating a legal limbo, or it puts pressure on Wales to catch up with England, neither of which are desirable. Another alternative is to take away any choice that Wales might have on the matter entirely, and have the law apply in Wales in exactly the same way it does in England, including when it comes to the actual delivery of services. That would avoid the legal limbo problem, but at the cost of acting in a way that is constitutionally quite wrong. That brings us to the solution that Professor Lewis proposed in his blog: “How then might the Bill be amended to respect the Senedd’s vote on the matter of principle? One straightforward way would be to provide for different commencement provisions in the Bill. As things stand, under clause 42 of the Bill, most of the Bill will not come into force until the Secretary of State has brought it into force, with the approval of the UK Parliament. Why not provide that the Bill will only come into force in Wales when and if the Welsh Ministers bring it into force with the approval of the Senedd?” That is what I seek to do through my amendment. I can foresee three objections. First, it might be said that the criminal law is a reserved matter and therefore Parliament ought not to refrain from legislating for Wales or have different commencement arrangements for the criminal law in England compared with Wales, but Parliament is sovereign and can do what it wants. By the same reasoning, Parliament should never grant a temporary power to a devolved legislature to legislate on matters that are normally reserved, yet Parliament does do that. The second objection might be that England and Wales are a single jurisdiction, and that there should not be a difference in the criminal law between them, but this misunderstands that, as a result of the devolution settlement, there are already differences in the criminal law of England and Wales. For example, in our law there is a defence of reasonable chastisement, which means that parents smacking their children would not be committing a criminal offence. Although the criminal law is not devolved to Wales, child welfare is and, using those powers on child welfare, the Senedd voted to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement in Wales. That means that there is a difference in the criminal law of England and Wales. A position whereby assisting suicide was partially decriminalised in England but fully criminalised in Wales would not be an oddity. There is no principle of our constitution that says that the criminal law must be the same on both sides of the border. The key issue is that the decriminalisation of assisted suicide, which the Bill will bring about, is not a stand-alone measure. What we are introducing is not something like the Swiss criminal code, for example, which does not criminalise assisted suicide when the person acted for non-selfish motives. Rather, it is a decriminalisation of assisted suicide that is contingent with complying with a detailed healthcare regulatory scheme, which is an issue that is devolved to Wales. Finally, it might be objected that this might create difficult cross-border issues. As Professor Lewis put it in his blog, “that would be true also if, for instance, the Scottish Bill did not become law. Far more difficult cross-border issues were successfully accommodated in the context of legislation, also involving profound ethical considerations, when the National Assembly for Wales (as the Senedd was then called) changed the law on organ donations.” I accept that such a situation might require constitutional amendments at subsequent stages, but these could easily be made by the Government on Report. Ultimately, when one looks at it in detail, having a different commencement provision for Wales is the only practical way of respecting the vote of the Senedd while not running the risk of creating a legal limbo. Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to the supplementary written evidence of Professor Lewis, in which he commends my amendment 535. Regardless of where we stand on assisted dying, we should respect democracy. The people of Wales, through their elected representatives—acting as they should, as representatives—have voted against assisted dying. We should respect that choice and not impose it on them, in whole or in part, without their consent.

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

  More

  I want to make a couple of further points in response to some of the those raised by Members. First, I have looked at amendment 500, which the hon. Member for Spen Valley directed me to, and I thank the hon. Member for Reigate for showing it to me—her record keeping is much better than mine. I was going to say that amendment 500 does not cover a lot of the areas that I have raised, but the hon. Member for Spen Valley has just referred me to amendment 455. However, it is important to say that amendment 455 refers only to “protected characteristics” under the Equality Act 2010. I specified particular characteristics in amendment 273 in response to some of the evidence that we received. In particular, I included the person’s age in response to evidence that we received from Together for Short Lives, which represents children’s hospices including Shooting Star in Richmond. It had specific concerns about the issue of assisted death being raised with young people under 18, and that is why I specified that. I also included gender and ethnicity, which I mentioned earlier, and that came through very strongly in a lot of the oral evidence that we received. To address the point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, I did not hear sexuality being raised as a risk factor at any point. Obviously, members of the LGBTQ+ community experience a great deal of discrimination, but I have not heard it raised as a specific risk factor for assisted dying, which is why it is not on the list. I have included the person’s postcode because I do not know a better way of assessing whether someone is from a low-income background. I particularly draw the attention of hon. Member for Spen Valley to that characteristic, because it is obviously not protected under the Equality Act, so I remain really concerned.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will speak to my amendments 458 to 460, which would tighten the process around seeking a determination from a second independent doctor if the first has refused to say that the criteria are met. The amendments relate to clause 10, which I will say more about when we come to it, but they have been selected for debate in this group. The risks of abuse in seeking a second independent doctor’s opinion are well illustrated by the evidence we have received from Dr Sharon Quick, the president of the Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation, who tells us about the experience of Dr Charles Bentz, who refused to provide a second opinion for a physician-assisted suicide for a patient he had referred to an oncologist for cancer treatment. The co-ordinating doctor persisted and clearly found a compliant second opinion, as two weeks later his patient was dead. Dr Charles Bentz said in his testimony: “I was caring for a 76 year-old man who came in with a sore on his arm. The sore was ultimately diagnosed as a malignant melanoma, and I referred him to two cancer specialists for evaluation and therapy. I had known this patient and his wife for over a decade. He was an avid hiker, a popular hobby here in Oregon. As he went through his therapy, he became less able to do this activity, becoming depressed, which was documented in his chart. During this time, my patient expressed a wish for doctor-assisted suicide to one of the cancer specialists. Rather than taking the time and effort to address the question of depression, or ask me to talk with him as his primary care physician and as someone who knew him, the medical oncologist called me and asked me to be the ‘second opinion’ for his suicide. She told me that barbiturate overdoses ‘work very well’ for patients like this, and that she had done this many times before. I told her that assisted-suicide was not appropriate for this patient and that I did not concur. I was very concerned about my patient’s mental state, and I told her that addressing his underlying issues would be better than simply giving him a lethal prescription. Unfortunately, my concerns were ignored, and approximately two weeks later my patient was dead from an overdose prescribed by this doctor. His death certificate, filled out by this doctor, listed the cause of death as melanoma. When I reviewed his chart, the radiation oncologist documented a clear diagnosis of depression. My patient did not die from his cancer, but at the hands of a once-trusted colleague who failed to recognize and treat his depression. This experience has affected me, my practice, and my understanding of what it means to be a physician. What happened to this patient, who was weak and vulnerable, raises several questions that I have had to answer.” I appreciate that, under the Bill, Dr Bentz could not have been the independent doctor as he already knew the patient and was treating him, but in that case that contributed to enhanced safety. Dr Bentz’s example illustrates the real risks of abuse in a person being able to seek the opinion of a second independent doctor. The starting point is that the task of the independent doctor is not that of a normal doctor. It is not to cure the patient or to provide advice about medical treatments: it is to check whether the eligibility requirements are met. It is a decision-making function, not a medical one—albeit, of course, a decision-making function that is informed by medical expertise. In the light of that function, it is not appropriate for someone to seek another decision simply because they do not like the answer that has been given. The independent doctor is asked to apply an objective set of criteria against the evidence in front of them in order to make an assessment. It is not the case—or it should not be—that a different doctor would come to a different assessment based on the same criteria and the same evidence. If we are doing our job properly in the Committee, we should not expect that a second opinion could be arrived at. I have no objection to provision being made for a person to see a second independent doctor if the first did not manage to finish the task. Nor do I object in respect of cases in which there is a change of circumstances—for example, if the patient’s condition deteriorates to such a degree that although the first independent doctor thought the six-month prognosis test was not met, it becomes clear that it is met—which is the point of my amendment 458. In such circumstances, it would make sense to allow the patient to go to a second independent doctor. Although my preference in such a situation would be to go back to the original independent doctor and ask them to reconsider in the light of the change of circumstances, that may not always be possible. Amendment 458 is an attempt to find a middle ground. Amendment 459 seeks to reduce the possibility of abuse by ensuring that the second independent doctor has available the reasons why the first independent doctor concluded that the person was not eligible. That would allow the second independent doctor to approach the assessment with open eyes. Such a report would be particularly useful when it comes to the detection of coercion or pressure, as the first independent doctor might have spotted something that the second independent doctor might not easily see. Let us consider the evidence of Dr Tim Howard, who has been deeply involved in end-of-life palliative care and assisted dying for many years. He has been a non-exec director of a health authority, a member of an ethics committee, a postgraduate teacher and, finally, chair of the General Medical Council fitness to practise tribunals, dealing with complex medico-legal principles and decisions in public. He also helped to set up the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, which separated medical standard setting and investigation from adjudication. Dr Howard says: “I remain uncomfortable that when either doctor, the assessing doctor or the independent doctor, declines to agree with a request for” assisted dying, “they take no further action. I feel that the reasons for their refusal should, as well as being given to the patient, be recorded in the patient’s notes, and given to any ‘second opinion’ independent doctor. This is not an attempt to bias; it is a value judgement that criteria are not being met, and as such, is sharing an early warning to be extra careful.” The Committee should note that he has, in his own words, “been a strong proponent of medical assistance in dying…and a member of Dignity in Dying for many years.”

• 6 Mar 2025 · Cyber-security: Local Government Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  The US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has this week announced the stepping back of US counter-cyber measures against Russia. This incredibly concerning decision by the Americans threatens not only their cyber-security, but our own. The Russian Government have been accused of orchestrating a widespread campaign of interference and disinformation that seeks to undermine the global order. In 2020, the UK Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee stated that the Government had underestimated the response required to the Russian threat. Can the Minister tell us what further measures the Government are taking to protect British democracy, and will he commit to publishing the full, unredacted Russia report?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Hong Kong Democracy Activists · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to represent a substantial community of Hongkongers in Richmond Park. I notice from Hansard that I was last here two months ago to ask the Government about renewed reports of repression against Hongkongers in this country, yet here we are again and nothing has been done to reassure my constituents about their continued safety and security in this country. I was interested in the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who talked about reviewing transnational repression. I urge him to give us some more detail about when we in this House, and my constituents in Richmond Park, can expect to hear more about what the Government plan to do about this.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s increased funding for the Metropolitan police, but this commitment does not go anywhere near far enough to deliver what is required for safe policing on the streets of London. The Labour party was elected into office on the mandate to restore community policing, which was gutted by the last Conservative Government. The shadow Policing Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), may profess his own interest in police funding, but a more eloquent story is told by the empty Benches behind him when it comes to their commitment on this issue, which was demonstrated throughout their Administration. We need to see real action and a real commitment to neighbourhood policing in order to address the ongoing issues of crime and antisocial behaviour that we are seeing across London, and to give the police the tools that they need to restore trust and confidence in our police service. I am concerned that this grant is not enough to protect current services provided by the Metropolitan police from further cuts, let alone enough to restore policing numbers and infrastructure to their previous levels. The force is experiencing real challenges in the recruitment and retention of police officers, which is affecting its ability to fill vacancies. I receive regular correspondence from my constituents, who have passed on their experiences of being victims of burglaries and other criminal activities. The recurring theme in this correspondence is the difficulty that victims experience in ensuring that their cases are investigated in detail and at length by the Met. That is a direct consequence of cuts to our forces because our neighbourhood teams are severely stretched, meaning that the time they can spend on each case is limited. My constituency of Richmond Park used to be home to three police stations, but after years of cuts they have all been closed. Richmond police station acted as a hub for our community, and provided reassurance to residents that they could quickly report a crime or a development in a case to an officer in person. The lack of these police stations in my constituency is causing that connection between the public and the police to be lost, due to the reduced visibility of police officers on our streets.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I speak to my local police officers—the officers patrolling the streets of my constituency—I find very often that they actually live quite some distance from the communities they serve. That is obviously a direct result of the cost of living in London, but it creates a real problem for Londoners in that they are not served by Londoners in the police force. My hon. Friend is also exactly right about morale—that really has to be urgently addressed. This story is common across London. More than 100 police stations have been closed by the Met, while there has been a 64% reduction in community policing since 2015. However, the Met is now in a position where it cannot sell off any more of its estate to balance its budget, and it is clear that it requires a significant influx of funding. The Metropolitan police is responsible for policing regular and well-attended protests in central London, which require a greater intensity of resource to police. In Richmond Park, we regularly see our local officers abstracted away from their neighbourhood responsibilities to provide additional support at these events, which has resulted in a lack of cover on our streets, which adds to people’s anxieties about the lack of policing. Recently, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has warned about the deeply concerning shortfall faced by the Met. In December, referencing a £450 million funding shortfall, the commissioner warned that if substantial funding is not provided, the Met would be forced to cut 2,300 officers and 400 members of staff in the next financial year. The funding proposed by the Government today is, therefore, a drop in the ocean compared with what is required to prevent cuts to our London officers, and this provision of funding is certainly not in keeping with the Government’s promise to restore neighbourhood policing numbers to our communities. While I cannot match the speeches on rural crime from my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Dr Chambers) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), my constituency does have a significant police force, the Parks police, which specifically patrols the Royal Parks. The Parks police plays a crucial role in keeping crime and antisocial behaviour in the Royal Parks across London to a minimum, while its expertise in its domain enables the force to quickly address emergency situations. In response to a survey I recently conducted, nearly 1,000 of my constituents voiced their strong opposition to any proposed cuts to the Parks police, as well as providing first-hand accounts of times the Parks police helped to provide a quick resolution to what could otherwise have developed into a crisis situation. With all that in mind, will the Minister provide us with assurances that the new grant funding for our police forces will mean that cuts to such important and valued police departments are not on the table? I urge the Minister to go further, and to really consider the specific demands of the Metropolitan police and the valuable work it does right across our city in keeping our community safe.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Your Back Benchers could have spoken in this debate. There are many urgent and pressing challenges facing the UK today, but it is essential that the vast majority of its citizens actively support the mechanisms by which decisions are made to address them. Increasing levels of disengagement threaten our ability to respond both to immediate challenges and to long-term issues. The Liberal Democrats believe, and have always believed, that a fair voting system is the essential bedrock of a functioning democracy. Democracy has proved to be the most effective and enduring of governing systems because it relies on a broad base of support across the population. A faulty voting system that delivers a majority Government on a minority vote undermines democracy and its ability to deliver effective government. In the face of growing worldwide threats to democratic Governments and institutions, the UK urgently needs to reassert the value of participative democracy as an essential component of peaceful and prosperous societies. I am glad to know that support for electoral reform comes not only from Liberal Democrat Members but from across the House. I am pleased that Labour Members, in particular, agree that we need proportional representation, after their conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of PR two years ago. More importantly, recent polling shows that a majority of the British public is now in favour of scrapping first past the post and moving to proportional representation. I welcome the establishment and the work of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which launched last year with the support of more than 100 MPs. Its report, “Free But Not Fair”, highlights many of the structural issues that have led to the decline of public trust in politics and engagement with elections. I thank everybody for their contributions. The hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) is not in her place, but she made some important interventions. This issue may come under her remit as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, so I hope she will consider giving it more attention. I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), for Hazel Grove, for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for their excellent contributions. I was particularly struck when my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham talked about how, in the past, we discriminated by wealth, gender and religion in selecting who could vote, whereas we now discriminate by geography. That is one of the key things we would overcome by replacing our voting system. The Liberal Democrats share the pain of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). In 2017, we won 12 seats with 7.5% of the vote; in 2019, we won 11 seats with 12% of the vote; and in 2024, we won 72 seats with 12.2% of the vote. Just because, by some miracle of first past the post, we now have a proportion of seats that represents our proportion of votes, it does not dilute in any way our support for a more proportional voting system. I am glad we have the support of the hon. Gentleman and his Reform UK colleagues. We must take urgent action to protect democratic processes and institutions in the UK from threats both here and abroad. We need to listen to the warning bell sounded by the general election that the citizens we seek to serve, and who must abide by the laws we pass, are becoming disenchanted with the political process. If we want to continue to be a beacon of democracy across the world, we must ensure that it serves its purpose both in giving a voice to the people and in delivering prosperity and stability. We cannot do the latter if we fail at the former. First past the post is a broken and unfair system. Last summer, the Labour party won a landslide election victory, securing 63% of seats in the House of Commons in return for just 34% of the vote. This system leaves millions of voices unheard and creates a divisive, adversarial political climate, where collaboration is discouraged and accountability is often sidestepped. The Liberal Democrats have long championed proportional representation, advocating for a voting system where every vote truly counts. We must modernise our electoral system, creating a fairer process to engage voters, listen to the needs of constituents and rebuild trust in politics. Winning a vote in Parliament for my Bill creates a historic precedent: for the first time, MPs have backed a proportional voting system in the Division Lobby. It would be an outrage were this Bill not given the opportunity to progress further through the House and to become law, so I urge the Minister to schedule an opportunity for the Bill to be read a Second time, in Government time, and to offer Labour MPs a free vote on the Bill.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Youth Mobility Scheme: EU · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a youth mobility scheme between the EU and the UK. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The Government have committed to resetting our relationship with the EU, and the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are actively engaging to build trust and rebuild relations with our European neighbours through meetings with the European Commission and the Foreign Affairs Council. The Liberal Democrats want to forge a new partnership with our European neighbours, one built on co-operation, not confrontation, and moving towards a new comprehensive agreement. A crucial step in that process is rebuilding confidence by agreeing partnerships and associations to help to restore prosperity and opportunities for British people. In the light of the new Trump Administration in Washington, the Government are rightly looking to build a closer defence and security agreement with Europe. European officials, however, are insisting that those agreements come in tandem with other partnerships, including a youth mobility scheme. What is the Minister’s response to an article published this morning in the Financial Times stating that the EU has made it clear that a youth mobility scheme is “vital” to any broader reset with the UK, including security and defence? Providing opportunities to young people should be at the heart of Government policy. The Liberal Democrats believe that establishing a youth mobility scheme would offer not only huge benefits to young people, but a broader range of benefits, including strengthening cultural, social and economic links between the EU and the UK.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  I am fortunate enough to have a large community of Hongkongers in my constituency, who are extremely welcome, but they often speak to me about the limitations imposed on them by the conditions of the BNO visa under which they have arrived in this country. They cannot gain full access to healthcare, education or employment opportunities. Does the Minister agree that addressing some of the concerns felt by Hongkongers in Britain will send the Chinese Government a strong message about how much we value our Hong Kong citizens, and how hard this Government work to support their freedoms and their right to live in this country?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats do not support imposing VAT on private school fees. We do not support treating independent schools differently from other independent education providers for VAT purposes, and that is why I wish to speak in favour of new clause 9, tabled by my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I thank her for tabling the amendment, which would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the VAT provisions in the Bill on pupils with special educational needs but who do not have an education, health and care plan. Of the 615,000 children in private schools in this country, almost 100,000 are being educated privately because they have special educational needs but do not have an EHCP. The Lib Dems are glad that the legislation exempts from VAT on school fees those privately educated pupils who have an EHCP that requires the local authority to fund a private school place. That is a welcome step, but it does not protect those who do not have an EHCP from a steep rise in fees. The parents of many of those children will find that they cannot afford the increase, throwing the future of their children’s education into doubt. Moreover, there will be an increase in demand for local authorities to issue EHCPs stating that the local authority must fund a private school place. Local authority resources for special educational needs and disabilities are already stretched to breaking point, and additional demand will be impossible to manage.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Trade Barriers with the EU · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats are glad that the Government have committed to resetting our relationship with the EU, and that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are actively engaging to rebuild trust and our relationships with our European neighbours through meetings with the European Commission and the Foreign Affairs Council. Establishing a UK-EU youth mobility scheme would mirror existing capped arrangements that the UK already has with 13 countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Delivering such a scheme would provide a return on investment in the form of soft power that was never seemingly factored into the approach of the previous Conservative Government. Will the Minister confirm that he will have discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of a youth mobility scheme between the United Kingdom and the European Union?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Elections (Proportional Representation) · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill would introduce a system of proportional representation for parliamentary elections and local government elections in England. Liberal Democrats have been calling for the introduction of a single transferable vote system whereby candidates on a ballot paper are ranked according to the voter’s preference. That system would protect the critical local link between MPs and their constituencies, which is valuable in connecting individual voters with the Parliament that makes decisions on their behalf. Constituency MPs understand the specific issues that voters in their seat are experiencing and can connect them to the broader issues facing the country. A system of STV would preserve that aspect of our current system, but would also ensure that MPs enjoyed the broad support of the majority of their electors. In the most recent general election, the number of MPs elected to this Chamber with more than 50% of the votes cast in their constituency was just 96—a decrease from 421 in the 2019 election and 476 in the general election before that. Ten of our colleagues in this Parliament were elected with fewer than 30% of the vote of their constituents who turned out. Far fewer MPs today can say they have the support of the majority of their constituents, or even a broad base of support, than ever before. Proportional electoral systems have been used successfully for elections in the UK’s devolved Parliaments and Assemblies since the turn of the century. One of the advantages of adopting STV for all local elections in England, as well as general elections, is that it is already in use in two of the four nations that make up the UK. Now Welsh councils also have the power to adopt STV if they wish, it may soon be three out of the four nations. Proportional representation through an STV system is not alien to the UK; millions of people across the country are already familiar with voting in that way. The use of proportional systems that retain a close constituency link across the UK makes Westminster’s use of first past the post the outlier rather than the norm. Changing the voting system for UK parliamentary elections is not the only thing that needs to be done to restore democratic engagement in this country. The shambles of the last Conservative Government created a crisis for democracy. Thanks to their cronyism, rule breaking, and sleaze scandals, public trust in Government is worryingly low. Successive Conservative Prime Ministers acted without integrity and treated Parliament and the people with disdain. In the previous Parliament, the Conservatives weakened the independence of the Electoral Commission and introduced disproportionate voting systems for mayoral elections in England and the undemocratic voter identification scheme. The Liberal Democrats believe that public confidence in democracy is vital for effective and functioning Governments and that, consequently, we must take all possible steps to rebuild public trust in politics. We will continue to call on the Government to scrap the voter ID scheme and will hold them to account for their conduct in office. But the most effective change we can make to clear up the mess the Conservatives left is to change the voting system and ensure that the voices of voters across the British Isles can properly be heard. I am glad to know that support for electoral reform comes from not only the Liberal Democrat Benches but across the House. I am pleased that Labour Members in particular agree that we need proportional representation after voting overwhelmingly in favour of PR at their conference two years ago. More importantly, recent polling shows that a majority of the British public are in favour of scrapping first past the post and moving to proportional representation. The all-party parliamentary group for fair elections was launched last week with the support of over 100 MPs. Its report “Free But Not Fair” highlights many of the structural issues that have led to the decline of public trust in politics and engagement with elections. We must take urgent action to protect democratic processes and institutions in the UK from threats here and abroad. We need to listen to the warning bells sounded by the general election that the citizens we seek to serve, and who must abide by the laws we pass, are becoming disenchanted with the political process. If we want to continue to be a beacon of democracy across the world, we must ensure that it serves its purpose in giving a voice to the people and delivering prosperity and stability. We cannot do the latter if we fail to do the former. First past the post is a broken and unfair system. This summer, the Labour party won a landslide election victory, securing 63% of seats in the House of Commons in return for just 34% of the vote. The system leaves millions of voices unheard and creates a divisive, adversarial political climate where collaboration is discouraged and accountability is often sidestepped. The Liberal Democrats have long championed proportional representation, advocating for a voting system where every vote truly counts. We must modernise our electoral system, create a fairer process to engage voters, listen to the needs of our constituents and rebuild trust in politics.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Elections (Proportional Representation) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a system of proportional representation for parliamentary elections and for local government elections in England; and for connected purposes. We are experiencing an unprecedented political moment in this country. Our most recent general election, in July this year, returned a Government with the second biggest majority of seats of any Government since the second world war, but on the lowest share of the vote ever recorded for a winning party. The first-past-the-post voting system used in UK parliamentary elections has delivered two thirds of the seats in the House of Commons to the Labour party, which attracted just one third of the votes cast. Thanks to first past the post, nearly 60% of people who voted in the general election in July are not represented in Parliament by the candidate that they voted for. This is the most disproportionate election result that this country has ever seen. We are also seeing record levels of disillusionment with the political process, with citizens becoming increasingly disengaged. This is reflected in the fact that turnout in the 2024 general election was the second lowest since 1918, at just under 60%. Over 40% of registered voters in the UK thought so little of the political process that they did not think it worth expressing a preference for one candidate over another. There are many urgent and pressing challenges facing the UK today, but it is essential that the vast majority of its citizens actively support the mechanisms by which the decisions are made to address them. Increasing levels of disengagement threaten our ability to respond both to immediate challenges and to longer-term issues. The Liberal Democrats believe—and have always believed—that a fair voting system is an essential bedrock of a functioning democracy. Democracy has proved to be the most effective and enduring governing system because it relies on a broad base of support across the population. A faulty voting system delivering a majority Government on a minority vote undermines democracy and its ability to deliver effective government. That is why I am presenting this ten-minute rule Bill. In the face of growing worldwide threats to democratic Governments and institutions, the UK needs to urgently reassert the value of participative democracy as an essential component in peaceful and prosperous societies. To do that, we need to respond to the democratic challenges that have emerged in our own country by adopting the provisions in the Bill.

• 14 Nov 2024 · Aircraft Noise: Local Communities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to finally begin the Adjournment debate. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this important and timely debate. As the MP for a very vocal airport community, I welcome the Minister to his role and reassure him that he will be hearing from me a great deal over the coming Parliament. This topic is close to my constituents’ hearts. Every morning, at 4.30 am, they hear jet engines above their heads; every year, a Heathrow airport executive threatens to bring back the third runway; and every decade, a new proposal to change the flight paths is put forward. My constituents are not alone. In the UK, more than 23% of the British population live between two and 10 miles from an airport. Although they accept that aircraft noise is a fact of life, they should not be asked to tolerate constant attempts to increase the number of flights above their homes. In the opening months of this new Parliament, Labour has a chance to step away from the damaging policies of the past and build a new relationship with airport communities—a relationship in which the needs of local people and our environment are genuinely balanced against the demands of the aviation industry. To begin rebalancing the relationship, I urge the Department for Transport to consider three requests: first, to acknowledge the health impacts of night flights on airport communities and work to ban them above heavily populated areas; secondly, to accept that the expansion of Heathrow airport would fly in the face of Britain’s climate targets and have an unacceptable impact on my constituents in Richmond Park and elsewhere across London and the south-east; and thirdly, to recognise that any proposals to change flight paths above London and the south-east should be accompanied by a proposal for a “do minimum” approach, ensuring that people do not have to accept change merely for the sake of change. I turn first to night flights, which are the most intrusive form of aircraft noise. There is clear evidence that they harm the physical health of residents who live under flight paths. Long-term exposure to nocturnal aircraft noise is strongly linked to sleep disorders and broader health impacts.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Representation of the People · Hansard source

  More

  Everyone should have the right to vote. It is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy. Encouraging voter participation and democratic engagement should be at the centre of every Government policy, but political engagement is at a historic low. Voter participation in our recent general election was the lowest since 2001, with fewer than 60% of eligible voters casting their ballot. It is vital that the Government do all they can to encourage public engagement with politics. We must act to restore public trust and to ensure that we remove obstacles that prevent people from exercising their full democratic rights. The Liberal Democrats are therefore glad to see the Government introduce measures that support veterans. While we are pleased that the regulations will make voting more accessible for veterans, we are concerned that the support does not extend to other affected groups, and we call on the Government to repeal the voter ID scheme entirely, to ensure that all eligible people can exercise their democratic right as easily as possible. On Monday, we marked Remembrance Day. Every year, it serves as a solemn reminder of the bravery and sacrifice of so many who put their lives on the line in the defence of our liberty and democracy. We must ensure that all our veterans are properly supported and that their work is truly recognised. Liberal Democrats support a wide range of measures to support veterans, from ensuring that veterans impacted by the cost of living crisis are getting the support they need to doing more for unpaid carers in the armed forces community. It is shameful that the previous Conservative Government originally failed to include veterans’ ID in their list of acceptable identification when they first introduced this legislation. The regulations will make it easier for veterans to vote through the expansion of accepted forms of ID at polling stations. While the Liberal Democrats are supportive of measures to support veterans in accessing appropriate identification, we urge the Government to remove the requirement for ID altogether. Veterans are being let down. It is a scandal that those who put their lives on the line in the defence of our country too frequently fall through gaps in support. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a fair deal for our veterans and military personnel. That includes placing a legal duty on Departments to give due regard to the armed forces covenant, establishing a centralised information hub for the families of service personnel, reaching an agreement with the European Union for reciprocal access to spousal employment for families of serving personnel and cancelling the Conservative Government’s ill-advised cuts to the Army. In 2022, the last Conservative Government introduced a new law requiring voters to show photo ID to vote in general elections, local elections and referendums in England. Being able to vote is a fundamental democratic right, yet thanks to the Conservatives, it is now at risk. Millions of voters are affected by this unnecessary and undemocratic requirement. The Liberal Democrats are opposed to the voter ID scheme, and we have called continually for the scheme to be scrapped.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It goes very much to the heart of the remarks that I shall make about ensuring that the compensation scheme established through this legislation is indeed adequate, not just in its resources but in its powers to fully address the magnitude of the justice and compensation that is owed to the families who have suffered. Although we are grateful that the Government have brought this legislation before Parliament at such an early stage, we want to ensure that these proposals go far enough, and ensure that all those affected get the justice they deserve. The Liberal Democrats will work with the Government to ensure that the provision for fair and proper compensation is implemented as quickly and effectively as possible. More than 3,000 deaths are attributable to infected blood and blood products, over 30,000 people were infected with hepatitis C or HIV after receiving infected blood transfusions, and many thousands more have been affected by the suffering that has been caused. This scandal is a chilling 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 whose integrity and diligence should have precluded such an atrocity from ever taking place. Over the decades when this was happening, children were subject to unsafe and deeply unethical clinical testing. Senior doctors in British hospitals administered experimental treatments while knowing the significant risk of contaminated products, and staff in haemophilia centres across the country used blood products even though it was widely known that these products were likely to be infected, as was so vividly highlighted by the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). The scope of the negligence goes far beyond the medical administration; the infected blood inquiry report reveals a culture of covering up. We must ensure that there is transparency in governance, especially given the disregard with which the last Conservative Government treated the public’s trust. The Liberal Democrats support the survivors’ call for a duty of candour on all public officials, as well as the introduction of increased legal protections for whistleblowers. We must do all we can to ensure that we have an honest political culture in which concerns are listened to and questions answered, so that nothing of this nature can ever happen again. We are glad that the report has made public the extent to which people were failed, and that there is support across the House for acknowledgement of the injustices that have been suffered, which this legislation begins to rectify. However, while we are grateful for the Government’s action in response to Sir Brian’s inquiry, particularly the Minister’s extension of the scheme beyond the initial commitments from the previous Government, we are concerned that the legislation does not go far enough. Financial compensation cannot make up for the years of injustice and the unimaginable distress that so many thousands of people have gone through. The compensation scheme is an important step in acknowledging their suffering, but I urge the Minister to see it as the first step in the process of compensating victims. We want to see legislation that compensates the children who, without consent, were tested on with contaminated blood but did not go on to develop a disease. We want to see recognition of the family members who saw loved ones suffer, and in some instances pass away, but who will receive no compensation because they were over the age of 18 at the time of infection. We want to see a clear and explicit explanation of the payment bandings that have been set out, and we want to see engagement with the affected community at all stages. It is vital that the scheme acknowledges the trauma experienced beyond the physical suffering caused by the infected blood. Not only were so many lives cut short or destroyed by the hideous physical illnesses that contaminated blood caused, but unimaginable psychological distress has been caused by experimentation on unconsenting and often unaware patients. We urge the Government to ensure that this scheme encompasses all those who suffered owing to the infected blood scandal, and that any further legislation is developed with the close engagement of those who best understand that suffering. Our principal concerns lie with the transparency of the calculation of compensation payments. It is crucial that the scheme does not establish a hierarchy of suffering, and I ask the Minister to outline the process by which these tariffs were decided. The compensation for people treated with infected blood products who “self-cleared” hepatitis C is very low, and does not account for the health impacts that they have experienced or the psychological damage that they have experienced. There is also a significant discrepancy between those infected with hepatitis C and those infected with HIV. Although we welcome the initiation of compensation payments, we believe that there must be greater transparency over how they have been calculated. We urge the Minister to engage with the affected communities, and to ensure that there is clear communication explaining how these decisions have been reached. The complications caused by the decades of defensive cover-up have not only exacerbated the trauma experienced by victims, but affected the estates of those who have died. In the intervening decades, some estates have become contentious and the question of the rightful recipients of compensation has therefore become unclear. In some cases, the compensation could be entailed away from those on whom a person’s infection or death has had the greatest impact. It is vital for the IBCA to have the necessary resources and powers to support victims through the process, to ensure that appropriate compensation is received by all those affected. The burden of the administrative concerns and queries from affected families is currently falling on overstretched charities. Has the Minister considered the creation of a dedicated unit to deal with inquiries, working alongside the IBCA? We must support the work of these vital organisations—the charities providing support—and engage with them to understand exactly the needs of those affected. The motion sets out the possibility of future legislation, and we hope that the Government will follow up this legislation with vital community engagement. We urge them to ensure, as the scheme progresses, that there are mechanisms in place to enable the concerns of charities, organisations and affected individuals to be heard. We are also cautious about the structural limitations of the IBCA. Given the many years over which the scandal took place, the six-year timeframe of the authority as a legal entity does not seem appropriate. The equivalent scheme set up by the Irish Government in the 1990s is still active, and it is crucial that the IBCA exists for long enough to ensure that the full compensation scheme and associated processes can be carried out effectively. The Liberal Democrats are glad to see the introduction of this legislation. We welcome the Government’s swift creation of a compensation body, the IBCA, to implement the report’s recommendations and begin payments to the victims of this scandal. It is essential that people begin to receive the compensation that is so long overdue, and it is vital that that is done in the most compassionate and effective way. While we hope that the Government will go further in ensuring that the affected community are fully engaged and consulted in this process, the infected blood compensation scheme will allow victims, both infected and affected, to move, at last, towards justice. Let me finally take this opportunity to thank Emily, Eleni, Pipsy, Claudia, Harry and Orlando, who are A-level students in my constituency and have been gaining work experience in my office this week. It has been a pleasure to host them, and they have worked very hard in helping me to put my speech together.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to be very clear: the Liberal Democrats support the idea of a second Chamber. Under the current system, it is an appointed and elected Chamber; we are here today to support the principle of an elected second Chamber, and we are supporting the first step in that direction. We support the principle of an upper Chamber, and are very glad that there is Liberal Democrat representation within it, but that does not mean that we do not support the idea of changing the way in which people are introduced to the upper House. That is the principle that we are here to support. Honestly, I am finding it difficult to work out what the Conservative argument is here. Do they want to abolish the House of Lords, do they want it to be elected, or do they want to keep everything exactly as it is? We support the Bill because it is a welcome first step towards a broader range of reforms that we have supported since 1911—which, as I have said, pre-dates many of the hereditary peerages that Conservative Members seem so keen to maintain. Not only is the concept of inherited privilege one of fundamental, antiquated inequality, it exacerbates the distinct gender imbalance of the second Chamber, with not a single woman among the current hereditary peers. Removing the right of those peers to sit in the other place would make that gender imbalance slightly less severe, moving from 70% of peers being men to 67%. Parliament should be a body that represents and reflects the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up our country. This legislation, which would remove the last remaining hereditary peers’ membership of the other place, is a significant step towards a more representative Parliament. If successful, the Bill would have a significant impact on the size of the House. In 2017, we supported the findings of the Burns report, which recommended measures to manage the exponentially increasing membership of our second Chamber. By removing the right of hereditary peers to sit in the other place, we would see a significant reduction in the size of the House, moving it back towards a more sensible size. Liberal Democrats are supporters of that change and the move towards a smaller upper Chamber. While we are grateful to the Government for the introduction of this Bill and intend to support its progress through the House, we also recognise and acknowledge the commitment, wisdom and contributions brought by some hereditary Members of the upper Chamber. We thank them for their work, yet hope they can agree that we can no longer ignore the entrenched inequality that the continuation of hereditary membership of their House brings. The Liberal Democrats have a long-standing commitment to reforming our second Chamber with a proper democratic mandate. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, both in this Chamber and the other place, are working together to push for broader reform as soon as possible. We are glad that the Government’s manifesto committed to other reforms, including changes to the appointment process, addressing the national and regional composition of the second Chamber, the introduction of a mandatory retirement age and a participation requirement, and we ask the Minister to set out a timeline for those reforms. The Liberal Democrats have consistently spoken out against the current system of prime ministerial appointments, which engrains patronage, reinforces the elitism of British politics and contributes to so many people losing faith in our system. We would like the Government to reassure us that they will not be following in the footsteps of the former Conservative Government, who ignored the findings of the 2017 Burns report and presided over a House of Lords that has ballooned in size. There have been suggestions that the Government’s plans for reform of the other place include a requirement for any nomination for a peerage to be accompanied by an explanation of the candidate’s suitability. Will the Minister commit to that requirement, bringing the appointment of peers more in line with the process for other honours—such as knighthoods—with political parties providing an overview of the relevant skills, knowledge and experience of the candidate?