Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · Elections: First Past the Post · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the use of first-past-the-post in general and local elections. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to be in an environment with such great air conditioning. “I am committed to proportional representation…I think it would change the political culture. I don’t see how first past the post and the point-scoring inherent within it lifts Britain out of the doom loop it is in.” Those words could have been spoken by any Liberal Democrat Member, in this Chamber or beyond, but they were not: it is a direct quote from the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who is believed to be the Prime Minister-elect. The quote not only highlights the need for proportional representation but underscores the limitations of first past the post, which the new right hon. Member for Makerfield identifies as causing political instability. The Liberal Democrats and the Liberal party before us have called for fair votes for a century, and I am delighted that the advocacy for change has a new voice in Parliament in the newly elected right hon. Member for Makerfield. The view should not be controversial among his colleagues, either: more than two thirds of the Labour party membership have voted in favour of adopting a system of proportional representation for UK elections. I look forward immensely to prospective new leadership in the Labour party representing the views of its members and finally ensuring fair votes for all. Of course, support for change is not confined to the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, but shared across the House. In December 2024, my ten-minute rule Bill sought to introduce a system of proportional representation for parliamentary and local government elections. It passed in the main Chamber with cross-party support, including from 59 Labour MPs. It was a historic moment in the House, as it was the first time that the Commons had voted in favour of reforming our electoral system to bring in a fairer and more representative process. However, my Bill spent a year and a half awaiting its Second Reading before ultimately falling, because the Government failed to make time for it in the previous parliamentary Session. Concerns are often raised to me that a change of electoral system will benefit Reform UK and other right-wing parties. Ironically, of the four Reform MPs who voted on my Bill, one voted against change while Reform’s leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), abstained. In an era of multi-party politics, many parties are likely to benefit from a more proportional system. However, the Liberal Democrats are perhaps perfectly placed to neutrally make an argument in favour of the principles of proportional representation, as we received an almost exact proportion of votes to seats at the last general election. At last month’s local elections, the Liberal Democrats won every single seat on my local Richmond upon Thames council, but we won only 51.5% of the vote share. While the councillors will take every step possible to ensure that all residents are represented, the voting system produced results that disregarded 48.5% of voters in the borough. To repeat: the Liberal Democrats want electoral change on principle. To address the increasing lack of public trust in politics, it is essential that the electorate know that their voices matter equally, wherever they are in the country. First past the post has not been fit for purpose for decades, but it has perhaps never been more outdated than it is now. The growth of the multi-party system in our politics means that some constituency seats are being seriously contested by five, six or even seven different parties. A system that encourages competition from just two parties leads only to tactical voting: more than ever before, people are voting against a party that they do not want to win rather than for their first preference. With a fairer electoral system and more democratic institutions, politicians and parties will have to be more focused on the things that really matter to people. We will have better public services and a fairer society as a result, and people will feel more engaged with politics if they feel that their voices are being heard and represented. One of the leading arguments in favour of first past the post used to be that it produced stable Governments—I think that argument has fallen by the wayside. I could poke fun at former Conservative Governments, or even the current Labour Government, but it is important to highlight that the first-past-the-post system has proven to contribute to instability. This Government won 411 seats at the last general election with just 33.7% of the vote. The consequence of that has been clear: two thirds of people did not vote for a Labour Government, and, although the Government have made decisions that have not helped them, public opinion was against them from the start. It is obvious that our electoral system needs to change. The man we believe will be Prime Minister is in favour of proportional representation and the Labour party is in favour of proportional representation. The House voted in favour of my Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill, and the last decade of governance has done nothing to convince me or the general public that first past the post produces stable governance. Our politics is not fit for purpose, and reform can begin with changing how we elect Members of Parliament to ensure that UK residents’ views are fairly represented in this place. I understand that the Minister cannot commit to changing our electoral system, but I ask her whether that could be considered by a future Labour Government, or even the one set to continue under new leadership.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Abuse of Customer-facing Workers · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. We could be doing so much more, not just through the police but across society in different ways, to increase safety on our high streets. People need to know that they are backed up by the police, and that they have a strong and effective police presence to turn to when they have an issue. The vast majority of abuse that customer-facing staff receive on a day-to-day basis may not come under the authority of the police. That is especially relevant for female members of staff, who will experience crude comments, unsolicited flirting and, at times, explicit harassment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) raised. Having to work under such conditions can cause anxiety in staff members and make them feel extremely uncomfortable at work. A study by Unite found that 56% of women in the workplace have been subject to sexually offensive jokes, 43% have been inappropriately touched and 25% have experienced sexual harassment. In addition, a TUC survey found that 30% of women who experience harassment do not report it to their employer. This goes so much further than just abuse for customer-facing staff; it speaks to a culture across some workplaces in the UK, which we need a much more fundamental approach to root out and change.

• 14 May 2026 · Heathrow Airport: Third Runway · Hansard source

  More

  The debate surrounding a third runway at Heathrow has stretched over the past three decades. The Liberal Democrats have long stood by communities who oppose a third runway, arguing that the economic benefits are overstated and the environmental consequences are unavoidable. Although I have always opposed a third runway at Heathrow, the current proposal could not have come at a worse time. The cost of expansion has doubled over the past 10 years, and the addition of nearly 300,000 more flights, which expansion implies, will make our net zero targets almost unachievable. It is widely rumoured that even Heathrow Airport Ltd did not believe the timing of expansion to be practical. Despite that, on 29 January 2025, the Chancellor announced her support for a third runway to be built at Heathrow airport. This endorsement was the landmark announcement during her speech on growth; as such, it has a significant amount of political weight behind it. My plea to the Minister is that any decision taken on a third runway at Heathrow should be based on merit and unbiased data, not politics. The decision has an enormous impact on millions of lives, and it must be more than just a signal to investors to compensate for the Government’s economic mismanagement. The Chancellor believes that expansion at Heathrow will produce economic growth. Nearly 18 months later, however, the Government have yet to produce their economic analysis to support that assertion, and the figures raised in the Chancellor’s speech on growth were drawn directly from an internal business case prepared for Heathrow airport and have not been independently verified. The Department for Transport’s own updated appraisal report from 2017 shows that the net present value of a third runway ranges from just £3.3 billion to minus £2.2 billion. Now it has been admitted that even that figure is a generous estimate, as the DFT’s guidance suggests that international transfer passengers, who are estimated to make up 75% of a projected third runway’s capacity, do not contribute to the UK’s economy. When discounting those passengers, it is estimated that the net present value could be reduced by as much as a further £5.5 billion. In addition, the New Economics Foundation asserts that twice as many people fly out of the UK than fly in, thus exporting more money out of our economy. An assessment of the impacts of inbound and outbound tourism flows is currently missing from the economic analysis of aviation’s contribution to the economy. Will the Minister provide reassurance that that research will be conducted and published with the airports national policy statement? Heathrow Airport Ltd has cited that the cost of building a third runway will be an eyewatering £49 billion, before factoring in an estimated £100 billion in carbon abatement costs and at least £15 billion of investment on surface access upgrade improvements. Without that upgrade, there will be no way to deliver sufficient passengers to Heathrow to utilise the additional capacity and deliver the supposed economic benefits. The Government have said that funding for a third runway at Heathrow will be privately financed. With Heathrow already drowning in over £15 billion-worth of debt, I am not convinced. I would therefore like to ask again, will the Minister provide reassurances that none of the costs associated with building a third runway at Heathrow will be pushed on to the taxpayer?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Marriage Regulations · Hansard source

  More

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

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

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

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady, my colleague on the Public Accounts Committee, for her intervention. She is absolutely right. I 100% and wholeheartedly welcome any boost to apprenticeships and that announcement in the Budget. However, there has been and continues to be caution over whether there will be sufficient business growth for high-skilled jobs to be created, which is what will enable our young people to progress in their careers. Businesses from all sectors across the UK continue to struggle with high energy bills, which is compounded by the burden of the NICs rise and concerns about the effect of certain aspects of the Employment Rights Bill on their monthly employment costs. The cost of employment has risen significantly over the last year and there have been nearly 70,000 hospitality job losses just since last October. Our small businesses face huge challenges and many are already struggling to absorb rising costs. Unless more is done to support them, vital entry-level jobs, which make an essential contribution to the culture and character of our local communities, may be lost. As the motion looks to examine the challenges facing businesses, a perhaps unsurprising omission is the absence of any reference to the damage caused by the last Government’s failed Brexit deal. The appalling agreement negotiated by the Conservative party has been a complete disaster for our country and particularly for small businesses, which are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports. The dismal impact of the Conservatives’ terrible Brexit deal is becoming increasingly clear. A recent survey of 10,000 UK businesses found that 33% of currently trading enterprises experienced extra costs directly related to changes in export regulations due to the end of the EU transition period. Small businesses have been particularly badly affected, with 20,000 small firms stopping all exports to the EU. A recent study has found that goods exports have fallen by 6.4% since the trade deal came into force in 2021. While the Liberal Democrats welcome the steps, hesitant as they are, that this Government are taking to rebuild our relationship with the EU, I urge them to recognise that this should only be the start of the move towards a new bespoke UK-EU customs union, which this House voted for just yesterday. Independent analysis has shown that a closer trading relationship with the EU would boost GDP by 2.2% and would bring in roughly £25 billion of extra tax revenue every year, which would be crucial in fixing the public services that the Conservative party left broken.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Suicide: Reducing the Stigma · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point about how specific groups and particular sectors can be impacted. Just under an hour ago I was having a conversation with my friend Diana Chrouch, who is the adviser to the APPG for ethnic minority business owners, of which I have been a co-chair for many years. She pointed out that there is a high risk of suicide for people working in the construction sector. I think it would be valuable to identify particular risk areas, and design a strategy that could reach out to them, but I also fully support my hon. Friend’s call on the subject of the rural England prosperity fund. In the late 1980s, the UK launched a public health crisis to raise awareness of the AIDS epidemic. That was hugely successful: it not only raised awareness of safe sex practices, but served to reduce the stigma and falsehoods associated with the illness. At the peak of the AIDS epidemic in the UK in 1994, just over 1,500 people died from the illness. In the UK last year, more than 7,000 people died from suicide. That figure is growing, and the suicide rate for young women under 24 saw the steepest increase since records began. As the Secretary of State identified in his men’s health strategy, underlying addictions, such as gambling and drug addiction, often cause or exacerbate mental health conditions. Those addictions can cause isolation and financial difficulties and destroy relationships. As the Government strategy identifies, 12% of participants in the gambling survey for Great Britain reported that they had thought about, or attempted, taking their own life. Many betting stores are positioned on high streets of deprived areas in the UK. We must acknowledge the link between gambling addiction, poverty and suicide. The statutory levy imposed on gambling firms is a positive step, and I am pleased that the funds raised will be directly invested into gambling harm prevention, research and treatment, but what steps are the Government taking to engage those who treat, or provide support to, people with a gambling addiction to directly address the risk of suicide among their patients? What more can be done to integrate the identification of suicide risk into our approach to treating addictions of all sorts? What more can the gambling industry in particular do to mitigate the impact that its activities have on vulnerable people, particularly in the light of the enormous profits that it makes as a result? Exercise can be a positive outlet for many people who are struggling with mental health difficulties, enabling them to set targets, grow their confidence and involve themselves in sociable activities. However, there can be a reductive narrative about the relationship between exercise and mental health, and that can be dangerous. Some influential, outspoken figures have dismissed the real and serious issues that people are struggling with by instructing people that going to the gym is the simple answer. For most people, a workout in the gym will encourage body positivity and self-confidence, but for some, the constant need to achieve a perfect body can lead to obsessions and eating disorders. I support the Government’s recently announced work with the Premier League. Conversations about mental health also need to start in gyms and sports clubs, so I encourage the Government to target local sporting hubs to widen awareness of mental health, and to encourage those struggling to speak with friends, families or mental health professionals. Can the Minister tell me whether the engagement of sports bodies and mental health initiatives includes a specific recognition of suicide risk, and the ways in which sports clubs and coaches can assist in identifying and responding to suicidal intentions among the young men, in particular, with whom they work? More also needs to be done to encourage support for employees in the workplace. Whether they are a new or experienced member of staff, reaching out to their line manager or boss to let them know about the difficulties they are facing, and to request additional consideration—whether that means an adjustment to working hours or time off to see a mental health professional, or just letting them know the stress that they are experiencing at work or in everyday life—can be daunting. I encourage the Minister to increase awareness of best practices to support employees’ mental health in the workplace, and ensure that those who are struggling receive the support that they need. What more can be done to assist employers with training on how to respond if they recognise that one of their employees is struggling with a mental health issue? How can workplaces support some of those difficult conversations that might make all the difference in saving a young life from suicide?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Suicide: Reducing the Stigma · Hansard source

  More

  May I say what a privilege it has been to have this debate today, not least because it has given me an opportunity to highlight the work of my friend and constituent Philip Pirie? It has been a wonderful tribute both to his hard work and to the memory of his son, Tom. It has also been a privilege to hear the contributions from hon. Members across the Chamber. I particularly want to thank the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for sharing their personal experiences, which provided a moving context to the debate. It was great to hear about various initiatives from the Minister, not least because Mr Pirie has directly contributed to some of them, but I reiterate my call for a public health campaign. Particular groups are at risk. The farming community has been mentioned a number of times, not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Dr Chambers), for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Horsham (John Milne). The hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) mentioned young people in schools and universities, and other hon. Members mentioned gambling and drug addiction. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned social media, and we know that veterans and carers are also at risk. Many hon. Members made the point that so many people are not in touch with mental health services when they commit suicide. That is why we need a public health campaign to reach much more widely. I thank all the hon. Members who contributed today with examples of successful community initiatives, which the Minister might want to look to when he is planning a public health campaign. My hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Steve Darling) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), and the hon. Members for Maidstone and Malling, for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), for Caerphilly, for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Harlow all talked about amazing things going on in their communities. Finally, I want quickly to mention the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), among other hon. Members. MPs are such great advocates for mental health in their communities, and we should all take that forward. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

• 16 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. People across the UK are suffering in silence with gambling addictions. The proliferation of online betting has only added to the issue, as people are able to wager more money than they can afford with just a click on their phone screen. Will the Minister speak to her colleague the Chancellor in advance of the upcoming Budget to support the Liberal Democrats’ call for a double gambling tax, which would not only raise millions of pounds but disincentivise harmful gambling?

• 10 Jul 2025 · London’s National Economic Contribution · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. She is exactly right. Housing costs in London are far above the average for the UK as a whole. The average Londoner has to pay these costs out of an income level that is on average higher than across the country as a whole, but not to the same magnitude. Measuring deprivation based only on income before housing costs is a key unfairness for Londoners, because their housing costs are so much greater. She is absolutely right that if we underfund London, as will happen if the measure of deprivation after housing costs is not used, London will be underfunded and that will threaten the economic development and growth of the UK as a whole, because London is so essential to what happens across the UK. The number of visitors that an area receives is also being used as a factor in the funding formula, but the review is using figures from the 2021 census. We were still coming out of the pandemic when those figures were collected, so London had significantly fewer visitors than in an average year. As somebody who has regularly travelled from outer London to inner London over the last few years, from 2021 to 2025, I can assure the Minister that the number of people on our tubes and trains has grown significantly. My data is anecdotal, but I am sure my impression is shared by many Londoners who made similar journeys in that period. If visitor numbers are to be used as a measure to feed into the fair funding formula, it is vital that up-to-date figures are used. I urge the Government to review the formula with updated figures to ensure that it does not produce inaccurate results, which will again result in unfair distribution of Government grants. I and Liberal Democrats in general very much welcome the Government’s announcement of a 10-year infrastructure plan—a clear vision for housing, the economy and social infrastructure, which is required to drive growth and investment—but I am disappointed that the Government have yet to announce whether the £1 billion provision from the structure fund will be allocated towards the repair of Hammersmith bridge in my constituency, which, as I am sure the Minister knows, has been closed to motor traffic for six years. We remain uncertain about whether the Government intend the bridge to be repaired and whether they will commit to providing the funding for those repairs. Any indication of their position from the Minister will be welcomed by my constituents. The closure of the bridge has affected local residents and commuters, particularly disabled and elderly residents, who have been cut off from the other side of the river, and emergency services remain unable to cross. It has also had a massive impact on businesses just south of Hammersmith bridge that relied on the passing trade. We look forward to the announcement of what the structures fund pot will be used for, and hope very much that some funding towards Hammersmith bridge will be included. I urge the Government not to miss that opportunity. The bridge itself is a tourist attraction in my constituency. It is one of London’s oldest bridges—there has been a bridge on the site since the 1820s, and the current structure dates from the 1870s—and I dare say the fact that it is a museum piece is one of the many issues that has prevented funding from being allocated for its repair until now. It is one of many wonderful tourist attractions in my constituency. Kew Gardens was the second most visited paid-for attraction in the country last year. We also have the wonderful wetland centre just south of Hammersmith bridge and many other wonderful tourist sites, not least the park after which my constituency is named. London as a whole is visited by more than 20 million tourists every year, who bring with them significant contributions to our economy. A key factor for tourists is to feel safe when choosing London as a destination, but the capital’s reputation as a safe city to visit is on the decline. It is vital that London has visible and sufficient policing to tackle crime and keep visitors and residents safe, but the Chancellor’s spending review did not include additional funding for the Metropolitan police, despite their commissioner warning that “eye-watering cuts” would have to be made if funding were not provided. The cuts will be felt in my constituency. The disbandment of the dedicated royal parks police unit is of great concern to my constituents. The parks police serve Richmond park diligently, ensuring that crime and antisocial behaviour are kept to a minimum. Their removal will mean that our already stretched safer local neighbourhood teams have to take on additional responsibilities in their absence. The Richmond Park constituency used to be home to three police stations, but after years of cuts not a single one remains, even though Barnes is one of 72 wards in London that are more than a 13-minute drive away from the nearest police station. These cuts cannot continue, and I urge the Government to stick to their commitment of increasing the police presence in London and across the rest of the UK. I receive daily emails from my constituents expressing their concerns about theft, violent crime and the lack of visible policing. Will the Government be able to provide assurances that my constituency will not have fewer officers serving it at the end of this year than before Labour took power? Investment in London can and does boost economic growth, which provides investment for other regions. I urge the Government to understand and acknowledge the significant contribution that London makes to our national economy. London must not be short-changed by the Government. I encourage them to review the criteria for their fair funding formula, to invest in the repairs to Hammersmith bridge and to release more funding for the Met to ensure that residents and tourists feel safe walking our streets.