Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  That is an extremely wise observation. I regret enormously that there was not more opportunity, before the legislation was drafted, to have those discussions between experts, advisers and others who really know what the Mental Capacity Act means and whether it is sufficient for this purpose. The best that we can do now is reflect on the evidence that we have received. In many ways, that is what I am hoping to address with my amendment: to redefine “capacity” as “ability”, to transfer the responsibility for defining how ability should be assessed under the Act to the Secretary of State for further analysis and consultation, and then for that to be laid out properly. When assessing people’s ability to make the decision, we want to take into account their ability to understand, retain, use and weigh information, and to communicate the decision. That will still be at the heart of an assessment of whether an individual is making the decision for the right reasons. A whole range of things might affect a person’s ability to make the decision. I have mentioned many times mental disorders such as depression, which is more common in people nearing the end of their life. Delirium, which is common in people with advanced illnesses, needs to be assessed. There is the complexity of people who have a physical terminal illness alongside a mental disorder; I think particularly of people suffering from an eating disorder, which is primarily a mental health condition but clearly has physical health implications. If the mental health condition is not treated or is resistant to treatment, the physical manifestation of the eating disorder can quickly become a terminal illness. That is a really important point that we need to reflect on. The feelings of hopelessness that may come alongside a diagnosis of terminal illness may affect a person’s ability to weigh information. Anxiety can amplify their fears of future suffering, and types and doses of medication can affect capacity. All sorts of people can suffer vulnerabilities from external factors such as the lack of realistic alternatives like palliative care services; overt or implicit coercion; personal losses including bereavement; poor housing; financial hardship; and loneliness and social isolation. Understanding and responding to those vulnerabilities is at the centre of suicide prevention, but absent from the Bill. We have to remember that the Bill would apply to people who are said to be within months of death but may not be, to those who may die within months but otherwise have a very good quality of life, and to people whose trajectories to death vary greatly. In his written evidence, Professor Allan House states that “careful inquiry is justified because a statement about wanting to end one’s life cannot be simply taken as the result of a straightforward rational decision to choose one type of end of life care over others. Simply checking mental capacity and asking about coercion is not adequate.”

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

  More

  I am quoting, obviously, sources from the Electoral Commission and More in Common—organisations that have carried out extensive polling on this question—and people say they were turned away because they did not have the correct voter ID. I think the hon. Lady is quibbling, frankly. There is no doubt that significant numbers of people were unable to vote in this last election who had the right to do so, and that was because of this unnecessary legislation. Research following the general election indicates that voter ID legislation disproportionately impacts minority ethnic groups, with Hope not Hate reporting that 6.5% of ethnic minority voters were turned away from a polling booth at least once, compared with 2.5% of white voters. Furthermore, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was a Cabinet Minister when voter ID was introduced, described the law as an attempt to “gerrymander” elections in the Conservatives’ favour. While we cannot know how those who did not cast their ballot would have voted, and so cannot directly measure the effectiveness of that deeply worrying intention, research by the Electoral Commission showed that the clearest impact of the voter ID requirement was in relation to social grade. The specification for accepted forms of ID specifically related to proof of address has disproportionately affected young people and people living in social housing. We know that the dire economic situation inherited by this Government has required the Chancellor to make tough decisions, as we saw with the recent Budget statement. Given the need for the Government to make spending more efficient, why are they choosing to keep the voter ID scheme in place? The scheme is projected to cost £120 million over the next 10 years. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money, and it is an obvious place where the Government could save money, redirecting it to support some of the most vulnerable in society or to fund vitally needed infrastructure projects. More broadly, we are supportive of wider electoral reform, and we look to the Government to support our pledges to modernise our electoral system. Electoral Commission research shows that potentially as many as 8 million people are incorrectly recorded on the electoral register across the UK. We should be removing barriers for all voters to encourage voter participation and public engagement. Improvements in the system could be achieved through modernisation of the registration system, such as a requirement on public bodies to share data with electoral administrators to improve the register’s accuracy. Given the huge cost of the voter ID scheme—£120 million over the next decade—could those resources not be better spent in modernising the electoral register and ensuring that all eligible voters are correctly recorded? It is vital that barriers to voting are removed for all eligible voters and that the deeply worrying findings of the Electoral Commission regarding voter registration are addressed. The Liberal Democrats want to strengthen democratic rights by expanding political and democratic engagement. We want to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about the additional barriers that voter ID will present to younger voters, once the right to vote is extended to them, because they will find it that much harder to find appropriate ID. We call on the Government to enshrine the ministerial code in legislation, give Parliament the powers to hold Ministers to account and protect politics from corruption and sleaze. We also want to see this new Labour Government be bold in strengthening the power of local authorities who know best what their communities and towns need. At the 2022 elections, there were 13 cases of alleged personation investigated, and no further action was taken in any of those cases. Would the Minister not agree that the much more concerning issue is that of an inaccurate electoral register? It is vital that we remove barriers to voting and do all we can to ensure that the 8 million people who are currently not correctly registered are not excluded from casting their ballots. Voter ID, which will cost £120 million over the next decade, is like using a sledgehammer to try to crack a nut. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money. While I appreciate the steps that the regulations will take to support veterans, they will do nothing to improve accessibility for many of the most affected communities, such as those renting from a social landlord, the unemployed, lower social grades, disabled people and young people. I question why the Government do not remove the barrier entirely, and I urge them to scrap the Conservatives’ undemocratic voter ID scheme altogether.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  During the last Parliament, the Conservative Government betrayed tenants across the country. They committed to giving renters the right to a safe and secure home by abolishing section 21 evictions, and then delayed for five years. In that time, nearly a quarter of a million people had their life turned upside-down by a section 21 eviction notice, and quarter of a million more have not complained about disrepair for fear of having such a notice served on them, so at least half a million people have suffered because the Conservatives did not keep the promise they made in 2019. As we speak, two of my constituents face the consequences of the Conservatives’ inaction. They came to the UK seeking refuge from Putin and his illegal invasion of Ukraine. One is a full-time carer for his wife, who is physically disabled and suffers from multiple severe mental health difficulties. Over the past year, their landlord has repeatedly threatened them with eviction, leaving the couple in constant uncertainty regarding their housing situation. These threats have been accompanied by surprise increases in rent and verbal abuse so bad that one of my constituents was hospitalised after suffering a major panic attack. Despite paying their rent on time and acting in accordance with their lease, my constituents have been continually threatened with a section 21 notice. Now, they face an appalling Catch-22 situation. If they leave their property, they make themselves intentionally homeless and give up the housing safety net; if they stay, they risk having the life that they have begun to build torn out from under them at a moment’s notice. Their case is just one example of how a bad landlord can dominate their tenants’ lives, and why this legislation must be enacted without any further delay. I join my Liberal Democrat colleagues in welcoming the Bill, not only for the security and confidence it will bring to our constituents, but for the broader measures it will introduce. I am glad to see proposals to give tenants the right to request a pet—a request that landlords must consider and cannot unreasonably refuse. We are pleased that the Bill contains a presumption in favour of keeping pets, as they are often an integral part of a family. I join colleagues in commending the Government for finally doing what the last Administration could not—banning no-fault evictions, increasing housing security and making the rental market fairer for all.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but it is important to reflect on the disastrous legacy of the mini-Budget and the circumstances that many people continue to struggle with thanks to higher interest rates on their mortgage payments. Certainly, from the perspective of my constituents, that casts a much longer shadow, which the winter fuel payment cuts will do nothing to ameliorate. Last week, I asked the Chancellor if she would give her full support to measures to boost the uptake of pension credit. I welcomed her commitment to work with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to maximise the take-up of pension credit by bringing forward the administration of housing benefit and pension credit—

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak in favour of amendments 1 to 4, which were tabled in my name. Once again, I welcome this Bill and this Government’s intent to rebuild trust with the financial markets and across our economy as a whole. The Liberal Democrats are optimistic about the new Government’s stated commitment to building a strong platform for economic growth, particularly after years of Conservative turmoil. I remain hopeful that this Bill can support fiscal responsibility and transparency and help prevent a repeat of the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget. The amendments tabled in my name would strengthen the legislation so that that aim can be achieved. I welcome the concern that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) has shown for my constituents in Richmond Park and their thoughts about this legislation, but I wonder where his concern for my constituents was when the Government of which he was a part cheered on, championed and voted for that disastrous mini-Budget that so undermined our stable economy, to the detriment of the wellbeing of individuals, communities and businesses. Liberal Democrats understand how much our constituents have suffered from the increase in mortgage payments, higher fuel bills and escalating food prices. We understand the disastrous effects of the chaos and uncertainty wrought by the previous Conservative Government in their horrendous mismanagement of the economy, and we know that future prosperity can only be built upon a firm foundation. We know the heavy burden that our constituents continue to feel in their pockets and their personal finances, and we know that they deserve better. As I have previously acknowledged, the broad positive response that this Bill has evoked across the business and finance sector is indicative of the desire for stability, and we welcome the engagement from economists—such as the new hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who I wish well in the beard of the year contest—and industry experts who advise of the beneficial impact this Bill will have on confidence in the public finances. We have carefully scrutinised the details of the Bill to make sure it will achieve its intended aims. In particular, we have looked closely at the threshold for fiscally significant measures, which will be set at 1% of GDP or approximately £30 billion, and whether the proposed fiscal lock could be circumvented by Governments announcing major changes that fall just below that threshold. Although we understand that the bar has been set relatively high to prevent a large-scale irresponsible fiscal event such as the disastrous mini-Budget, we are aware of the limitations this places on the Bill, especially when it comes to measures that might have relatively small up-front costs to the Government but significant indirect fiscal or economic effects. I therefore ask Treasury Ministers whether a GDP measure alone can adequately capture the impact on the economy of a spending or taxation measure, and whether the Government should examine the possibility of using additional criteria when setting the threshold.