Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Trade with Europe · Hansard source

  More

  Joining the single market and a customs union could boost UK GDP by about £25 billion a year. Single market membership would give the UK access to EU defence programmes, creating high-skilled jobs in aerospace, advanced manufacturing and defence technology. It would restore passporting rights for financial services, reducing costs and administration for firms operating across Europe. For businesses, joining a customs union would eliminate the rules of origin red tape that adds between 2% and 8% to the cost of exporting. The current Prime Minister and Chancellor have both admitted that repairing the relationship with Europe is the biggest lever they could pull for growth, and the incoming Prime Minister has stated his desire to rejoin the EU, so does the Minister agree that there is political momentum and a desperate economic need now to negotiate a new growth and defence partnership with Europe?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Employment Rights Act 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Research by the British Retail Consortium found that over two thirds of part-time workers in the retail sector took the role because they needed flexibility around educational and caring commitments. The number of young people not in employment, education or training is over 1 million. Liberal Democrats repeatedly warned that Labour’s jobs tax would hammer job opportunities for young people and that its business rates hikes would kill off opportunities on the high street, which gives so many young people their first job. As they implement the Employment Rights Act, which will introduce some welcome measures for employees, how will the Government ensure that this is not yet another burden that prevents businesses from being able to provide entry-level and flexible jobs?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Financial Inclusion: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on his work to secure this debate and his excellent opening remarks. The decline of high street services has been an ongoing issue in the UK, with banks and other essential services disappearing at an increasing rate. Local high streets provide a variety of vital services to their local communities, but the current landscape is extremely challenging for many local enterprises. I join other Members by referring to my first job, which was at WH Smith on Camberley High Street; I reflect on how many of the jobs from our small sample this afternoon were in a retail environment on a local high street, and how important that is for young people looking to get their foot on the ladder of a future career. I am sure that colleagues from across the House have heard from countless local businesses in their constituencies, on their high streets and in the hearts of their communities, about the challenges they face, from the Government’s national insurance contributions rise to sky-high energy bills, and uncertainty about what the Employment Rights Act 2025 means for them. This is placing an unsustainable burden on many businesses and services. In the past three years, nearly 2,000 bank branches have closed across the UK, due to declining in-person transactions and the rise of online banking. Many villages and small towns now do not have even a single bank, forcing residents to travel long distances for financial services. These challenges are often compounded by limited broadband or limited access to the internet, leading to swathes of people in rural communities being excluded from online services and digital banking. Alternative solutions such as banking hubs are emerging, but there are not enough of them. The Government should be facilitating more to ensure that people across the country can access vital services when they need them and to prevent digital exclusion. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about the inequality of provision as the 5G network is rolled out. We believe it is wrong that people should be disadvantaged simply because of where they live. I urge the Government to prioritise major investment in broadband for underserved communities. It is deeply concerning that some 2.4 million people are unable to complete basic tasks such as opening an internet browser and that over 5 million employed adults cannot complete essential digital work tasks. It is reported that basic digital skills will become the UK’s largest skills gap by 2030. Beyond that, 1.7 million households have no mobile or broadband internet at home, and around 1 million people have cut back or cancelled internet packages in the past year, as cost of living challenges have forced people to find ways to cut and save. As we live in an increasingly digital world, the lack of access to digital services will exacerbate the difficulties faced by young people in trying to get their first job. The Liberal Democrats made a manifesto commitment to introduce a national financial inclusion strategy, requiring both the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to have regard to financial inclusion, such as protecting access to cash, especially in remote areas, supporting banking hubs and expanding access to bank accounts. We are also supportive of the introduction of a fair banking Act in the UK to help to tackle financial exclusion. Compared with similar economies, the UK has some of the worst levels of financial exclusion, leaving millions without access to essential financial services. Even before the pandemic, over 10 million people in the UK were unable to access affordable credit, with over 3 million resorting to high-cost lenders such as payday loan providers, which often charge extortionate interest rates. Small businesses also struggle to secure fair financing and receive only a small fraction of bank lending. This has created a multibillion-pound financing gap that stifles economic growth, particularly in underserved regions outside London and the south-east, as well as within marginalised communities. We must do more to bring an end to the affordable credit crisis and help millions of people who are struggling with unsustainable debt. Regarding broader financial inclusion in education, a lack of financial engagement is an issue that permeates much of the UK beyond the younger generation. Research by TheCityUK shows that the UK has relatively low levels of retail investment compared with international peers, which has implications both for long-term household outcomes and for how effectively domestic savings are channelled into the real economy. Britain’s investment gap undermines our economic future. The Financial Conduct Authority estimates that around 22 million adults with £10,000 or more in cash savings might be missing out on the benefits of investing, and many small businesses are missing out on the benefits of receiving that investment, which would help them to grow. The UK continues to have a relatively narrow base of retail participation, with a significant proportion of households not engaging in market-based investment products at all. This limits both wealth creation at the individual level and the breadth of capital available to UK markets. One in four UK adults invest outside their pension, which is the lowest rate in the G7. It is a structural brake on household wealth, economic growth and social mobility. This is a systemic challenge. Low levels of retail investment reinforce economic inequalities, weaken the link between savers and UK businesses, and reduce the overall effectiveness of the UK’s saving and investment ecosystem. Mobilising long-term savings into productive investment is central to unlocking future growth, strengthening UK capital markets and ensuring that the UK remains internationally competitive. The investment gap reinforces financial inequality. Those who invest pull further ahead while millions remain outside the wealth creation system. Proactive individual investment can help to bridge the gap, offering the potential for higher returns and greater financial security in later life. However, that requires proper financial education, and the gains are so much greater when young people can start investing earlier and see the value of investing. The recent review of youth unemployment warned that one in six young people will not be in education, employment or training in five years unless action is taken, with more than 1 million already not in education, employment or training. That is a really alarming figure. The Liberal Democrats repeatedly warned that Labour’s job tax would hammer job opportunities for young people, and that their business rates hikes would kill off high street job opportunities that give so many young people their first job. The Government must urgently take action to unlock the skills and opportunities that young people need to build a future they can believe in, and that includes, critically, ensuring access to financial education, financial services and employment.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. One in 50 Londoners, including one in 21 children, are homeless and living in temporary accommodation. London boroughs are spending £5 million a day on temporary accommodation. Although housing costs have skyrocketed in the past 15 years, the temporary accommodation subsidy gap has remained frozen since 2011. Some councils are now struggling to fund other important areas, such as social care. Will the Minister commit to urgently reviewing the temporary accommodation subsidy gap, to ensure that councils are fairly reimbursed?

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

  More

  In this place, we have recently changed the voting system for metropolitan mayors. Can the Minister comment on whether the voting system for the London Mayor will be changed before the 2028 London mayoral election?

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

  More

  Thank you for your chairing the debate, Mr Turner. It is interesting that the majority of voices in the room have argued against first past the post, when all of us are here because we were elected under that system. That shows how even those of us who have—dare I say—benefited from the system recognise its flaws and are here to make the case for change. That is because we operate in the system that first past the post has built, and we all recognise that it forces us to behave in ways we do not feel comfortable with and creates obstacles to achieving the change we want. I want to pick up on the remarks of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). First, I thank him for reminding me that I demonstrably have a better constituency than he does. He made a point about turnout. He was trying to make the case—I am not sure how well it landed—that it is all our fault that turnout is not better because we need to be better politicians. I put it to him that we behave in the way we do because our voting system forces us to do. I want to particularly mention the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), who made the case really powerfully in his speech. I thank all other hon. Members who contributed, but particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). They all made excellent speeches. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) taught us all a great deal more about Edinburgh council than I think we were aware we needed to know, but I am grateful for it. The Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) commented on the “bearpit” of PMQs and how badly that actually goes down with our constituents, and that point was also picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds. This is a topic to which the Liberal Democrats certainly intend to return. I thank the Minister for her comments and hope we will meet again. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the use of first-past-the-post in general and local elections.

• 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.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. Today marks 10 years since the Brexit referendum. Since that date, we have had 10 Home Secretaries, nine Foreign Secretaries, eight Chancellors, seven Defence Secretaries and 6 Prime Ministers. Does the Chancellor agree that such instability has acted as a break on growth in this country and can she set out what she plans to do to reverse that trend?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Teacher Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  A Public Accounts Committee report published last summer found that the Department for Education not only lacked a plan for recruiting the additional teachers that Labour pledged in its manifesto, but did not understand why teachers are leaving the sector. Despite the Secretary of State’s saying that the Department is on track to meet an already revised and narrower target, this month’s DFE report found that there are 1,907 fewer teachers overall since Labour came to power. What further steps is the Secretary of State taking to recruit and retain our teachers?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Teacher Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps she is taking to recruit and retain teachers.

• 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.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) on securing this debate and on his excellent opening remarks. Abuse against people in customer-facing roles is always unacceptable. No one should ever have to face abuse in their place of work. The Liberal Democrats were supportive of the measures included in the recent Crime and Policing Act 2026, which introduced the specific recording of offences of assault against retail workers. After years of increasing violence and abuse experienced by those working in retail and other frontline work, the introduction of this offence should act as a strong deterrent against abuse and allow data on such abuse to be more reliably recorded. Although there has been an improvement on the legal deterrence front and in the collection of data, we need greater enforcement to ensure that offenders are reprimanded for committing acts of abuse. After a decade of cuts to police numbers and resources, people want a return to having a visible police presence in their communities, focusing on preventing and solving crime. Restoring a permanent police presence on our local high streets is the most effective way to deter rogue operators and give people confidence to report illicit behaviour. This Labour Government promised the public 13,000 more police officers. Instead, officer numbers have fallen. By March this year, there were 4,000 fewer frontline officers than the year before. Over the past 18 months, we have seen not only a reduction of force numbers, but a decline in policing resources. In my Richmond Park constituency, there is now no 24/7 police front counter in the whole of Richmond borough, and the Royal Parks police force has been disbanded, increasing pressure on neighbourhood teams. Just this week, police in Richmond Park had to make an operational decision about whether to provide a presence by Teddington Lock to deter children from jumping off the lock, which puts them at risk of drowning, or to police bonfires, drug use and antisocial behaviour on Richmond Green. I do not envy the officers who have to make those operational decisions, but the lack of funding has put our local force in that position. What has been most noticeable in our community is the rise of retail crime. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to do more to address this.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention and for all his work. He speaks so powerfully for the victims of domestic abuse, and I thank him for taking this opportunity to raise the issue. I hope that the Minister has heard what he said, because it is an extremely serious point. We should have the victims of domestic abuse at the front of our minds when we think about this issue and the particular risk that it creates for them. Shoplifting not only causes shops to lose out on sales, with the costs then passed on to paying customers, but means that staff members, often young people, are met with the possible threat of violence. Shoplifting has risen by a staggering 48% in England and Wales over the past five years. Every time I meet the owner of a local store, I am told that shoplifting has effectively become decriminalised. Thieves do not feel the threat of reprisal, and staff do not feel protected by law enforcement. It is incredibly frustrating that the Government have not connected the dots between increased fear and crime and the stripping back of our police forces’ ability to do their jobs. That is why the Liberal Democrats have been calling for more money for CCTV through loans of up to £6,500 to small independent convenience stores so that they can install modern CCTV to deter shoplifting and make our high streets safer. The installation of CCTV would act as a deterrent against shoplifting and abuse against staff, save money for police forces by preventing such crimes in the first place, and allow them to conclude investigations more quickly because of a stronger evidence base. Shop owners and staff members are often told by the police that it is not a cost-effective use of resources to follow up on relatively minor thefts, but to every local business and paying customer it is. I urge the Government to recognise the detrimental impact that shoplifting is having on our society and to take this issue seriously.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  The steel sector is a vital UK industry. We must support it in the face of numerous challenges, including China’s unfair practices and Trump’s trade war, but I am extremely concerned about the impact on parts of the steel industry supply chain if these proposed tariff changes are implemented. We all want businesses to buy British, but that is just not an option if there is no domestic supplier that can meet the grades and certifications that its customers require. Businesses simply cannot buy British, and will be punished by new tariffs as a direct result. The specialist steels needed by aerospace, defence and precision engineering are not made in this country in the grades or volumes that those sectors require, and qualifying a new source takes not a fortnight, but several years. The Government are already having sufficient difficulty funding their defence investment plan without loading additional costs on to the defence manufacturers. Tariffs on steels not available in the UK will materially damage downstream manufacturers, with serious implications for their competitiveness, as well as for investment and jobs. What response did the Minister give experts in the manufacturing industry when they warned him about these matters? What conversations has he had with Tata Steel in determining the Government’s tariff position? Will he remove categories from the regime where no domestic production capability exists, such as product codes 14 and 27, which are critical for the viability of many aerospace and defence manufacturers? Will the Secretary of State commit to delaying or tapering implementation until proper mitigations have been put in place?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. The Government’s proposed high-value council tax surcharge will be collected by councils but retained by the Treasury. If councils neither control the charge nor keep the revenue, why is it being called a council tax? Will the Minister commit to changing this misleading policy title? Given that most of the revenue from the surcharge will be raised in London, will the Government ensure that a fair proportion is reinvested in the capital?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 7, page 34, line 15, at end insert— “(5A) Compensation scheme regulations must include provision which specifies that payment of compensation may be made until any written estimate under section 54 (4A) is laid before Parliament.” This amendment works with Amendments 8 and 9 so as to require regulations to specify that payment of compensation cannot be made until the Secretary of State has published a written estimate of the environmental liabilities of the steel undertaking, provided to them by the independent valuer.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for your guidance, Madam Chair. I will reframe my remarks slightly, because they relate to the intervention that I took. Steel producers in the UK are heavily integrated into international supply chains, and continued access to frictionless or improved export arrangements is vital for sustaining jobs and production. From 1 July, the Government will limit tariff-free steel imports. Although in many ways that will support business, there is a lack of certainty about costs and the impact on downstream manufacturers is still opaque.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for underlining the real importance of the steel industry to our defence industry and the heightened importance of sustaining our defence industry, and all the companies and the jobs associated with it, in this time of heightened global instability. Liberal Democrat Members certainly believe that support for our defence industry is paramount at this time, but it is important that Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise all the costs associated with the proposed undertaking should the Government choose to exercise the powers in the Bill. That is the purpose of amendment 7. Clause 52 will give the Secretary of State broad powers to establish compensation arrangements linked to the exercise of transfer powers, including transfers of shares, property rights and liabilities. Amendment 4 would require the Government to report not only on the existence of compensation schemes under the clause, but on the compensation actually paid under those schemes. My new clause 6 would strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of any future financial assistance. It would require, before any assistance is provided, the Secretary of State to lay a detailed proposal before Parliament, setting out the nature and amount of assistance and the intended beneficiaries, the purpose and expected effect, and any associated conditions, including repayment terms, guarantees, indemnities or other liabilities. In a similar vein, new clause 4, in my name, would introduce parliamentary oversight, and compel the Government to bring forward a resolution for any expenditure by the Secretary of State under part 2 that exceeds £500 million, which is roughly equivalent to the annual cost of keeping the Scunthorpe plant running, based on the publicly available figures. The clause reflects the principle that, where significant public funds are being committed, there should be clear parliamentary control and oversight of the overall financial exposure. By setting a defined limit, it would ensure that expenditure does not escalate beyond what has been explicitly agreed by Parliament without further democratic approval. The measure is designed to ensure a balance between enabling necessary intervention and maintaining proper oversight of the total level of public expenditure involved. I urge hon. Members to vote in favour of the new clause. Steel is a valuable sector with far-reaching benefits across the UK for critical infrastructure projects, defence and the future of renewable energy. The steel industry is vital to so many of the UK’s national strategic priorities. The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s pace and urgency in taking action to assist the steel industry, but there is a significant need for greater transparency and accountability relating to how these measures will be exercised. There is potential in the Bill to improve training opportunities for steel exports, and I urge Ministers to consider our proposals on that matter.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 7. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 52 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 58 Financial assistance Amendment proposed: 20, page 39, line 7, at end insert— “(1A) The Secretary of State may only provide financial assistance under this section if they are satisfied that financial assistance will secure value for money.”—( Dame H arriet t Baldwin. ) Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady referred specifically to our new clause. Does she not accept that we are merely asking for a further parliamentary vote if the proposed consideration for transfer exceeds a certain level, and that that is a sensible and workable way forward? Not only do we need to be open to the possibility of enabling the Government to take steel into national hands, but taxpayers’ interests need to be protected, and Parliament needs to have oversight of any decision of that nature.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We heard throughout yesterday’s debate from Members across the Committee about the importance of steelmaking as a vital strategic sector in the UK, and no doubt we will hear about it again today. We rely on the sector for essential parts of our national infrastructure, for transport and for advanced manufacturing. Steelmaking and the industry more broadly create thousands of good jobs across the country, helping to power our economy and boost our local communities, and in increasingly uncertain times, it is essential to support our defence industry. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches therefore broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step aimed specifically at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector, and we note that it is in that spirit that British steel producers also support these measures. We need to see more ambition and clarity in the delivery of the steel strategy—for example, when it comes to boosting domestic production to meet 50% of domestic steel demand, further incentivising the use of British-made steel in the private sector and managing the transition to electric arc furnaces. I wish to speak in favour of amendments 7, 8 and 9. These would strengthen the treatment of environmental liabilities in relation to the steel undertaking and ensure that they were explicitly identified and accounted for before compensation payments were made. They highlight the principle that the true financial position of an undertaking cannot be properly understood without a clear and transparent assessment of its environmental liabilities. By accepting the amendments, the legislation could work as a package to ensure that environmental liabilities were not only considered but formally assessed, published and laid before Parliament. In particular, the amendments would require an independent valuer to prepare a written estimate of the environmental liabilities associated with the undertaking, including contamination of land, water or air; compliance with environmental obligations; and current and future remediation or restoration costs. That would ensure that the full environmental cost of the undertaking’s operation was properly captured, including liabilities that might not yet have crystallised but were none the less foreseeable. Crucially, the amendments would link the process to the timing of compensation payments, specifying that compensation could not be paid until the environmental liabilities estimate had been produced and presented, and ensuring that taxpayers were not left to pick up the bill for any environmental damage caused by the company’s previous owners. Furthermore, I wish to speak in favour of amendment 6. This amendment would require that when carrying out a valuation of the steel undertaking, consideration was explicitly given to the impact of external tariffs and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. It reflects the reality that the value of a steel business is not determined solely by its internal operations and that it is also significantly influenced by international trade conditions and environmental policy frameworks. The previous Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and interim last-minute packages. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and they erected new trade barriers, making it harder for our steel producers to do business with their biggest export market across the channel. This legislation should be much more ambitious on an improved agreement with the EU for steel exports. Given the international nature of the steel market and the growing importance of carbon-related border adjustments, it is reasonable that these factors should be explicitly included in valuation methodologies. Amendment 6 would help to ensure that any valuation was not artificially insulated from key external drivers of cost and competitiveness. It would also provide a more accurate basis for decision making.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is not the specific purpose of the amendment, but I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. I know that the Minister has heard about this issue on a number of occasions, throughout the debates on this Bill and during the urgent question last week in the Chamber. I would like to take this opportunity to reinforce the point that has been made on multiple occasions across this House about the tariff regime and the changes that are coming in. I have spoken to a number of manufacturers about the very real concerns right across the sector about the changes in tariffs. I know that the Minister is focused on that, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving us another opportunity to raise concerns with the Minister, which I know he has heard. Amendment 5 would extend the Government’s reporting obligations to include progress on negotiations with the European Union—

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It would take just hours to do that. All we are asking for is a safeguard. Without any kind of safeguard, what does the hon. Lady think would be an acceptable amount for the Government to offer in exchange for taking on a steel undertaking? Does she think that no limit at all would be acceptable? We are merely proposing that a motion should be laid before Parliament to be voted on, and that does not take much time.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Steel provides vital materials for our national infrastructure, from defence to renewable energy, and creates thousands of jobs across the UK. The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the action that the Government are taking to protect British Steel and ensure that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe do not go cold, but we are clear that the nationalisation of British Steel must be a temporary step to rescue the business before it can be returned to the private sector. We believe in a thriving, privately run steel industry, supported and empowered by the Government through an effective steel strategy. Although the Liberal Democrats support this step, the Government must provide more detail on the plan, including how they will find private co-investors who can help to modernise the sites and put the money in to help to create more jobs. They must also ensure that the key stakeholders, including industries that rely on steel such as defence, are properly engaged in and represented through the process. We cannot afford another collapse of British Steel in a few years’ time, and we must move on from interim short-term measures to create a robust long-term plan for the future of the plant and sustainable domestic steel production, with an emphasis on national security. I wish to speak first in favour of amendment 1, which stands in my name. Fundamentally, it is about parliamentary accountability. If the Secretary of State is to exercise a significant transfer power, Parliament should, at the very least, be told why that action is necessary and in the public interest. The amendment would not prevent the Government from acting; it would simply require Ministers to explain their reasoning before exercising the power, providing far greater accountability and transparency. Requiring a statement to both Houses would help to ensure that the use of the powers is proportionate, justified and open to democratic oversight. The Government already argue that the powers will be used only where necessary. If that is the case, there should be no objection to setting out those reasons clearly before Parliament. Amendment 1 proposes a modest and reasonable safeguard. It does not create a veto or impose an onerous process; it merely asks Ministers to account for their decisions. I wish to speak in favour of amendments 2 and 3, which seek to ensure that regulations relating to property transfers and share transfers are made subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. The transfer of property or shares by ministerial regulation is not a minor or purely technical matter. These provisions are the heart of the Bill and give the Government significant powers with substantial financial, operational and public consequences. Given the importance of such decisions, does the Minister not agree that it is entirely appropriate that Parliament should approve such regulations, rather than having to rely on the limited scrutiny afforded by the negative procedure? The affirmative procedure would guarantee a debate and a vote in both Houses, ensuring proper democratic oversight before the powers were exercised. At their core, amendments 2 and 3 are about reinforcing accountability, transparency and parliamentary sovereignty in the exercise of delegated powers, and I urge Members to support them. New clause 2, which also stands in my name, would establish a stakeholder advisory committee to ensure that decisions made under the powers in the Bill included input from the relevant groups and those most affected. The exercise of principal transfer powers could have major implications not only for the steel undertaking itself, but for workers, local communities, supply chains and strategically important industries across the country. The proposed committee would bring together voices from industry, the workforce and local authorities, ensuring that decisions were grounded in practical expertise and real-world consequences. The inclusion of sectors such as defence and critical national infrastructure is particularly important, given the strategic significance of the steel supply to national resilience and economic security. A structured advisory mechanism would improve transparency, strengthen confidence in decision making and help to ensure that interventions are sustainable and effective. New clause 2 is about ensuring that the public interest is determined not behind closed doors, but with the benefit of broad expertise and stakeholder input. I wish to speak in favour of new clause 3, which recognises that intervention in a steel undertaking cannot simply be about ownership or transfer powers in isolation. It must be about people, jobs and the long-term future of industrial communities. If the Government exercise these significant powers, they should be required to set out a clear strategy for protecting workers and supporting economic transition. Not only is the steel industry strategically important to the national economy; it is often central to the identity and prosperity of the local communities within which it is situated. Workers in these industries possess highly valuable and specialised skills. Any transition strategy should therefore prioritise the protection of skilled employment wherever possible. Where change is unavoidable, there must be a serious commitment to retraining, reskilling and redeployment opportunities so that workers are not left behind. New clause 3 would help to ensure that Government intervention was accompanied by a coherent industrial strategy, rather than being another short-term fix and crisis management. Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. It creates thousands of jobs across the country and is central to many communities, and we rely on it for essential parts of our national infrastructure, from defence and transport to clean energy generation and advanced manufacturing. Although the Liberal Democrats are supportive of the pace and urgency of the Government’s action to protect British Steel, nationalisation must be a temporary step, and the Government must ensure adequate transparency and accountability throughout the process. I therefore urge the Minister to support these amendments, to ensure that the legislation can deliver the necessary support to the steel industry, while balancing the needs of local communities and workers and ensuring that the necessary steps are taken to ensure thorough parliamentary accountability.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that one of the worst aspects of the new system is how it treats husbands and wives separately? If a husband has gained five years of work experience but the wife has stayed at home to look after their children, she will be treated separately under the new rules such that her path to indefinite leave to remain will become much longer than his. That is having a damaging impact on families.