Sarah Olney
MP for Richmond Park · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“While taking into account the caveat that figures are adjusted due to lower employer pension contributions, the Home Office faces £1.2 billion in cuts next year and another £1.2 billion cut the following year while the DFT will lose out on £100 million over two years.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The move to decouple gas and electricity prices is a welcome step, and we welcome the short-term relief that many households will receive to ease energy costs this winter, but the Government have failed to address the issue facing many businesses: the cost of energy for our industrial sector.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has highlighted the continuing lack of action to address those costs and the risks now associated with taking on workers. The manufacturing sector accounts for 2.6 million jobs and 42% of UK exports; the Government must listen to its calls to reduce energy bills much more urgently than the 10-year schedule set out in the Chancellor’s s…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our trade relations must also be adjusted to reflect the geopolitical realities we face. The Government must remove their self-defeating red lines and be bolder by introducing a new EU-UK customs union.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For our young people, the Chancellor has moved away from Labour’s manifesto commitment to equalise the minimum wage and living wage while failing to address the student loan bubble, which is at bursting point, or to scrap his predecessor’s damaging national insurance contributions rise that is keeping young people out of work.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Liberal Democrats will push the Government to be more ambitious and to deliver on their promise of providing people with the help they need during the cost of living crisis and with the unaffordably high cost of doing business.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
2,591 held · 2,588 searchable for Sarah Olney. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“It is a white elephant project that does not have the support of the majority of Londoners and must be scrapped.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While taking into account the caveat that figures are adjusted due to lower employer pension contributions, the Home Office faces £1.2 billion in cuts next year and another £1.2 billion cut the following year while the DFT will lose out on £100 million over two years. Two of the most common issues I see in my inbox are concerns about policing and transport, so that is of huge concern to my constituents. Lastly, on an issue that the Prime Minister has declared is “a matter for London and Londoners”, I come to the question of Heathrow expansion, which is still yet to be answered. The Budget Red Book states that, on Heathrow, “The Transport Secretary will provide an update as soon as possible”. If the Prime Minister is true to his word, why does the decision on a third runway still seem to lie in the hands of the Government?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Whether it be persistent cancellations on the District line or the discomfort of using the Central line, commuters in London deserve better. That said, the business rates supplement remains quite a limited way of raising funds and the Government have seemingly constrained it to apply only to the west London orbital and the Bakerloo line extension. So while I welcome the business rates supplement as a step in the right direction, I will continue to champion further fiscal devolution for the capital. I am concerned that the Home Office and the Department for Transport are set to face funding cuts.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our trade relations must also be adjusted to reflect the geopolitical realities we face. The Government must remove their self-defeating red lines and be bolder by introducing a new EU-UK customs union. Ministers must take advantage of the upcoming UK-EU summit to maximise opportunities for closer trading with the European Union and mitigate the risks and damage caused by schemes such as “Made in Europe”. The Liberal Democrats have always championed fiscal devolution, so I welcome that the Budget will legislate for the Mayor of London to set up a successor to the Elizabeth line business rates supplement. Anyone who has used London’s train network recently will acknowledge that it is in need of upgrades.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has highlighted the continuing lack of action to address those costs and the risks now associated with taking on workers. The manufacturing sector accounts for 2.6 million jobs and 42% of UK exports; the Government must listen to its calls to reduce energy bills much more urgently than the 10-year schedule set out in the Chancellor’s speech. The British Chambers of Commerce and the chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation have echoed those calls, highlighting that the energy support available to certain manufacturing sectors does not apply to food and drink businesses. It is time for the UK to lead within Europe again on security, working closely with our democratic European allies so that we can support Ukraine and our European partners during peace and war.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The move to decouple gas and electricity prices is a welcome step, and we welcome the short-term relief that many households will receive to ease energy costs this winter, but the Government have failed to address the issue facing many businesses: the cost of energy for our industrial sector. Our dependence on other countries for fuel makes us all vulnerable to international turmoil. Household energy bills remain a third higher than before the war in Ukraine and the average UK resident and small business is being hit by those rises. The ongoing war in Iran reminds us yet again of the importance of secure and reliable energy sources. The best way to cut energy bills is to invest in home-grown renewable power. Make UK sets out the “ruinous effect” that industrial electricity costs have on investment.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Liberal Democrats will push the Government to be more ambitious and to deliver on their promise of providing people with the help they need during the cost of living crisis and with the unaffordably high cost of doing business. Not enough is being done to support small businesses that are struggling, particularly with the cost of employment. In retail alone, employment costs have jumped by £6.5 billion since the 2024 Budget. Unemployment levels are alarmingly high, with 25% of young Londoners not in employment, education or training. The Government must start making it easier for businesses to provide opportunities, particularly to young people as they begin their working life.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For our young people, the Chancellor has moved away from Labour’s manifesto commitment to equalise the minimum wage and living wage while failing to address the student loan bubble, which is at bursting point, or to scrap his predecessor’s damaging national insurance contributions rise that is keeping young people out of work. For working people, he failed to address wage compression by following Liberal Democrat calls to increase the personal allowance and to raise the higher rate income tax threshold. That reform is vital for the 110,000 Londoners being dragged into the higher tax bracket. While there are measures in the Budget that can be welcomed, there are many missed opportunities.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome many elements of the Chancellor’s Budget, including his commitment to fiscal devolution, his promise to end rough sleeping and the additional assistance for people to pay their energy bills, but there were many significant omissions and missed opportunities. Instead of freezing fuel duty, he should have listened to Liberal Democrat calls to cut it. Instead of promising reform to carer’s allowance in four years’ time, he should have delivered it now. Instead of flirting with the EU, he should have committed to beginning negotiations to rejoin the single market and a new UK-EU customs union.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would be grateful if in winding up the Minister could reflect on what the Bill’s measures on manufacturers and developers of construction products providing some of the costs towards remediating cladding mean for the building safety levy and the particular stress that is placing on house building in London.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, BusinessLDN has highlighted that the costs associated with the community infrastructure levy relief included in the package would be offset in effect by the additional costs from the building safety levy in more than a third of cases. I welcome the Government’s intent to remediate building safety defects via the building safety levy, but the two policies seem to contradict each other. Just this morning, a headline in the Financial Times read, “Labour's housebuilding target effectively dead’. We should not be deciding between building houses and building safe housing. If the Government’s assessment is that housing developments are being stalled in London due to costs, does more need to be done to incentivise developments following the introduction of the building safety levy?”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That speaks to a wider issue that we in the House all need to work to address: accessibility to safe and secure housing. New high-rise homes must be built with materials that do not burn. If combustible cladding is considered too dangerous for new high-rise homes, what reassurances does that provide to people living in “tolerable” levels of danger? That should not be our benchmark. All Londoners should be entitled to housing of a standard that is higher than tolerable. In March 2026, the Government announced a new package of support for house building in London, which provided temporary relief from developer levies.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who is no longer in her place, has raised repeatedly, the PAS 9980 regime, which allows a fire engineer chosen and paid for by the building owner to declare dangerous cladding tolerable and decide that no work is required, will remain in place. Would hon. Members in this House feel reassured if a fire engineer paid for by a building’s owner declared the cladding in their block of flats to be “tolerable”? The anger that followed the Grenfell disaster was directed towards those in power who repeated the sentiments that officials had known about the dangers posed by unsafe cladding but did not care enough to act. Much of the feeling was that the people in Grenfell and others who lived in council housing did not matter enough for serious action to be taken to prevent such a disaster.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I start by adding my voice to the tributes paid by the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) to the victims and survivors of the Grenfell disaster. I will not forget waking up that morning and seeing that appalling tragedy unfolding on our television screens; many people across London will have felt the same. I welcome the Government’s attempts to ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again, but it is almost unbelievable that nine years later we are debating this particular bit of legislation in our collective effort to ensure that buildings can be made safe. Like the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, the Bill is a step in the right direction, but—again—it does not go far enough. As the hon.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Along with many other long-suffering members and former members of Equitable Life, they saw their life pension savings decimated by Government malfeasance. According to the Equitable Members Action Group, as of 2025 more than £170 million of compensation already allocated and forecast to be paid to victims was set to be kept by the Treasury and not reach the people affected. The Government should release that money in full and immediately to affected policyholders, as it was always intended to be. In addition, the Government should listen to the concerns of those affected by the collapse of Equitable Life and establish an independent commissioner to assess individuals’ claims. That would ensure that the victims of the Equitable Life scandal, such as my constituents, were finally treated fairly and properly compensated.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The initial compensation scheme was set up during the time of the financial crisis and sought to balance victims’ needs with the capacity of public finances. Many victims still have concerns about the allocation of that compensation and the methodology used to distribute it. Although I am personally not disappointed to welcome my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) back from their “sabbaticals”, I share their frustration that after all this time, this issue is still being discussed. Constituents of mine in Richmond Park, like many other constituents, have been affected by this situation. I have heard from one couple who, after having diligently worked and served as respected professionals for decades, have had their retirement burdened by this appalling miscarriage of justice.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In recommending redress, the ombudsman called on the Government to establish and fund a compensation scheme “to put those people who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.” In 2010, the Government accepted in full the ombudsman’s findings. The Government accepted that victims’ losses amounted to more than £4 billion. Although 37,000 with-profits annuitants are being fully compensated, 895,000 people have received only 22.5% of their acknowledged losses. When the Liberal Democrats were in government, we made good on our manifesto commitment to set up a proper compensation fund in line with the ombudsman’s recommendations.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The collapse of Equitable Life was one of the biggest scandals in UK financial services history. Over 1 million people lost a significant part of their retirement savings. Their retirement plans were blown apart, as we heard from many contributors today. Typical Equitable Life victims included retired nurses, teachers, civil servants, factory and shop workers and small business owners—people who had worked hard and saved diligently for decades. In 2008, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concluded that victims’ losses were directly attributable to a decade of serial maladministration by Departments and their agencies. The state has accepted responsibility and accepts how much people lost, but the ombudsman’s recommendations have not been fully implemented.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Many thanks to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for such comprehensive opening remarks. Certainly for those of us who have been in Parliament for slightly less time, that was a very useful reminder of how we got to where we are today. The Equitable Life scandal involved the near collapse of the UK’s oldest mutual insurer after it failed to honour guaranteed pension payouts. The debacle exposed regulatory failures and caused significant financial losses for nearly a million policyholders across the country, including many of my constituents in Richmond Park. Approximately 2,000 people in every single constituency across the country have lost pension savings because of mistakes by successive Governments and the regulators.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let us cut national insurance contributions, fairly implement the secondary legislation from the Employment Rights Act 2025 and invest to create a skilled workforce by properly reforming the apprenticeship levy, which will benefit jobseekers and employers alike. The Liberal Democrats recognise the courage and determination of the marchers, and while we may not have a similar symbolic protest currently, the challenges facing our towns and cities need the same urgent attention as the town of Jarrow did 90 years ago. We believe that the Government need to listen to communities and take meaningful action to tackle poverty, boost industry and create good, well-paying jobs.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The symbolism of the Jarrow march ending in the country’s capital is ironic because it no longer represents the hub of employment opportunities that it did a century ago. While London sends the Treasury a net £43.6 billion a year, unemployment in the capital is on the rise. Londoners are not seeing the same opportunities that were available even a decade ago, while businesses in London are struggling under increasing financial pressure. Average employment costs have increased by 11% since Labour took office, which disproportionately affects sectors that traditionally offer entry-level jobs. Policy decisions taken by this Government are making it impossibly hard for businesses to provide young people with a chance to get their foot on the career ladder. We must do everything we possibly can to bring young people into work.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While there was no immediate support provided, the publicity that accompanied the crusade helped to generate some renewal for the town, and the relationship between large businesses and the Government remained under scrutiny. On the 90th anniversary of the Jarrow march, we are confronted with an alarming unemployment crisis that is not restricted to just one sector and that extends far beyond the town of Jarrow. Within this concerning picture, the trajectory of youth unemployment has been even worse. The joblessness rate for 16 to 24-year-olds currently stands at an alarming 15%, but in London, that figure is 25%. That is the highest youth unemployment rate in more than a decade, and the first time on record that the UK’s youth unemployment rate has exceeded the EU average.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many towns, including Jarrow, saw the closure of shipyards and steelworks, which meant that thousands of jobs in critical sectors were lost. Thousands of jobs were lost across Jarrow. Of the 8,000 people previously employed, many of them skilled workers, only 100 remained in work, often in unreliable and unstable positions. In October 1936, 200 unemployed men set out from Jarrow on a 26-day journey to London to demand jobs and investment for their town, following the widespread unemployment after the closure of Palmer’s shipyard. The marchers aimed to arrive in Westminster at the opening of Parliament to present a petition signed by 12,000 residents of Jarrow.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for her work in securing this debate and keeping the march in public and political discourse. The descendants of the marchers have a strong voice and champion in this place. The Jarrow crusade stands as a reminder of the devastating impact that chronic poverty and mass unemployment can have, as was experienced in Jarrow during the 1930s. Led by David Riley and former MP Ellen Wilkinson, the Jarrow crusade highlighted many of the challenges that Britain faced in the 1930s. The global depression had devastating repercussions for areas of heavy industry such as Jarrow. Many towns and cities that relied on industry passed through a period of intense industrial depression.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Minister advise the Prime Minister that the third runway proposal is not fit for purpose and put an end to this white elephant once and for all?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Minister agree with the Climate Change Committee’s verdict that the current plans for a third runway are not compatible with the UK’s climate change commitments? The Prime Minister’s recent comments that distanced the Government’s support from a third runway were a step in the right direction, but he needs to go further, back his own convictions and categorically oppose expansion. I anticipate that the Tory spokesman, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), will reflect his party’s recent conference commitment to expanding Heathrow. That shows not only its lack of interest in the wellbeing of London and Londoners but its susceptibility to big business lobbying in the face of hard economic facts.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have previously used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from the expansion of Heathrow, although they seem to have scaled back that argument more recently. Heathrow is already the biggest single source of carbon emissions in the UK, and expansion will add an extra 8 to 9 megatonnes of CO 2 into our environment every year. The Climate Change Committee’s recent conclusion that expansion is not compatible with the UK’s climate commitments presents the Government with a clear choice: to pursue a third runway at Heathrow or to take the climate crisis facing us seriously. It seems an easy decision to me.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The flightpaths for a third runway have not even been designed yet, so how can the Government produce a viable noise impact assessment and reassure residents who are not already exposed to aircraft noise that a third runway will not impact them? I did not plan to mention this, but I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and his impactful description of what it means for not only the people whose homes are on the proposed site of the third runway, but for those whose homes surround it, and his powerful case about the effect it will have on their lives. On the environmental argument, it should almost go without saying that adding these additional flights to our skies will have a profound impact on air pollution and climate change.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many of the MPs in this room will have heard about those impacts directly from their constituents. We had a good community meeting across Richmond borough—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and I attended—and some of the stories we heard were particularly harrowing, especially from young people suffering from learning disabilities and additional needs such as autism. The impact of night flights and aircraft noise on those people is unendurable. Those indicators are widely accepted to correlate with an increased risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease as well as poor mental wellbeing. People living in communities surrounding Heathrow have a 24% higher chance of stroke, a 21% higher chance of heart disease and a 14% higher chance of cardiovascular disease compared with people exposed to low levels of aircraft noise.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That will, of course, increase the cost of flying, as we have heard from a number of contributors to the debate, which will dampen demand. The Government recently spent £3 million on a banker to advise on the strength of the economic case for Heathrow; those of us here in the Chamber could have saved them the bother. With the Government seeking to find savings in the upcoming Budget, we can also save them the effort: there is no viable financial case for expansion. The introduction of nearly 300,000 more flights a year will have unavoidable environmental and social consequences. The Government’s commissioned aviation night noise effects study identifies that residents exposed to higher levels of aircraft noise are twice as likely to experience severe sleep disturbance.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the additional passengers cannot even travel to Heathrow, that rather defeats the purpose of adding capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made the point that we lack so many connections across the south-east that it is already incredibly difficult to travel to Heathrow. That is not just from Surrey; my constituency does not have a direct link, despite Richmond being a mainline station in south-west London. The lack of access will not just affect passengers; it will also reduce access to employment, severely limiting some of the economic benefits that we have heard about. It simply will not be possible for people to access the airport to take up the jobs. That is not to mention that Heathrow will seek to recoup its investment by passing on the cost to passengers.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Despite the former Chancellor’s framing a third runway as part of the UK’s growth agenda, the Treasury’s analysis puts the third runway’s net value to UK residents at between minus £23.4 billion and minus £62.5 billion over 60 years. Heathrow is already in over £17 billion-worth of debt. The headline cost of a third runway, which the Government assert will be completely privately funded, stands at £49 billion, but that does not take into account over £100 billion of carbon abatement costs, nor the billions of pounds required for investment in the surface access upgrades that are needed. I was also reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) about the impact of the third runway plans on the M25 and the huge economic impact that will have across a vast swathe of the south-east.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for her excellent opening speech. I hope she will not mind my saying that I experienced a certain sense of déjà vu during it, because, although she put things excellently, as she always does, this is not something I have not heard before. I very much hope that the Minister was listening. The Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed a third runway at Heathrow because the case for expansion has never added up. With the proposed economic benefits declining by 90% in the past decade, an operational second runway at Gatwick in the pipeline, and the Climate Change Committee’s recent statement that a third runway would be incompatible with the UK’s net zero targets, there is simply no case to be made for expansion any more.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Would the right hon. Gentleman like to say more about those economic benefits, given that the Treasury’s figures show that the likely economic impact of Heathrow expansion is between minus £25 billion and minus £63 billion over 60 years?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have been clear that NATO faces the genuine prospect of conflict with Russia before the end of the decade, and our industrial bases across the alliance are critical to ensuring that we deter this threat. Therefore, we must ensure that our world-leading UK defence companies can support our European NATO allies in rearming to counter Russian aggression. That must include formal co-operation with the European Defence Agency as well as involvement in the European competitiveness fund. What further progress has the Secretary of State made with our European partners to deepen our co-operation on defence industrial readiness?”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the damage being done to young people, and will Ministers ensure that, as they implement secondary legislation under the Employment Rights Act 2025, they balance the rights of employees fairly with the needs of businesses to provide jobs for young people?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Youth unemployment stands at 15%, and in London that figure is 25%, while 700,000 graduates are out of work. Retail and hospitality are cornerstones of the everyday economy, providing vital employment, driving local growth and creating thriving town centres. However, average employment costs have increased by 11% since Labour took office, which disproportionately affects sectors that traditionally offer entry level jobs. Policy decisions taken by this Government are making it impossibly hard for businesses to provide young people with their first foot on the career ladder.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On Monday, the Prime Minister joined the Liberal Democrats in acknowledging that refusing to countenance closer UK relations with the EU would be a “dereliction of duty”, yet the Government remain committed to their red lines. Joining the single market and a new UK-EU customs union could boost UK GDP by at least 3.6% and result in around £27 billion a year in extra tax revenue. Does the Secretary of State agree that refusing to cross those red lines, while knowing the damage that Brexit continues to cause businesses up and down the country, is in fact a dereliction of duty?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Last year, the Public Accounts Committee warned that the Government would not meet their manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls if they did not get to grips with the evolving nature of abuse. Technologically facilitated abuse is growing rapidly; referrals to Refuge rose by nearly 80% last year. This includes intimate image abuse; offences rose by 27%. However, over the same period, the proportion of cases resulting in a charge fell from 5.8% to 4.5%. What steps is the Attorney General taking to help increase prosecution rates in cases of technologically facilitated abuse?”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My constituency is home to Cassel hospital, a tier 4 therapeutic community for adults with complex multiple diagnosis presentations. Patients tell me that the treatment they receive there is lifesaving and life changing, and although the hospital has proven that its work saves the NHS millions of pounds by reducing hospitalisations and the need for emergency services, tier 4 services are under review by NHS England. Withdrawing funding from a hospital that serves people suffering from the most complex mental health conditions would be a travesty, and I would be grateful if the Minister could arrange time to speak with me regarding this matter.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Blaydon and Consett has already said about 3 Dads Walking and the incredible work they have done to raise money for Papyrus. It is obviously a great sadness to all of us that the service has come to an end. As the demand for suicide prevention hotlines is growing, I would be grateful if the Minister would consider working with Papyrus’s administrators to restore HopeLine 24/7. The independent review of mental health conditions, ADHD and autism found that mental distress has increased significantly, especially for young people. Investment in services has not kept pace with that demand, meaning that people wait longer for support, which often exacerbates existing mental health conditions. One of the many recommendations is to close the treatment gap and strengthen specialist services for people with the most complex needs.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) on securing this debate and on all of her excellent work in this field. The closure of Papyrus last month was a devastating loss. Its HopeLine 24/7 helped countless people at the toughest point of their lives for nearly 30 years. I pay tribute to its staff, who will have experienced incredibly tough times while handling very delicate but vitally important calls. While HopeLine 24/7 has been disbanded, the demand for help has not gone away; it will simply move to other already stressed helpline services. Papyrus helped to alleviate the demand on other charities and health services, and the NHS even signposted Papyrus to people looking for support. I add my words to what the hon.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Could the shadow Minister clarify what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade)? Is he saying that he has exclusive access to the terms on which we would be allowed to re-enter the EU? That is what he appears to be saying.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Earlier this year, we called for the Government to review their tariffs on the steel sector due to the impact they would have on our manufacturing and defence industries, yet Ministers will not even negotiate a new growth and defence partnership with the EU that would unleash our auto industry by removing crippling rules-of-origin trade barriers. Is the Chancellor’s growth mission serious ambition or just words? What will the Government do to ensure that those highly specialised skills are not lost but fully utilised in our manufacturing sector?”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the same day that the Chancellor stood up and claimed that his growth mission was working, it was reported that 4,000 more manufacturing jobs were being cut in the west midlands. This news will have been devastating for the thousands of workers and their families affected by the redundancies at Jaguar Land Rover as well as for the companies in the supply-chain industries that are affected. When Starmer’s Government announced that they would underwrite a rescue loan for JLR last year, the Liberal Democrats asked that the Prime Minister assure workers that the deal would be enough to protect their jobs; it was not. This development lays bare the fact that the Government’s growth mission is falling far short. We need to see bold action from the Chancellor on growing the economy across the UK.”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Like everybody else, I thank the hon. Lady for her incredibly important work in this field. Alongside my constituent Philip Pirie, I have been calling on the Government to launch a public health campaign to tackle the stigma around suicide. Former Health Secretaries have actively supported the call, alongside the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the hon. Lady herself. Does she agree that the Prime Minister needs to prioritise breaking down the barriers and the stigma, and work in a cross-party way with Members of this House to support my campaign?”
House of Commons8 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The former Chancellor invested a significant amount of political capital into driving forward the white elephant project of building a third runway at Heathrow on the basis that it would deliver economic growth, but the Government’s appraisal report states that the net present value of expansion is between minus £23.4 billion and minus £62.5 billion. Will this Chancellor put an end to this absurd proposal?”
House of Commons8 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Earlier this year the Minister for roads, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), wrote to me to say that Hammersmith bridge in my constituency would be a suitable candidate for the structures fund, but Hammersmith and Fulham council has just decided not to make an application on the basis that the structures fund is not suitable for repairs. Will the Minister please meet me as a matter of urgency to determine whether the structures fund remains a suitable way of funding repairs to Hammersmith bridge?”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Liberal Democrats supported the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill, but we tabled amendments, in my name and in those of my hon. Friends, to increase the provision of scrutiny and transparency under the Bill. The Government voted those amendments down in this place, but then had a change of heart and supported them in the other place. Given that, it is extremely disappointing that a move of this magnitude has been made and no statement has been made to the House. On the change of heart in the Lords, was that merely a sticking plaster, or is there a genuine commitment to give parliamentarians scrutiny of the important decisions being made about the future of our steel industry?”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“T3. Studies show that iodine deficiencies in pregnant women can result in complications for their children, including impaired foetal growth and psychomotor development. Recent studies have shown that iodine levels among women of reproductive age in the UK are only 82 micrograms per litre, with 30% of women recording levels below 50, but World Health Organisation guidance says that pregnant women are iodine deficient if they have less than 150 micrograms. The last governmental review into iodine deficiency was in 2014. Will the Secretary of State ensure that a new review is urgently commissioned?”
House of Commons14 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗