Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Debate between Judith Cummins and Sarah Olney

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 52 and 53 stand part.

Amendment 8, clause 54, page 35, line 25, leave out “may—

(a) require or permit”

and insert—

“must—

(a) require”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 9, page 35, line 34, at end insert—

“(4A) The regulations must—

(a) provide that the independent valuer prepares and submits to the Secretary of State a written estimate of the environmental liabilities of that undertaking, including but not limited to—

(i) contamination of land, water or air attributable to the undertaking’s operations;

(ii) compliance with environmental obligations imposed by or under any enactment; and

(iii) remediation or restoration costs that are contingent or prospective;

(b) provide that the Secretary of State must publish and lay any written estimate provided under this subsection before Parliament.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 6, page 35, line 40, at end insert—

“(c) the anticipated effects of—

(i) external tariffs on UK industry; and

(ii) the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, as set out by Part 5 of the Finance Act 2026 on the value of a steel undertaking.”

This amendment would require consideration of external tariffs and the implementation of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, when conducting a valuation of the Steel undertaking.

Clauses 54 to 57 stand part.

Amendment 20, clause 58, 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.”

This amendment would only allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance if the NAO had concluded that it would secure value for money for taxpayers.

Amendment 22, page 39, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may not in any five-year period provide financial assistance under this section of an amount that exceeds £1 million per employee of the steel undertaking.

(1B) The number of employees of a steel undertaking for the purpose of subsection (1A) is the number of persons employed on the date the financial assistance was first provided.

(1C) ‘employee’ has the meaning given by section 230 (Employees, workers etc.) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”

This amendment would cap the amount of financial assistance that could be provided to a steel undertaking to £1 million per worker over 5 years.

Amendment 24, page 39, line 24, at end insert—

“(4A) Financial assistance under this section may not include funding provided by the National Wealth Fund.”

This amendment prevents money from the National Wealth Fund being used to provide financial assistance under this Act.

Clause 58 stand part.

Amendment 4, clause 59, page 39, line 29, insert at end “and,

(b) compensation paid under any compensation scheme regulations made under section 52.”

This amendment requires the Government to report on the compensation paid under any compensation scheme regulations made under section 52.

Amendment 10, page 39, line 31, leave out “12” and insert “3”

This amendment together with Amendment 14 would increase the frequency with which the Secretary of State must make reports about financial assistance to every three months.

Amendment 11, page 39, line 33, leave out “12” and insert “3”

See explanatory note for Amendment 13.

Clauses 59 and 60 stand part.

New clause 6—Parliamentary scrutiny of Financial Assistance—

“(1) Before providing any assistance under section 58, the Secretary of State must lay a proposal for providing the financial assistance (‘the proposal’) before Parliament.

(2) No financial assistance may be provided under section 58 unless the proposal has been laid before Parliament.

(3) If, within the period of 90 days after the proposal has been laid, a select committee of the House of Commons makes any recommendations with regard to the proposal, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to the recommendations before providing any financial assistance.

(4) The proposal must include—

(a) details of the nature and amount of the financial assistance,

(b) the intended beneficiary or beneficiaries of the financial assistance,

(c) the expected purpose and effect of the financial assistance,

(d) any conditions, repayment arrangements, guarantees, indemnities or other liabilities attaching to the financial assistance, and

(e) any other information the Secretary of State believes it is necessary for the Committee to have in order to complete its consideration of the proposal, subject to the restrictions in subsection (3).

(5) The proposal may not include information which, if it were made public, may damage—

(a) national security;

(b) fiduciary duties; or

(c) commercially sensitive interests.”

This new clause prevents financial assistance being provided until 90 days after information about the package of financial assistance being made available to a Select Committee of the House of Commons for its consideration.

New clause 12—Financial assistance: limit—

“Financial assistance of a total value of no more than £2.5 billion may be provided under section 58 of this Act before 15 August 2029.”

This new clause would limit the financial assistance that can be provided under the Act.

New clause 13—Financial assistance: England and Wales—

“Where financial assistance is provided to steel undertakings in England under section 58 of this Act, an equivalent to the total amount of financial assistance provided to steel undertakings in England must be made available to steel undertakings in Wales.”

This new clause requires equivalent funding to be provided to steel undertakings in Wales compared to those in England.

Clauses 61 to 64 stand part.

New clause 7—Impact assessments—

“Before exercising any power under this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment on the proposed exercise of that power.”

This new clause would require an impact assessment to be published before the Secretary of State exercised any of the powers under the Act.

New clause 4—Limit on expenditure on financial assistance and compensation—

“(1) The total amount of compensation paid by the Secretary of State under Part 2 and financial assistance paid under section 58 is limited to—

(a) £500m, or

(b) an amount so authorised by resolution of the House of Commons, whichever is higher.”

This new clause prevents the Secretary of State from paying more than £500m in financial assistance and compensation under the Act, unless the House of Commons passes a resolution authorising them to do so.

New clause 9—Duty to try to find a private sector purchaser for any nationalised steel undertaking—

“Where a steel undertaking has been subject to the principal transfer power under this Act, the Secretary of State must—

(a) make all practicable efforts to find a private sector purchaser for the steel undertaking; and

(b) lay a report before Parliament every six months which sets out progress made towards finding a private sector purchaser for the steel undertaking.”

This new clause would put a duty on the Secretary of State to seek a private sector buyer for any steel company that has been nationalised, and report to Parliament on progress made every six months.

New clause 10—Report on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom—

“Within six months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent six months, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament which sets out the impact that nationalisation of any steel undertaking under this Act has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.”

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.

New clause 11—State aids—

“The Secretary of State must not exercise the powers in this Act so as to grant any advantage through state resources on a selective basis to any organisations that could potentially distort competition and trade, including any advantage that might be granted to steel undertakings subject to a transfer power over comparable privately-owned steel undertakings in the United Kingdom.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to maintain a level playing-field between nationally owned and privately owned steel businesses.

[Sarah Olney]

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.

[Sarah Olney]

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—

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that amendment 5 has not been selected and so would be out of scope for this debate.

INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth

Debate between Judith Cummins and Sarah Olney

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they are stepping in to offer support and protect jobs in this vital industry. We have a duty to safeguard our national security and economic prosperity, and to ensure a fair transition to clean energy. This statement is a step in that direction.

We have long been champions of British industry. We are proud of the industrial policies that we introduced in government, and we must never return to the neglect we saw under the Conservatives, who scrapped our industrial strategy. Having said that, we need to see a far more cohesive plan from this Government to support British business, including our chemicals sector.

High energy costs are a fundamental challenge. The industrial competitiveness scheme will support the 7,000 most energy-intensive firms, but it will not launch until April 2027. Will the Government confirm whether the Grangemouth plant will be included in the scheme? Do Ministers acknowledge that if the scheme had been in place earlier, the situation might have been avoided? Does the Minister agree that we need a long-term plan to slash energy costs for households and businesses alike by seriously investing in renewables and decoupling electricity from gas prices?

Finally, I must press the Minister on another huge added cost for which the Government are responsible, which is of course the national insurance increase. Will he tell the House what is the tax hit imposed on the Grangemouth plant through the national insurance hike since last year’s Budget? Is it greater than the £50 million Government grant handed to Ineos today?

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Judith Cummins and Sarah Olney

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill as a first step to giving the House of Lords a greater democratic mandate and entrenching its valuable role within the constitution and legislature of the United Kingdom. Our democracy relies on a Parliament that equally represents all citizens of the United Kingdom, and that is why the abolition of hereditary privilege in our second Chamber is a long-standing policy of the Liberal Democrats. We have called for this reform for decades and are pleased that the Government are taking steps to address this issue.

For too long, Parliament’s second Chamber has lacked the democratic mandate that would give it real impact within our legislature. Inherited membership of the Lords only weakens our democratic institutions and decreases public trust in our system. Furthermore, it reinforces the gender imbalance in the second Chamber. As I noted in previous debates on this bill, not a single one of the hereditary peers currently sitting in the Lords are women. Actually, I am taking a quick look around and I think I am the only woman here, so it falls to me—[Interruption.] That is apart from Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg your pardon. It falls to me to underline how important the democratic role of women in both our Houses of Parliament is.

I also note that this reform is not about invalidating our traditions, nor discrediting the contributions of many hereditary peers over previous decades. It is about improving democracy and restoring public trust in politics by making Parliament more representative. Many hereditary peers have expertise and skills that they have given to our political system and to our legislative process.

As I turn to today’s Lords amendments, it is disappointing yet perhaps unsurprising that after years of delays and resistance from successive Conservative Governments, they continue to resist meaningful electoral reform. Their proposed amendments would only water down the Bill or waste further time prolonging the existence of a flawed system.

I therefore wish to speak against Lords amendment 1, which would dilute the Bill and continue the system of hereditary peers. Instead of meaningful reform, it opts for an underwhelming ban on by-elections for hereditary peerages. In practice, that would have the effect of leaving all current hereditary peers in place indefinitely, thus continuing this antique system for many years to come. For years, cross-party efforts have attempted to end the by-election system for hereditary peers, despite successive Conservative Governments resisting this vital reform. Now there is an opportunity to end the entire system of hereditary peerages, and the Conservatives once again continue to resist change.

The Bill and the amendments being considered today highlight that the will of Parliament is to end the hereditary system in the Lords. There has been enough delay; it is time to be decisive and to end hereditary peerages in entirety, here and now. We have the will, the power and the means to end this anomaly before us today. There is no need for the amendment.

I also wish to speak against Lords amendment 2. As outlined by Lord True, 14 Conservative Government-appointed unsalaried Ministers and Whips were in the Lords at the end of the previous Parliament, and Commons Library research confirms that since 2015 there have been at least 30 unsalaried Ministers and Whips in the Lords. Today, the very same party that appointed them seeks to champion the end of such appointments, as if they had not had the power to effect this change themselves on many occasions over the past decade.

I draw Members’ attention to the points eloquently raised by my excellent colleague the Lord Wallace of Saltaire in the other place regarding potential anomalies that the amendment could allow. I want to focus on Lord True, who, in introducing the amendment in the other place, said that it would not apply to any existing Member but only to future ministerial appointments in the Lords. Given that all hereditary peers are current Members of the Lords, I fail to understand what relevance the amendment has to the legislation in front of us. Unusually, I happen to agree with Lord True that all Ministers should be properly remunerated, but I struggle to understand why a piece of legislation that aims to scrap the principle of hereditary peers is the appropriate vehicle to enshrine that point. The Lord True spoke movingly of his shame and anger at being unable to provide remuneration to his fellow Conservatives during the last Parliament—I am not sure I completely sympathise. Remuneration of Lords Ministers is an issue for another occasion.

Liberal Democrats believe that the solution to the issue of democratic accountability and proper remuneration of our Ministers does not lie in this poorly drafted amendment. Instead, we must push for wholesale reform of the House of Lords and our democratic system more widely, including devolving powers so that the decisions that affect people’s lives are made closer to the places where they are put into effect. We therefore urge Members to reject the amendment and instead work with the Liberal Democrats to introduce proper reform of the House of Lords and give it the democratic mandate it needs.

I also wish to speak against Lords amendment 3. When the Bill came to the House, it represented an opportunity for a first step towards meaningful reform of the second Chamber. That is why I originally tabled new clause 7, which would have committed the Government to future legislation on reforming the second Chamber, and new clause 8, which would have increased transparency in the second Chamber by strengthening the powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. However, the Conservatives have demonstrated no interest in strengthening or improving our democratic and legislative institutions. Instead, their amendment creates yet another type of peerage. It is an unnecessary amendment that does nothing to strengthen democracy or transparency.

Since Lords amendment 3 before us specifically calls for a new type of peerage, it follows that it is not relevant to legislation that specifically and exclusively deals with the legacy of hereditary peers. If the Conservatives have proposals that could meaningfully improve our second Chamber, they should support Liberal Democrat calls for further reform of the House of Lords. I look forward to their support for our calls to change the opaque appointment process for peers and to reduce the inflated size of our second Chamber. If the Government could update us today on their proposals for legislation for further reform of the House of Lords, then the Conservatives could put forward their proposals for new categories of peerages. This House should look to be ambitious on political reform of the second Chamber. They should not look to expand a democratically flawed system with time-wasting amendments. The Liberal Democrats will therefore be voting to reject this amendment.

We welcome Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, which are modest but important changes that will improve how the House of Lords functions. The amendments aim to support those peers who may lack capacity to fulfil their duties. Lasting power of attorney has been effective in supporting individuals’ freedoms and dignity, and it is only right that peers are not excluded from those freedoms. We welcome those amendments and will support their introduction into this legislation.

Returning to the Bill as a whole, Liberal Democrats welcome its aims. However, we are concerned that by passing this Bill, the Government will believe that their efforts can end here. Let me be clear: this Bill is a welcome step towards a better democracy, but it should not be the final step. The 2017 Burns report recommended a decrease in the size of our second Chamber, which the Liberal Democrats support. The process of prime ministerial appointments entrenches patronage and elitism within our politics, and the Liberal Democrats support moving away from that system. Labour’s own manifesto committed to a retirement age for peers—another change that we would support.

There continue to be so many opportunities to improve the functioning of our democratic institutions. The Government should now look into those further measures, including what is the most overdue and important change when it comes to the Lords: finally giving it a proper democratic mandate.

I urge hon. and right hon. Members to oppose Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which would water down the Bill. The Liberal Democrats will support this once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix part of our broken political system and use it to strengthen democracy in our Parliament and begin rebuilding trust in our politics.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report

Debate between Judith Cummins and Sarah Olney

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. We, too, pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their ongoing work as they continue to investigate this appalling scandal.

Liberal Democrats know that the victims of the infected blood scandal deserve compensation. They and their families have been mistreated and have been waiting for decades to see justice. We welcomed the establishment of this scheme in August 2024 and the commitment shown by Governments from both sides of the House to justice for these victims.

However, Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report has been excoriating about the glacial pace of payments and the abject failure to listen to victims. One of the report’s most scathing findings stated that victims of the scandal had “not been listened to”. As Sir Brian has reported, the experts who were responsible for the design of the compensation scheme were forbidden to talk with victims and their families. After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delays, excluding victims and their families was wholly unacceptable.

This report has been welcomed by many victims, including many of the 122 haemophiliac boys who attended the Lord Mayor Treloar college in Hampshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) has been a powerful advocate for these victims, and I thank her for her work advocating for constituents such as Gary, who welcomed the findings of this report. That is why we are urging the Government to set out clearly and in detail the timelines for delivering compensation. We are calling on the Government to engage properly with victims and their families. Does the Minister agree that it is entirely unacceptable that victims were not involved in the original design of the scheme and that they had been consistently ignored? When can victims of the scandal expect the implementation of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation to introduce a formal advisory body of victims for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority?

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Debate between Judith Cummins and Sarah Olney

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Paymaster General for advance sight of his statement. The infected blood scandal is a harrowing story of people being failed not only by the medical professionals who treated them, but by the NHS, which should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment, and by a series of Governments who should have prevented such horror from ever taking place. As the Minister knows, I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome the introduction of the infected blood compensation scheme. The Government were right to introduce the scheme at the start of the Parliament, and I am glad to hear the Minister say that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is scaling up its operation. However, we are alarmed that the roll-out of the scheme has been far too slow, leaving victims without the justice that they deserve.

Victims and their families have been waiting for decades for answers and recognition of the suffering they endured. So far, only 106 people have received payments from IBCA, and 54 others have received offers. Compensation payouts are not due to conclude until 2029, and that date would rely on a rapid increase in the rate of payments. We are deeply concerned by the speed at which victims are receiving their long-overdue compensation, and I am glad that last week’s hearings looked into the adequacy and timeliness of the Government’s response. To echo the words of Sir Brian Langstaff,

“People infected and affected do not have time on their side.”

To that end, and to provide confidence to victims and their families, can the Paymaster General clarify what deadline he has for the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations? Moreover, what further steps is he taking to increase the speed at which payments are being made, and can he confirm when all victims can expect to have received their long-overdue compensation? What more can be done to help those who need to provide proof of infection but whose medical records have been destroyed?

It is crucial that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the concerns of charities, organisations and the affected individuals are heard. Supporting the work of those vital organisations and engaging with them to understand exactly the needs of those affected is crucial.

The Liberal Democrats are backing the survivors’ call for a duty of candour on all public officials. As such, I am glad to hear the sentiment behind the Government’s response to recommendation 5, but when will the Government bring forward proposals to that effect so that such a scandal is never repeated? Can the Paymaster General clarify why there has been a delay, given that relevant legislation was originally meant to be published in April?

Elections (Proportional Representation)

Debate between Judith Cummins and Sarah Olney

1st reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

With pleasure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions are not taken during the ten-minute rule speech.

[Sarah Olney]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill would introduce a system of proportional representation for parliamentary elections and local government elections in England. Liberal Democrats have been calling for the introduction of a single transferable vote system whereby candidates on a ballot paper are ranked according to the voter’s preference. That system would protect the critical local link between MPs and their constituencies, which is valuable in connecting individual voters with the Parliament that makes decisions on their behalf. Constituency MPs understand the specific issues that voters in their seat are experiencing and can connect them to the broader issues facing the country. A system of STV would preserve that aspect of our current system, but would also ensure that MPs enjoyed the broad support of the majority of their electors.

In the most recent general election, the number of MPs elected to this Chamber with more than 50% of the votes cast in their constituency was just 96—a decrease from 421 in the 2019 election and 476 in the general election before that. Ten of our colleagues in this Parliament were elected with fewer than 30% of the vote of their constituents who turned out. Far fewer MPs today can say they have the support of the majority of their constituents, or even a broad base of support, than ever before.

Proportional electoral systems have been used successfully for elections in the UK’s devolved Parliaments and Assemblies since the turn of the century. One of the advantages of adopting STV for all local elections in England, as well as general elections, is that it is already in use in two of the four nations that make up the UK. Now Welsh councils also have the power to adopt STV if they wish, it may soon be three out of the four nations. Proportional representation through an STV system is not alien to the UK; millions of people across the country are already familiar with voting in that way. The use of proportional systems that retain a close constituency link across the UK makes Westminster’s use of first past the post the outlier rather than the norm.

Changing the voting system for UK parliamentary elections is not the only thing that needs to be done to restore democratic engagement in this country. The shambles of the last Conservative Government created a crisis for democracy. Thanks to their cronyism, rule breaking, and sleaze scandals, public trust in Government is worryingly low. Successive Conservative Prime Ministers acted without integrity and treated Parliament and the people with disdain. In the previous Parliament, the Conservatives weakened the independence of the Electoral Commission and introduced disproportionate voting systems for mayoral elections in England and the undemocratic voter identification scheme.

The Liberal Democrats believe that public confidence in democracy is vital for effective and functioning Governments and that, consequently, we must take all possible steps to rebuild public trust in politics. We will continue to call on the Government to scrap the voter ID scheme and will hold them to account for their conduct in office. But the most effective change we can make to clear up the mess the Conservatives left is to change the voting system and ensure that the voices of voters across the British Isles can properly be heard.

I am glad to know that support for electoral reform comes from not only the Liberal Democrat Benches but across the House. I am pleased that Labour Members in particular agree that we need proportional representation after voting overwhelmingly in favour of PR at their conference two years ago. More importantly, recent polling shows that a majority of the British public are in favour of scrapping first past the post and moving to proportional representation. The all-party parliamentary group for fair elections was launched last week with the support of over 100 MPs. Its report “Free But Not Fair” highlights many of the structural issues that have led to the decline of public trust in politics and engagement with elections.

We must take urgent action to protect democratic processes and institutions in the UK from threats here and abroad. We need to listen to the warning bells sounded by the general election that the citizens we seek to serve, and who must abide by the laws we pass, are becoming disenchanted with the political process. If we want to continue to be a beacon of democracy across the world, we must ensure that it serves its purpose in giving a voice to the people and delivering prosperity and stability. We cannot do the latter if we fail to do the former.

First past the post is a broken and unfair system. This summer, the Labour party won a landslide election victory, securing 63% of seats in the House of Commons in return for just 34% of the vote. The system leaves millions of voices unheard and creates a divisive, adversarial political climate where collaboration is discouraged and accountability is often sidestepped. The Liberal Democrats have long championed proportional representation, advocating for a voting system where every vote truly counts. We must modernise our electoral system, create a fairer process to engage voters, listen to the needs of our constituents and rebuild trust in politics.

UK Steel Manufacturing

Debate between Judith Cummins and Sarah Olney

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The steel industry has been left in a mess after years of mismanagement. The abandonment of the industrial strategy by the previous Government has been a disaster right across our economy, but nowhere more so than in strategic heavy industries such as steel, which face many complex and interconnected challenges. We can all agree on the vital importance of steel production, whether that is in terms of national security or of providing the materials that we need for a green economy. It is equally clear that the steel industry needs to be supported to move towards greener methods of production and a more sustainable footing, while ensuring that jobs are protected.

The sector desperately needs the certainty of a new industrial strategy. Can the Minister give a clear timeline for exactly when we will see that industrial strategy? Can she confirm that when the Industrial Strategy Council is rebooted, it will be placed on a statutory footing through legislation so that it is properly empowered to support our industries in the long term?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Judith Cummins and Sarah Olney

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

For too long, our high streets have been hostages to an outdated and damaging business rates system. Empty shopfronts and shuttered windows should never become the norm in our town centres. Small businesses in desperate need of a helping hand will have been deeply concerned not to see any mention of business rates system reform in the King’s Speech. Can the Minister assure us that business rates system reform is coming soon and that, when it does, it will be a comprehensive replacement of that damaging system?

Metropolitan Police: Misogyny and Sexual Harassment

Debate between Judith Cummins and Sarah Olney

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Before I call Sarah Olney to move the motion, I remind hon. Members not to make references, beyond passing factual references, to cases that are live before the courts.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reports of misogyny and sexual harassment in the Metropolitan Police.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Cummins. I extend my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the debate, especially today, on International Women’s Day. The last time I made a speech in Parliament to mark International Women’s Day, I was the only female Liberal Democrat MP. Five years later, I find myself a proud member of a party that is, as of December 2021, 70% female. It is my profound belief that stronger female representation in all of our organisations and institutions can improve the lives of women and girls everywhere, and it is that belief, above all else, that propelled me along the path that led to Parliament.

When I was re-elected as the Member for Richmond Park in December 2019, it was a particular pleasure to find that women were in positions of responsibility at every level in the police force. My local borough inspectors in both Kingston and Richmond have at various times been women. The commander of the local basic command unit and her predecessor are women. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan police was a woman. The Home Secretary is a woman. How could my part of London not be a utopia of safety and justice for women? There have, however, been several events over the last year that have caused many of my constituents to be concerned about police officers’ attitudes towards women, and I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about that.

Our debate today will be haunted by the memory of Sarah Everard, who was killed by PC Wayne Couzens of the Metropolitan police just over a year ago, on 3 March 2021. Women across London and beyond experienced the news of her disappearance and the discovery of her body with a sense of real dread and fear. I felt it very personally, because the address where Sarah said her final goodbye to her friends was only a few streets away from where I used to live, and I would have pushed my baby daughter’s pram along the route where my namesake walked her last walk. Like many other women on that night and many others, she was just walking home. Thousands of women who did not know Sarah felt real grief at the news that her body had been found. Everything that we had heard about the case seemed to speak to our very deepest fears.

But then something even worse happened. Even now, 12 months later, I can still recall how terrifying it was to discover that the man who had been arrested in connection with her murder was a serving Metropolitan police officer. A person who was employed to keep us safe and enforce the law, and whom we ought to be able to trust, had betrayed that trust in the worst possible way and committed an act of violence against a defenceless woman.

A few days after the arrest, Reclaim These Streets wanted to organise a vigil for Sarah Everard. They approached Lambeth police but were refused permission. A gathering took place anyway; it was attended by police, and it proceeded in an orderly fashion until the early evening, when speeches started to be made from the bandstand and crowds grew denser. A number of arrests were made, and pictures of women being handcuffed while being held down by police spread on social media. For many women, myself included, it looked like an appallingly heavy-handed response to a peaceful vigil. It felt like an insult, on top of an already grievous injury, that the colleagues of the man arrested for murdering a woman were now using force to prevent other women from gathering together to pay tribute to her.

The subsequent report into the police’s conduct by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services exonerated the police while criticising politicians and others for expressing their opinions on what had happened. The 60-page report made only the most passing reference to the fact that the man arrested for the incident that sparked the vigil was a police officer; its analysis of the factors that contributed to the event does not include that fact. The report states that public confidence in the police will have been undermined not by the violent actions of a police officer but by “media coverage” and “uninformed commentary” on social media. I remember being furious at the report, not just at its complete failure to reflect the full context of the vigil, but at its implication that those critical of the police response—and I was certainly one of them—were more responsible for undermining trust in the police than was the fact that one of their number had been arrested for murder.

The sense that the police were not acknowledging the implications of the fact that Sarah’s murderer was a police officer was compounded by messaging from the Met police about women’s safety, following the conviction and sentencing of Wayne Couzens in September 2021. It advised women who were unsure whether a police officer intended to harm them that they could flag down a bus or shout to a passer-by for assistance. It felt not only as though the Met was accepting that it was the norm for women to fear the police, but as though it was not going to take any responsibility for resolving that.

That episode has damaged public confidence in the Met, but we also know that Wayne Couzens is not the only police officer to have committed violence against women. Freedom of information data shows that 2,000 accusations of sexual misconduct, including rape, have been made against Met police officers over the past four years. Only a third of officers who were found guilty have been dismissed. We also know that Couzens was previously convicted of indecent exposure and regularly shared grossly offensive messages over WhatsApp with other police officers. That did not trigger concerns about his conduct.

However, PC Couzens is not the only officer guilty of sharing disturbing messages on social media platforms. Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, sisters from north London, went missing in June 2020. Their bodies were eventually found by family members in a nearby park after police showed little interest in investigating. Two police officers were subsequently jailed for photographing the women’s bodies and sharing the photos on WhatsApp, including in a group of 41 police officers. The court released details of how the images had been altered and the accompanying messages, but I will not repeat them here.

A recent Independent Office for Police Conduct report on behaviour at Charing Cross police station revealed

“a culture of ‘toxic masculinity’, sexual harassment and misogyny.”

One officer had sent a WhatsApp message to a female colleague, saying:

“I would happily rape you”.

Another bragged about how he had hit his girlfriend, saying:

“It makes them love you more.”

Women officers were belittled and ostracised if they spoke out about this behaviour.

Women fear that an internal culture of misogyny might also affect how police treat members of the public. I have had women get in touch with me to share their experiences of having complaints of stalking and harassment dismissed—even laughed at—by Metropolitan police officers, leaving them feeling powerless and abandoned, and as though the behaviour of their perpetrators had been normalised.

I am grateful to the superintendent of our local basic command unit for taking time to give me her perspective on the issue. She reports a great deal of frustration among police officers that there is so much public attention on and criticism of the police in relation to those events, when the majority of police officers are dedicated, law-abiding and committed to helping their communities. Politicians, particularly Members of Parliament, can relate strongly to the feeling that the damaging actions of a small minority can lead to a disproportionate erosion of public trust in a collection of people, but there is a special responsibility on both law makers and law enforcers to ensure that they uphold the law, in public and in private, and that when there is a visible breach, adequate action is taken swiftly and effectively to denounce the polluting behaviour and to restore public trust.

Public trust is earned; it is not a given. To have it, we must constantly work to uphold the values that are expected of us—both police officers and politicians. Events as horrifying and disturbing as the instances of misogyny described in this speech will, rightly, lead to a large public response. The events of the last year are, after all, not just minor misdemeanours, and I believe that the public’s questioning of the police is valid, even if the perceived scale of damaging attitudes among officers is disproportionate.

That is not to say that public trust has been damaged beyond repair. Baroness Louise Casey is leading an independent review of culture and standards in the Met, in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard. The review offers the Met an opportunity to identify areas in which there is a need for cultural change and to inform a dedicated strategy to tackle misogyny. To ensure that damaging attitudes are given appropriate recognition, I urge that the review’s terms of reference be expanded to make specific reference to misogyny, alongside racism and homophobia.

Our police officers need our trust, and the vast majority deserve it. They have a unique job to do, which requires them to put themselves in harm’s way without a second thought. I am grateful for the excellent job that so many of them do without recognition or appreciation. They have been badly let down by their colleagues, and I recognise that many of them feel as horrified as I do about what has been revealed over the past year.

The recent IOPC report on Charing Cross revealed a number of factors that contributed to the toxic culture it identified. Those included the fact that officers were often isolated and lacked supervision, and that there was widespread acting up, with officers taking on unofficial promotions. That meant that inappropriate behaviours or attitudes were not properly challenged at the right time, and so they became normalised. That strongly suggests that the lack of appropriately experienced or trained police officers has been a contributory factor in allowing negative behaviours to flourish unchecked, which leads back to the dramatic cuts to policing in the capital over the past decade. We know that the Met has been promised more officers, but reports suggest that recruitment is slow and new, inexperienced officers will not change the picture overnight.

The most high-profile new recruit will be the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I look forward to a speedy appointment. If I could end this speech with one ask, it would be that they pay attention to the findings of the IOPC report and to the review by Baroness Casey, and think hard about how to create a culture that reinforces respectful behaviour at all levels, deals robustly with evidence of misogynistic, racist and homophobic attitudes, and, above all, understands the impact that violent or disrespectful behaviour by police officers, even when it is by only a very small proportion, has on their relationship with the public.