Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Research from the Entrepreneurs Network shows that 54% of Britain’s 100 fastest growing companies have a foreign-born founder or co-founder. International entrepreneurs play a vital role in driving innovation, investment and job creation across the UK, yet this Government are recklessly introducing unworkable visa regulations for those very people. Since the Budget in October 2024, 110,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector and 74,000 in retail, and 700,000 graduates are currently unemployed. Youth unemployment has just hit 16%. What impact assessment have the Government undertaken on the impact of their proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain on job creation, and what conversations has the Minister had with the Home Secretary regarding this damaging disincentive to those looking to build their businesses and create jobs here in the UK?

[Peter Kyle]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady describes the doom-laden Lib Dem world that she inhabits, not the real world that is inhabited by entrepreneurs and businesses right across the country. The reality is that 381,000 more people are in work since the start of 2025 because of this Labour Government. She may have missed the fact that my Department, under my leadership and this team, has set up the global talent taskforce, accompanied by a global talent visa. Around the world, we are out there hunting down the best talent, attracting people to the UK and aligning this endeavour with investment, making the UK the best place to invest, to grow and to scale a business anywhere in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

In the Q4 2025 quarterly economic survey, 52% of businesses reported utility costs as a pressure that is driving them to raise prices, and there is a particular impact on the hospitality sector. Recent research by the British Chambers of Commerce shows that more than a quarter of businesses will struggle to pay their energy bills over the next 12 months, and this survey was conducted before the recent escalation in the middle east. Last week’s forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility also did not take into account any potential impact from the jump in oil prices triggered by the strikes in Iran. The fuel duty hike in September is already expected to hit families and small businesses hard, so will the Secretary of State speak to the Chancellor now about scrapping this damaging policy?

[Kate Dearden]

The hon. Lady will have heard in my earlier remarks that I absolutely recognise those pressures and meet hospitality businesses regularly to hear their concerns; energy costs have, of course, come up as one of the biggest pressures facing them. I recognise the concerns those businesses will have when looking at the Gulf conflict and its possible impacts. As the hon. Lady will have heard in my earlier answer, the real risk to businesses is dependence on the volatile international gas markets, which has left us exposed. She will know the work that we are doing in different Departments to recognise that and to tackle that root cause in order to provide better support for businesses. We are looking at the unstable energy markets that have left us exposed and trying to ensure that we have more power here in Britain; we will work with the sector closely and across Government on that.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

In each year since 2023, Royal Mail has been fined by Ofcom over delivery delays, amounting to nearly £40 million. Following recent announcements, it would not surprise me if it were fined again in 2026. When Royal Mail was reprimanded in 2023 and 2024, its leadership promised that reforms would be made to improve its services, but following the £21 million fine in October 2025, the company said it could not publish its improvement plan until negotiations with the Communication Workers Union concluded.

The takeover of Royal Mail, which this Government supported, seems to have done nothing to improve the service so far. Over the past several years, an average of roughly one in four first-class letters arrives late, and recent reports suggest that 219 million letters may arrive late this year. These letters are sometimes urgent and hold important information, so it is clear that Royal Mail is repeatedly failing to meet its universal service obligation. Despite that, its stamp prices have consistently risen. That includes next month’s planned rise of 10p to the cost of first-class postage, taking the cost of a stamp to £1.80. The sorry saga of Royal Mail has gone on for far too long. Does the Minister believe that the British public should be paying more for their postal service, despite Royal Mail repeatedly failing to deliver their letters on time?

[Blair McDougall]

Paying more for postage is obviously part of the journey towards financial sustainability for Royal Mail as a critical piece of national infrastructure, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that if our constituents are paying more for their stamps, they expect those letters to arrive, and it is not good enough if they do not. As I said, I am meeting Ofcom later on. It has asked Royal Mail for an improvement plan, which we think is long overdue. One issue that I will raise with Ofcom is progress on that improvement plan.

Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 General Committees

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I was not planning to make a speech, but since the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, said she plans to vote against this statutory instrument and invited me to join her, I feel I should get some remarks on the record on behalf of my party. I thank her for her kind invitation, but I plan to vote with the Government on establishing the Fair Work Agency, in line with the policy of my party throughout the progress of the Employment Rights Bill.

We support the setting up of the Fair Work Agency. It brings together the powers of several different bodies into one unified place, and that is really important. I hear what the shadow Minister is saying about extending the GLAA powers, but I think there is a bigger win here in setting up the Fair Work Agency: it would not only provide a better route for employees to establish their rights in the workplace, but relieve the burden of tribunals from employers, if it works as intended.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I am genuinely shocked and surprised to hear the Liberal Democrat line, because I seem to remember when these investigatory powers—including the right to snoop on communications—were first brought in, the hon. Lady’s party was vehemently against them, yet here we are giving these powers to an agency that will cover every job in this land.

[Sarah Olney]

I hear the hon. Lady, but I repeat what I said: the setting up of the Fair Work Agency is an important step towards ensuring that employees can assert their rights in the workplace and that employers will not be burdened unduly with the costs of tribunals. That is why the Liberal Democrats have supported the setting up of the Fair Work Agency from the start.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

Businesses in my constituency have told me categorically that they are very concerned about this. Entrepreneurs who have taken all the risks to create jobs in their communities run the risk of the Fair Work Agency, which will be given these powers, coming into their businesses and riding roughshod over the work they are creating. How is that liberal and democratic?

[Sarah Olney]

It is very kind of the hon. Lady to ask me that. This is obviously the Government’s statutory instrument, so I am not entirely certain why I am getting all the scrutiny here. I repeat again that we have supported the setting up of the Fair Work Agency from the very start and support the measures in this statutory instrument that contribute to that.

I hear the hon. Lady’s concerns, and the concerns of businesses in Bognor Regis. The Liberal Democrats are obviously concerned to ensure that any request for information from businesses is made proportionately, and only in response to legitimate concerns about employers treating their employees fairly. That is what we would expect the Fair Work Agency to do. I will finish by reiterating that we support the setting up of the Fair Work Agency and this statutory instrument.

Post Office Green Paper

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before we begin the next statement, I remind the Front Benchers that there are time limits on each of their statements. In particular, the Liberal Democrats tend to be running over.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I know—not the present Front-Bench spokeswoman, but they have been all afternoon. Please keep within time limits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I promise to set a good example for colleagues by keeping my response brief.

As the Minister has laid out, the responses to the consultation underscored the importance of post offices as community hubs that provide vital services, not least to NHS patients through the delivery of important medical correspondence. Some 99.7% of the population live within three miles of a post office, and 4,000 of these branches are open seven days a week. That is an increasingly important statistic, given the rapid closure of high street services such as banks over the past decade. The Minister has said that at least 50% of the network must be full-time and full-service branches. Many people rely on the post office to provide vital services, so can the Minister confirm that we will not see a reduction in the number of full-time branches and that he will ensure that opening hours continue to meet the needs of working people?

The Minister also referred to the important community banking service that post offices provide, but he did not provide specific assurances to the House about other services provided by the Post Office, such as Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency services and Passport Office services. He mentioned expanded digital services, but these will not help many of our constituents who live in remote areas with poor broadband access or difficult phone service access. Can he provide a commitment that the Post Office will continue to provide physical services for people who will have difficulty accessing DVLA and passport services digitally? Can he confirm that these will remain in post office branches beyond March 2026, and will he commit to multi-year contracts, in particular with the DVLA?

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming today’s statement. On the additional protection that we are bringing in, I reassure her that in addition to maintaining the network of 11,500 post offices, the access criteria stipulate that 99% of the UK population must be within three miles of a post office outlet, 90% must be within one mile, 99% of those living in deprived urban areas must be within one mile, 95% of the total urban population must be within one mile, and 95% of the total rural population must be within three miles. Then we have the additional protection, particularly in rural areas, that 95% of the population in every postcode district must be within six miles of a post office. They will all be maintained, which should reassure her.

The hon. Lady makes a point about ensuring that post office hours match people’s lives, which is something that postmasters are doing already. I visited a post office in Acton that stays open at weekends and till 11 pm, so that other retailers, such as grocers, can come and put in their takings.

Finally, we recognise the importance of post offices for vulnerable people and those who, for whatever reason, might struggle with the choices that many other people are making about accessing Government services online. That is one of the key reasons why we are keeping the network at the level it is at the moment. As I mentioned in my statement, we are also doing work across Government to look at the idea of a single front door for face-to-face Government services and the role that the Post Office can play in that. We are looking to enhance the role that the Post Office plays.

Onshoring: Fashion and Textiles

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine—there is nobody better to chair a debate on fashion, if I may say so. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for her excellent opening speech and all the wonderful points she made. I want to get slightly competitive for a moment: I admire her skirt, which her sister made, but I want to draw attention to the top that I am wearing, which I made myself—onshoring fashion in action.

[The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)]

You’re taking other people’s jobs—typical Lib Dem!

[Sarah Olney]

The Minister’s sedentary intervention gives me a good opportunity to say that the hand knitting industry supports many jobs in many rural areas, right across the country, including Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. However, I have spoken to the people who own Knit With Me, the amazing knitting shop on Richmond Hill of which I am a regular customer, and they tell me how much harder it has become to send some of their amazing products abroad since Brexit. Of course, pure wool is an animal product, which falls under those regulations, so the customs requirements to send packages to the EU have become so much more challenging for them. I am therefore here just as much to stand up for the knitting industry—I am literally standing up in my hand knitted top—although that is not quite what the debate is about, so I beg your pardon, Ms Jardine.

The Liberal Democrats recognise the urgency to transform the way in which fashion operates. We must reduce pollution, curtail environmental damage and tackle unethical practices in the supply chain. The fast fashion industry has been linked to unethical labour practices and modern slavery, tarnishing the appeal of the garments people wear. We urgently need a more sustainable fashion industry. Increasing domestic production is an important aspect of that, as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) so passionately set out when talking about his own constituency.

Onshoring is the process of bringing fashion and textile manufacturing back to the UK from overseas. It aims to shorten supply chains and rebuild domestic production capacity that has been lost through decades of offshoring. There are many benefits to onshoring production: it could create local jobs and support British manufacturers and suppliers. More domestic production would also strengthen the UK’s supply chain, reducing reliance on distant producers and the risk of global disruption. There are also benefits to brands seeking agile, flexible production—especially smaller and emerging labels that value local partners—not to mention the reduction of carbon emissions by minimising long-distance shipping. It also fits with growing consumer demand for climate-friendly products, while allowing better quality control and adherence to environmental and labour standards.

Currently, less than 3% of the clothing worn in the UK is made domestically, which shows the scale of the decline. However, the UK fashion and textiles sector retains a base of skilled mills, heritage factories and emerging micro-factories that could support scaled-up onshoring. As such, it has significant potential for domestic growth. UK labour, energy and running costs are, however, significantly higher than in many overseas locations, which makes price competition difficult, and small businesses may struggle with the high initial investment required to rebuild facilities.

Many of the challenges of growing the sector are compounded by a shortage of skilled workers such as sewing machinists. There is a risk of losing these kinds of specialist crafts if they are not actively rebuilt and supported. More broadly, access to training, and hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses of all kinds across the country. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the industrial strategy at the beginning of the Parliament, and the commitment to an increase in skills and training.

We would introduce a general duty of care for the environment and human rights in business operations and supply chains. We would introduce legislation obliging retailers to guarantee full traceability in their supply chains, ensuring ethically sourced materials, decent livelihoods and safe working conditions, as well as the introduction of joint liability for sub-contractors in the fashion and fabric industry.

The UK imports around £20 million-worth of clothing from countries around the world every year, and around 25% of that is estimated to come from China. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Chinese Government’s actions in Xinjiang constitute a genocide. The National Crime Agency decided not to launch an investigation into the importation of cotton products manufactured by forced labour in the Xinjiang province of China. The Court of Appeal found that to be unlawful, a decision that the Liberal Democrats welcome. All human beings should be treated with decency and have their human rights respected. With 19 billion units of clothing produced in China yearly, it is not unbelievable that much of that is produced by detainees in Xinjiang.

[Shockat Adam]

Does the hon. Lady agree that any company found to be utilising cotton produced through slave labour should not be allowed to list themselves on the stock market in this country?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to take much firmer action to ensure that no products traded in the supply chain in this country—or, as he says, stocks listed on the stock market—are produced through any kind of forced labour. The use of forced labour is an affront to human rights; but also, and more pragmatically, it does not create a level playing field for producers who are treating their workers fairly and using ethical processes in their production.

The Global Legal Action Network, which brought the case forward, says that there is abundant evidence that UK companies import cotton made with forced labour from China, and that 85% of Chinese cotton is grown in the Xinjiang region. Slavery is not an issue of the past. Today, almost 50 million people are trapped in slavery worldwide. We call on the Government to reverse the Conservatives’ roll-backs of modern slavery protections, and introduce legislation obliging retailers to guarantee full traceability in their supply chains, ensuring ethically sourced materials, decent livelihoods and safe working conditions. We want to champion human rights and support survivors.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to issue a comprehensive China strategy that places human rights and effective, rules-based multilateralism at its centre. My colleagues and I will continue to stand up for people’s human rights in the UK and across the globe, including in China, where much of the UK’s fashion comes from. But in order to encourage onshoring, the UK Government must do more to help UK business. They must champion start-ups and the UK’s entrepreneurs, do more to help small and medium-sized enterprises with costs for things such as energy and people, and upskill our workforce to be able to do the jobs created.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is saying no to that, but he does not know what it is like.

In Edinburgh, of course, there are lots of other brands; perhaps the most famous is Pringle. We have talked a little about knitwear brands such as Beira, Rowanjoy and Mackenzie. We really want those smaller brands to prosper, because so many of them know that part of their key selling point is that they are British and bring something special to the market. They have a particular eye and source their materials in an ethical way. It just gives us a buzz to wear some of their clothes. That is precisely the kind of industry that we want to support.

When I was shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, one of my best days was going down to see the Royal School of Needlework. Hon. Members may think of this as a rather posh thing that puts together items for royal coronations and things like that, but it is the only place in Europe where one can gain a qualification in needlework that is essential to some of the higher fashion brands in the UK. I thought I was going to meet lots of very posh people from Reigate or wherever it may be, but I was absolutely delighted when I walked in to find that the first two young women I met were both from the Rhondda. They wanted to go into the fashion industry, and they knew that by acquiring all the skills they could from the Royal School of Needlework, they were really going to flourish.

The sector is worth bazillions—that is an official term. The statistics people in the Department will probably want me to correct the record on that later. This sector is worth £62 billion to the UK economy, and it supports 1.3 million jobs and generates £23 billion in tax revenue every year. As the hon. Member for Reigate mentioned, there are major manufacturing hubs in many parts of the land—for instance, in Leicester, as we have already heard, across the midlands and in the highlands. I have not yet mentioned Harris Tweed, from which I have a very splendid waistcoat, or Favourbrook—another great British brand.

We are not just talking about textiles for clothing; camouflage has been mentioned, and high tech and new developments in the sector are really important. Yesterday, I met representatives of Panaz Ltd from Burnley, which produces a series of fabrics, including antimicrobial and fire retardant textiles. It is very much at the cutting edge—that sounds wrong, because that is a metaphor from the textile industry—of innovation in the sector, and it sells across the world, which is brilliant.

There are of course connections between the sector and many others we excel in. That is why they are integral to our industrial strategy. One has only to watch 10 minutes of “Bridgerton” to know that fashion and textiles are a really important part of what we are selling to the whole world. One could say the same about Bond, though I would prefer it if he wore British tailoring, even though Bond is now owned by Amazon.

Incidentally, British tailoring is so big that the biggest supermarket in Spain is called El Corte Inglés, which means “The English Cut”. Founded in 1890, it got its name because tailors in Madrid knew that the best tailoring in the world was British and they wanted to sell on the basis of that. It was bought up in 1934 and became an enormous chain in Spain. That just shows our connection. One final connection I would like to make is with British jewellery. We have some of the best jewellers in the world, and often the connection between fashion and jewellery is a really important part of the things that we excel at.

Some specific points were made about procurement. I had not heard the point about uniforms before. It is a really good one, and I am going to chase it down. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet does not have to go and metaphorically beat up the Ministers in the Ministry of Defence. I will do that for her, and I will get all the details. It would be good if more of our British servicemen and women were dressed in British uniforms. I remember once being in Sarajevo and being introduced to the new Italian uniforms, which I think are done by Dolce & Gabbana. They had previously been Armani, but they thought they would upgrade to Dolce & Gabbana, or it may have been the other way round. I am not sure—I might have to correct the record again. My hon. Friend spoke about the Procurement Act 2023, which gives public bodies greater ability to prioritise ethical and local sourcing. One would think that that would apply to the whole of Government rather than just parts of the Government, so let us see whether we can make that happen.

My hon. Friend asked about Government investment. We have set aside £4.3 billion to support manufacturers over the next five years, and up to £2.8 billion of that is for research and development. Quite often, the creative industries such as fashion are hesitant about seeking research and development money, because they think that there is nothing new under the skies and that they therefore would not qualify for it, but one has only to watch “Kinky Boots” to know that research and development is just as essential in fashion as it is in any other sector.

We have revamped our support for businesses to make it more effective, including through the development of the business growth service. I urge any business to seek help and advice when they need it. We are very keen on enhancing our trade promotion work. The spring version of London Fashion Week is coming up; unfortunately, it is just for women. I would like us to get back to having a spring fashion week that has both male and female fashions, though the economics of that do not necessarily add up at the moment. We are very supportive of the autumn London Fashion Week.

Of all the big fashion weeks around the world, the UK goes for the edgier part of the market, as Members may already know. That is precisely where we should be, which is why it is so important that we provide financial support for what we call “newgen”, which has produced a suite of new designers in recent years, many of whom are now breaking into much bigger markets. Of course, we continue our support through the British Fashion Council.

We also produced a small business strategy last year, which is really important, not only because many fashion and textiles businesses suffer from late payments, which is something that we definitely need to work on far more effectively than we have in the past, but because of the lack of availability of cash, whether that is for significant investment or for export investment. On both of those issues, we have set aside additional financial support to make sure that that is available for small and medium-sized enterprises.

I come on to the issue of responsible business conduct. Several hon. Members referred to issues such as forced labour or sustainability, but we have not talked about palm oil or deforestation or the production of cotton in different parts of the world, and so on. Hon. Members will know that we have been engaged in a responsible business conduct review, which is nearing completion. I hope we will be able to announce our conclusions fairly soon.

My aim is not to load businesses with more regulation but to try to make sure that the regulation they are subject to is truly effective. One of my anxieties is that sometimes we just get businesses to produce reports; somebody is employed to produce lots of different reports, which get bunged in the annual report and nobody in the world reads them ever. I just do not think that is as effective as other measures that we might be able to introduce. We are trying to curtail the regulatory burden, while at the same time making regulation more effective.

[Sarah Olney]

Does the Minister agree that effective regulation is not about putting burdens on business, but about ensuring a level playing field, so that ethical businesses and those that have committed to the welfare of their employees and to sourcing good quality materials have a level playing field to sell their products and are not being undercut by people who do not observe those standards?

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree with that, but I would make another point. As we put together our trade strategy, we also have to consider whether there might be unfair subsidies in other parts of the world that make it impossible for British businesses to compete in the market. Dumping and other unfair trade practices around the world are part of the set of issues that I want to be able to take to the World Trade Organisation for proper consideration.

I end with a couple of thoughts. We have all loved the fast fashion industry, and shopping is a pastime for many. For many, the availability of cheap clothing is an absolutely essential part of being able to dress themselves. At a time of global crises and financial difficulties for many families, where parents might be worrying about being able to pay the next bill that comes through the door, making sure that the clothes they buy for their kids to go to school and so on are affordable is essential. I get all of that, but I do rejoice in my heart when I talk to younger generations, including my nieces, who are as much in love with preloved clothes as they are with stuff that they might buy new today—with discovering something that has been around for a very long time, and not just buying something and chucking it out two months later.

There is joy and an economic opportunity for all of us if we can manage to onshore more in a variety of different ways, such as enabling people to recycle their own clothes a bit more often, to recycle the clothes of others, and to invest in ethical brands who really do the business in this country. Of course, that means that we have to invest in skills so that there are people able to develop these things—I think the hon. Member for Richmond Park is offering to provide knitting classes for all of her constituents.

Incidentally, I should say I do love “The Great British Sewing Bee”. It is a great television programme. It shows lots of people that we can make our own clothes, and that ethical and sustainable products are an important part of making sure that we live in a world that we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren, or our nieces and nephews.

Postal Services: Rural Areas

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for securing the debate and for his excellent opening speech, which highlighted so many of the everyday frustrations and difficulties experienced by people who are not getting their post. I thank all hon. Members who have shared examples of their own.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I am very proud to represent some fantastic small businesses in my rural constituency. Mr Barclay, the owner of CardByMeLove in Tiverton, has been left to shoulder an administrative burden that is not of his own making, chasing missing parcels and placating disgruntled customers. To make matters worse, he has faced an unresponsive Royal Mail. Does my hon. Friend agree that such instances of abject failure actively undermine the ability of small businesses to operate, and cause serious reputational damage in already trying circumstances?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is right. We have talked a lot today about the implications for individuals and I particularly want to highlight the example from my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne). That was really appalling and I send my best wishes to his constituent who suffered that unacceptable incident. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) is absolutely right to point out the impact on businesses, too.

Post offices across the UK play a vital role in our local communities, with millions of people depending on them. They provide critical services on our local high streets, such as community banking, foreign exchange and the provision of DVLA services. Often those services act as a lifeline, especially for the elderly, as we have heard so many times today, and for those with limited transport options or in areas without reliable access to online services.

Currently, 99.7% of the population live within three miles of a post office and 4,000 branches are open seven days a week. Last July, the Government launched their consultation on the future of the Post Office and the Liberal Democrats welcome the steps to put post offices on a more sustainable footing. However, it is essential that the reforms protect local services and post office jobs and that no post office is closed without proper consultation with the local community.

Digitisation can improve access for some users and increase efficiency, but the Government must ensure that post offices remain financially viable and continue to offer face-to-face services for those who need them, particularly in rural areas with limited broadband or internet access, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) pointed out. Rural communities face compounded challenges, including poor digital connectivity, cuts to public transport and the loss of local services, all of which make access to alternatives more difficult when post offices or banks close.

The decline of high street services in rural areas has been an ongoing issue in the UK, with banks and other essential services disappearing at an increasing rate. Just last week, Santander announced the closure of 44 of its branches. That has significant consequences for residents, particularly older people, those with limited digital access, and small businesses. That pattern places increased importance on the role of a local post office. In the past three years, nearly 2,000 bank branches have closed across the UK, including hundreds of rural branches, due to declining in-person transactions and the rise of online banking. Many villages and small towns now lack a single bank, forcing residents to travel long distances for financial services. Those challenges are often compounded by limited broadband or access to the internet, leading to swathes of people in rural communities being excluded from online services and digital banking.

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. Alternative solutions, such as banking hubs, are emerging, but there are not enough of them; the Government should facilitate more to ensure that people across the country can access vital services when they need them and to prevent digital exclusion for people in rural areas.

Royal Mail provides the universal postal service: it must deliver letters to every address in the UK six days a week at a uniform price and deliver parcels five days a week. Royal Mail’s performance is measured against quality-of-service targets, which are set out by Ofcom. The vast majority of those targets are not being achieved; in 2024-25 Royal Mail delivered only 76.5% of first-class mail within one working day of collection against a target of 93%. It also missed its target for second-class mail to be delivered within three working days of collection, as well as its targets for daily delivery routes. Last July, Ofcom announced that Royal Mail will start to deliver second-class letters on every other weekday and not on Saturdays to help cut costs. That is a deeply worrying decision and it could leave countless people who rely on those deliveries in the lurch. People need to know that their post will arrive on time so that they can go about their lives; the move flies right in the face of that.

The sorry saga of Royal Mail delays has been going on for far too long, despite the tireless work of staff members. I wish to add my comments to those of other hon. Members about the excellent work that posties do. I was privileged to visit Mortlake and Barnes delivery office just before Christmas. Its staff work incredibly hard, and I am happy to say that they are doing really well on their targets, but that is obviously not the case across the country, so more need to be done. People are rightly disappointed with the service provided. Instead of giving Royal Mail a free pass, Ofcom needs to step in and act by fully holding this failing service to account. Ofcom needs to think again and not let Royal Mail off the hook at the expense of people who expect, as a bare minimum, for their post to arrive on time.

For many rural communities, the pattern of the closure of services has been compounded by rural public transport being cut, making it even harder for residents to reach alternative services. Bus route reductions leave some villages with little to no public transport, worsening isolation. Bus services are the backbone of economic activity in communities across our country, and they are particularly crucial in rural areas, where accessibility is an issue and local amenities and services are greater distances apart. If the Government are serious about growth, they will invest in services that will boost our struggling town centres and high streets. The increase in the fare cap to £3 is a bus tax that will hit working people, rural communities and people on low incomes the most.

Rural areas of the UK face a distinct set of challenges compared with their urban counterparts. Although Government support exists through various grants, loans and initiatives, several issues, including infrastructure challenges, the phasing out of EU funding and higher costs related to transport, energy and supply chains can disadvantage rural businesses more severely.

I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire for securing this debate. I look forward to hearing what steps the Minister is taking to ensure that communities in rural areas will be able to benefit from the vital service that post offices provide.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats are calling for a new UK-EU customs union—

[Chris Bryant]

Again.

[Sarah Olney]

Still! That would cut red tape for businesses across the country, boost growth by more than 2.2% and raise at least £25 billion a year in tax revenue. The Prime Minister’s chief economic adviser has recommended a customs union with the EU as one of the most effective ways of generating growth, the Health Secretary has talked up the benefits of a customs union and the Deputy Prime Minister has also suggested that countries within a customs union tend to see stronger economic growth. However, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade told the Financial Times last week that negotiating a customs union would be “foolish”. Will the Minister please explain how the Secretary of State plans to deliver growth without a customs union?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady knows that I think Brexit was a terrible, self-inflicted mistake. We need to make sure that we achieve what was promised by the Brexiteers, some of whom are sitting on the Conservative Benches, when they said we would achieve frictionless trade with the European Union as a result of our deal. I think that we can, first, do that on food and when we secure our SPS deal. We are working on the electricity market as well. Then we need to proceed with trying to ensure business mobility so that people can travel across the European Union and, as I said, we need to make sure that British artists and performers can perform across the whole of the European Union.

I have to say that it feels—I hate to use the term “groundhog day” in relation to the Lib Dems, but I can remember when they were in government. O Lord.

[Sarah Olney]

I can’t.

[Chris Bryant]

No, well quite. This is the problem: the Lib Dems never remember when they were in government and they landed us with half the problems that we are trying to sort out today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The heavy burden of Labour’s national insurance contributions rise, compounded by high energy costs and the business rates increase, has raised alarm about the affordability of hospitality businesses’ monthly employment costs. Some 84,000 jobs in the hospitality sector alone have been lost since the NICs rise was introduced, and that is particularly damaging to young people, many of whom have traditionally found their first jobs in the hospitality sector, including the Minister, as she just said at the Dispatch Box. With the sector struggling to employ new workers, damage is being done to the career prospects of our young people, and it will be detrimental to the broader economy in the long term. Business confidence is down, job vacancies are down and unemployment is up, so what steps will the Department take to tackle high unemployment costs, support businesses and bring down those increasingly high levels of unemployment?

[Kate Dearden]

A decade of stagnant growth and living standards will not be turned around in 18 months, but there are signs of progress. The Conservatives left one in eight young people out of education, employment and training, and we are working relentlessly to turn around that disgraceful figure. We recognise the challenges that businesses have to work through as a result of the actions undertaken by the previous Government. On youth unemployment, we have announced an £828 million funding package to give a generation of young people a brighter future. Over the next three years, 1 million young people on universal credit across the country will benefit from support designed to get them into employment and learning, and that includes what we are doing with small businesses on apprenticeships, which we are partly funding. That will be significant, especially for the hospitality sector, in encouraging more jobs. Those jobs are a key lifeline for people to get into the employment market. That is something I recognise, as the hon. Lady noted. We know the importance of this issue, and we want to work closely with the sector and with councils in the significant wider work we are doing on the strategy.

Sale of Fireworks

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. You were not here at the beginning, so you will not have seen that this was the most crowded Westminster Hall debate I have ever attended. It is a bit of a blast from the past to see Labour Members sitting on this side of the Chamber; we have not seen that for a while. I have to say that it is the first time I have been pleased to have a reserved seat; otherwise, I would not have been able to participate in the debate at all.

In that spirit, I particularly congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who made a really good opening speech. I am pleased to respond to the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats; there can be no doubt about the strength of feeling on this issue out there in the country given the number of people who signed these particular petitions. In my constituency of Richmond Park, there were 217 signatories, but that is a relatively small number compared with some of the other numbers that we have heard about today. The very fact that there were so many MPs in Westminster Hall for this debate shows the extent to which Parliament wants to see movement on this issue.

I am really grateful to all the Members who contributed to the debate for sharing the stories of their constituents. However, I was particularly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who talked about her own experiences as a veteran. That really brought home to me the impact that fireworks can have on those suffering from PTSD.

Many other hon. Members talked about the impact of fireworks on people suffering from conditions such as autism and ADHD and on shift workers. I can say from my own experience back when I was a parent of young children how terrifying it was for them and how difficult it was for them to sleep when the fireworks displays went on late into the night.

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), who gave a really detailed description of the impact on livestock and farm animals, from which I learned a great deal. That is not a common experience in my personal inbox, but we do speak a lot in Richmond Park about the impact on pets. It was interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) about his experience as a vet and that no vets want to be on duty on 5 November because they know that it will be a very traumatic night. In a similar vein, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) talked about the impact on Paignton zoo in his constituency. I can only imagine how incredibly difficult it must be to manage the animals in the zoo on nights when there are lots of fireworks around.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) talked about the actual physical dangers of fireworks and gave a very graphic description of how dumped fireworks are an enormous fire hazard. It was—“enlightening” is maybe not a great word to use—interesting to hear everybody’s reflections on the different aspects of this debate.

Fireworks are a sign of celebration. In this country, we typically associate them with Guy Fawkes night, but in my constituency and, I am sure, many other London constituencies, they are increasingly let off during Diwali. I tend to hear more on new year’s eve now than I do on 5 November. The occasions when people let off fireworks are increasing in frequency. Like many Members who have contributed to this debate, the Liberal Democrats certainly do not want to limit people’s enjoyment of fireworks—they remain a spectacular sight and perhaps one of the best expressions of celebration that we have—but there is no doubt that fireworks can have an incredibly harmful impact.

[Sarah Dyke]

My hon. Friend talked about the amazing firework displays that we have across the country, but there are some fantastic alternatives to fireworks, such as demonstrations using drones and light shows. Does she agree that we should implement a noise limit on fireworks of below 90 dB for those that want to use noise fireworks, because that would make a significant difference to ensuring that people and animals in communities feel safe?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend mentioned drones, which I know can provide really spectacular sound and light shows, but I would be slightly nervous about endorsing the use of drones instead of fireworks. Richmond Park has some of the most contested airspace of anywhere in the country. We are very used to the impact of noise from aircraft in my constituency. I certainly do not want to add drones to the congestion in the skies over our heads. I will come to this shortly, but my hon. Friend is exactly right about needing to strike a balance between the enjoyment that fireworks can give and their impact on not just people, but animals.

Fireworks are explosives and can be dangerous, so there are strict rules in place regulating their sale, possession and use. They include essential safety provisions, conformity to the relevant tests and correct application of kitemarks. The 2015 regulations categorise fireworks according to their net explosive content, discharge, safety distances and noise level. Category F1 fireworks present a low hazard and are intended for use in confined areas, although they must not be sold to anyone under the age of 16. Categories F2 and F3 are low to medium hazard and intended for outdoor use. Category F4 is high hazard and can be supplied only to persons with specialist knowledge. There already exists a range of regulations, although the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley made the important point that it is hard to enforce those regulations until after the firework has exploded, by which time it will obviously be too late.

[Dr Arthur]

The safe distance for a category F3 firework is 25 metres, but at the point of sale no questions are asked about where these things will be ignited. Very few people in Edinburgh South West have 25 metres of space to let off a firework in their garden.

[Sarah Olney]

And certainly not in London, I can confirm. The hon. Member is absolutely right about the regulations that exist for the sale of fireworks, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she thinks more could be done to enforce the existing regulations, as the hon. Member suggests, or whether we need to look at a wholesale change of regulations on sale to address some of the issues that Members have raised.

As I mentioned, I represent a constituency that is much blighted by aircraft noise. We know as well as anybody the impact that regular, ongoing noise, particularly late at night and early in the morning, can have on residents’ health and ability to sleep, particularly young children.

Almost every Member here has called for the limit on the decibel level to be reduced it from 120 dB to 90 dB. Whatever fireworks are sold, whatever use they are intended for and whichever celebration they are intended to mark, reducing the decibel limit would strike the right balance between our human need for celebration and our need for sleep and peace of mind.

INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth

Sarah Olney Excerpts

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?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the hon. Member for recognising the importance of both the site and the Government’s intervention. She mentioned the £50 million grant. It is important that hon. Members look at that in the context of the total package: a grant and an investment from the owner of the business—and, as the owner of the business said today, an agreement in principle for a profit-sharing arrangement.

That points to the hon. Member’s other question about the detail of the industrial strategy. This industrial strategy is a significant break with the past. It is not about last-minute interventions, which is what the previous Conservative Government did or did not do, depending on how the mood took them. It is about a serious partnership and engagement between Government and industry to ensure that we have sustainable industry in the UK.

The hon. Member asked me about energy costs. I mentioned earlier the relative position on energy costs. Of course, we are doing more on that, and I intend to do much more. In answer to her question on whether it would have helped had the scheme been in place earlier, clearly it would have helped if there had been a Labour Government in place earlier. That would be my advice: always vote Labour.

Employment Rights Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Today we are debating the fourth round of consideration of Lords amendments to this Bill, and this long and protracted process says a lot about the way the Government have approached this legislation. The Bill was initially put together at great speed, missing much of the detail; there was a long series of Government amendments late in the process; and now a major last-minute change on the compensation cap for unfair dismissal has been sprung on businesses and Parliament. Regardless of what one makes of the different measures in the legislation, I think most of us would agree that the process followed in designing it has been less than ideal. Having said that, let me reiterate what has always been the Liberal Democrat position on the Bill: we support many of the aims of this legislation.

We welcome expanding access to statutory sick pay, improving parental leave and taking steps to address the massive pay gap facing social care workers. We agree with giving those on zero-hours contracts more certainty, even though we proposed what we view as a more practical and balanced way of doing so, and we are pleased to see a unified Fair Work Agency, which we also called for as a way of empowering employees to exercise their rights without fear of any negative consequences. However, we have made it clear that we have significant worries about the specific way in which some of those measures would be implemented, and we have repeatedly raised our concern that crucial detail was being left for secondary legislation.

By far our biggest concern was the complete lack of clarity on unfair dismissal and probation periods, which is why we have worked in both Houses to secure a vital concession setting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal at six months. We are proud that when some tried to brush aside the concerns of the business community and others sought to frustrate the process, it was the Liberal Democrats who secured this vital provision. It is the role of any responsible Opposition party to engage constructively and achieve substantial improvements for the good of our country. It could not be clearer that this fair and sensible shift will equally benefit businesses and workers. So many businesses I have spoken to have said that this is the single most meaningful change that could have been made to the Bill.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am conscious that we are debating a particular point. Is the hon. Member voting for or against the cap? That is the essence of what we are looking at today.

[Sarah Olney]

I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that. I was coming to that in my speech. Perhaps he could listen with a little more attention.

Employers have finally been given the necessary clarity to make hiring decisions with confidence, and we have avoided the danger of unnecessarily slowing down the labour market even further, which would have deprived so many people of vital employment opportunities. That is exactly what the progressive Resolution Foundation think-tank warned of when it said there was a risk that

“employers would be nervous about hiring new workers or offering shifts, and this would make life harder for job seekers.”

As I pointed out last week, it is really disappointing that the Government decided to muddy this improvement by simultaneously abolishing the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal. Employers were not in favour of scrapping the £118,000 cap, and I once again point out that bringing in a change like this at the last minute is not how we build trust between Government and business. However, I note that employers and business groups have been equally clear that this last-minute change must not stand in the way of the far more important changes secured with regard to the six-month qualifying period. Above all else, business values pragmatism, and that is exactly why it wants to see this breakthrough protected and enshrined in law. That is what has guided our approach throughout.

Will the Minister confirm on the Floor of the House that the Government will conduct an assessment of the impact of the removal of the compensation cap, actively seeking views from businesses, as was indicated to the Liberal Democrats in the other place? On a broader level, will she give a cast-iron commitment that the Government will hold regular debates in both Houses to ensure that Parliament can scrutinise what work is being done to consult businesses and workers on all relevant implementation aspects of this Bill? How are the Government planning to support employers in order to ensure that they have robust policies and practices in place to navigate these changes to the unfair dismissal regime?

Lastly, to those in the Conservative party who have been trying to sabotage this crucial compromise on the six-month qualifying period, I simply say that they are acting not in the interest of British businesses but only in their own narrow party political self-interest.

[Graham Stuart]

On that very point, does the hon. Member believe that it is totally pragmatic to have disregarded her objections to the removal of the cap in return for additional places for the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords?

[Sarah Olney]

It is so revealing of Conservative Members’ mindset that they cannot believe what I am actually saying is the reason for our change, and that they assume instead that we must have sought some benefit for ourselves. It is so revealing that that is what the Tories think. It beggars belief that the Conservatives, having hammered businesses while in government, are now doing everything in their power to undermine UK plc from the Opposition Benches.

I note that the Government have taken steps to improve the clarity of the legislation with regard to seasonal work, introducing measures that will ensure that businesses relying on seasonal work and bodies representing seasonal workers will be properly consulted when secondary legislation is drawn up. Many businesses, such as those in the farming and agricultural sector, as well as thousands of pubs, cafés and restaurants, depend on seasonal workers, and any obstacles to hiring them could have a significant impact, exacerbating the long list of challenges they already face, so we must ensure that they are supported as much as possible. Small businesses in our local towns and communities are struggling with the Government’s unfair national insurance rise, high export costs due to Brexit red tape and a business rates system that is not fit for purpose. Struggling businesses mean fewer jobs and lower pay, so it is vital that we take steps to support high street businesses and all those who rely on them.

It is time that we listened to the business community, which is telling us that the best way forward is to look for balanced solutions through secondary legislation and to put an end to the uncertainty and avoid losing the six-month qualifying period, which we were happy to have helped secure. Continuing to delay the passage of the Bill at this late and protracted stage would risk further uncertainty for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and would jeopardise significant changes that will benefit workers, such as expanded protections against workplace harassment and improved paternity leave rights.

I urge Members to be pragmatic and to provide clarity to businesses and workers alike regarding an implementation timeline. That is critical for providing a stable operating framework so that businesses can plan ahead. We should now work together to ensure that this legislation can be implemented to benefit businesses and workers alike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

We are short on time, so I will limit myself to two points.

I will start with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) admirably described as the “craven capitulation” of the Liberal Democrats. Just a week ago, the Liberal Democrats were arguing passionately about unions’ abilities to cause strikes, and about the right to guaranteed hours. Then what happened? Five peerages came along. Now they are in favour of those things. It used to be the case with their last Prime Minister, Lloyd George, who famously used to sell peerages for money. Now it seems that the Liberal Democrats sell their principles for peerages.

[Sarah Olney]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that is disgraceful. The hon. Gentleman is literally implying corruption. I made it very clear in my speech what the basis of our change in support in the Lords was for, and I think it is intolerable that we are being accused.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for her advice. As it happens, she makes a good point. The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) should not be suggesting any particular motive attributed to that issue, and could he perhaps confine his remaining comments for the next 90 seconds?