Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this important debate. As hon. Members have set out, the abuse and violence experienced by women and girls in public spaces is horrifyingly prevalent and should be called out for what it is: a national emergency.

I want to pay tribute to hon. Members from across the House for some of the things they have said this afternoon, and particularly to the hon. Member for Lowestoft, who started the debate in such a wonderful way and really set the tone. She highlighted things that we all know, as women, but that, shockingly, still need highlighting. She spoke about women having to choose either the most direct or the safest route home, and about the unspoken risk assessment we all do—those words rang true to me.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) spoke about her personal experience of harassment while cycling, and about the importance of encouraging children to start cycling early. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) spoke about the things we do “just in case”, and that really resonated with me. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) talked about her constituent, Holly, and her call for women’s safety to be designed in—that is really important, and I hope the Minister listens to that call. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) said that women are “constantly compromising” in what they do, and that also rang very true to me. I also highlight the hon. Members of the other gender who spoke up so passionately and convincingly when they said that men’s behaviour needs to change and that they would champion that. I thank them very much for speaking out about it.

A UN Women UK study found that 71% of women of all ages have experienced sexual harassment in public spaces in the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said. That figure increases to a shocking 86% for women aged 18 to 24. Part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry confirmed, in black and white, what women already knew—that it is common for us to feel unsafe walking or running in our own streets, and that as women we often actively change our daily routines to avoid very real threats, as highlighted by Members across the House.

It also found that sexually motivated crimes against women in public are not prioritised to the same extent as other serious offences. Women have felt that to be true for far too long. A University of Manchester study found that more than two thirds of women runners experience some form of abuse while running, most commonly verbal, with just 5% of them reporting such incidents to the police. That is plainly unacceptable in Britain today.

Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to implement all 13 of the inquiry’s recommendations without delay. The sense of insecurity among women worsens during the winter months as the lack of safe routes on dark evenings greatly restricts women travelling for work or leisure.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Richmond Park in my constituency is a very popular spot for runners and cyclists, but as my hon. Friend points out, it is so much darker during the winter months. Our dedicated police force, the Royal Parks constabulary, has recently been completely scrapped, leaving the park unpatrolled and even less safe. This means women are choosing not to run in the park at all, which reduces their options for safe running and cycling routes in the winter months. Does she agree that investing in neighbourhood policing, including the policing we used to have in the royal parks, is critical to women feeling safer?

[Marie Goldman]

My hon. Friend’s intervention is very timely. My Chelmsford constituency is in Essex, and Essex police has just announced that it feels it will have to scrap numbers from the force, which is very concerning indeed. She also highlights the importance of women feeling safe, particularly in parks. In Chelmsford, streetlights were left dark and unrepaired by Essex county council for years, leaving many women feeling unable to take the most direct and quickest route, which was through the park, from the station to their home, at the end of the day.

As a county councillor, I campaigned hard for the lights to be fixed. I am pleased that they were eventually fixed, but that was with the help of Liberal Democrat-run Chelmsford city council. It is hardly surprising that inadequate street lighting and a lack of safe paths to facilitate active travel are widely reported to be significant barriers to women walking in their communities.

A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research in the last two years found that chronic underfunding of active travel across England is undermining efforts to get people walking, wheeling and cycling, instead of driving, with just 2% of the total transport budget spent on infrastructure to support active travel. It sometimes seems that we are putting our money in the wrong places.

It is disappointing to note, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath did, that the UK lags behind its European counterparts, with fewer than one in five people walking, wheeling or cycling on an average day, compared with more than one in four across Europe. The report highlights that this failure has locked in more congestion and contributed to worsening air quality, making it harder to reduce emissions while also limiting growth. Members might wonder why I mention that, but we also know that higher levels of pollution intersect with racial and wealth inequalities, with the most racially diverse and the poorest parts of our towns and cities suffering the most.

There is even evidence that equal exposure to air pollution does not mean equal health outcomes for women and men. For example, some studies have shown that women experience more harmful effects from air pollution than men. More research is needed, but at the very least that demonstrates the necessity of inclusion when considering the importance of prioritising active travel.

The same goes for road safety more generally, and the Liberal Democrats have for some time been calling for an updated road safety strategy, so we welcomed its recent publication by the Government. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I also welcome the publication of the pavement parking consultation outcome, albeit five years on. Although it might seem strange on the surface, women are likely to be disproportionately affected by the inaccessibility caused by pavement parking.

Women are more likely than men to be disabled and have mobility or visual impairment issues. We are more likely to be accompanying children and wheeling prams, and we are more likely to be carers, as was pointed out earlier. I was therefore pleased, in the autumn, to table an amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that would have enabled local authorities to enforce pavement parking laws more easily. Pavement parking is not just a minor inconvenience; it puts people in harm’s way, impacts their sense of dignity and limits their access to public space. It is easy for the casual observer to dismiss some of those small changes as trivial, but they make a genuine difference in improving women’s sense of safety and inclusion.

In Chelmsford, Make Space for Girls has been doing great work to build inclusive infrastructure, which is so important for creating environments where women feel safe. The project enables girls and gender non-conforming children to design their own play spaces, and it is just as much about creating safe, comfortable physical environments as proving to these children that they can enact change in their own communities and hold power to shape their own futures. That is important, because although street lighting and safer paths play an essential role, those issues are ultimately symptomatic of the broader problem that faces our country. That is why initiatives such as Chelmsford city council’s women’s safety charter, through which local premises commit to a range of training to ensure that staff consider and prioritise women’s safety as standard, are also necessary.

Finally, the fact remains that women who are victims of violence are incredibly likely to be known to the men who attack them. We must therefore focus our efforts on tackling the societal attitudes that lead people to look away from, excuse and sometimes justify violence against women and girls. We have a responsibility to change that. It cannot be that, in a decade’s time, women are still fearful of walking our streets because of who may be lurking in the dark. We owe it to future generations of women to act. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and, I believe, Members from across the House will continue to press the Government to do so.

Business Rates

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

We have implemented a wider support package for businesses across the country as a result of the changes to valuations coming in from 1 April, which unwind the valuations that were last looked at during the pandemic. Some 56% of properties will see their bills fall or stay the same in April. The easy thing to do would have been to kick the revaluation into the long grass and bury our head in the sand, but we wanted to make sure that businesses, particularly those that have seen their valuations fall, got the benefit of having up-to-date values post pandemic. Then, because we were aware of the changes coming down the track, we stepped in with £4.3 billion of support. It means that our net revenue from business rates this year will be broadly the same as was forecast before the Budget.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

My constituency has a diverse and varied hospitality sector that supports lots of different communities, including those who do not go to pubs, such as parents of young children, people who do not drink, faith groups and—dare I say—people who do not want to watch the football. They have different needs. They want to go to cafés and to soft play centres. Why are the Government focusing this relief just on pubs? Can they not come up with a package that provides better business rates relief for those businesses that will still be struggling with the rates hike?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The hon. Member may not wish to watch the football, and that is fine—that is her decision—but she will be interested to know that we are consulting on whether we can extend the power over longer licensing hours to other events. She will have to let me know if there are other events that she would like to go and watch in a pub, and that can be part of the consultation.

I have already answered the specific question that the hon. Member raises in a way, but I am happy to repeat myself. It is the case that pubs are valued differently than other sectors on the high street. It is also the case that they have suffered in the past 14 years, with 7,000 pubs closing and significant pressures. More broadly, we have put in a package of support, as I have outlined already.

Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her sustained and important engagement and advocacy on behalf of high street businesses in her constituency, from hospitality venues such as cafés and pubs to independent shops. She has explained to me really clearly the impact of various changes that previous Governments and this Government have announced on the businesses in her constituency. I will continue to engage with her and other strong advocates of the hospitality industry on this and other important issues that affect our high streets.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Government have already imposed additional employment costs on our small businesses and those on our high streets. They are still struggling with sky-high energy costs that the Government have yet to alleviate, and now we have these massive increases in business rates. Is there anything at all that the Minister can say that will give hope to the small and medium businesses on our high streets that are wondering whether they can continue, or to our entrepreneurs who are wondering if they can get started?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government back small businesses and our high streets. We want to do all we can to continue to support businesses up and down the country. That is why we announced significant reforms to business rates at the Budget, making sure that we could have a permanently lower multiplier for high street businesses and providing significant support worth £4.3 billion over the coming three years.

Covid-19: Financial Support

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing this debate and for her excellent opening speech, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the time to debate this important topic.

Small businesses and self-employed people played a vital role in sustaining communities throughout the challenges of the covid-19 pandemic, often at significant personal and financial cost. The pandemic placed unprecedented pressure on people, affecting the livelihoods of millions from all walks of life. There were additional concerns for self-employed people and small business owners, who faced even greater uncertainty because of the lack of support from the then Tory Government. The Liberal Democrats have stood by those people from the get-go. We were the first party to call for support for self-employed people during the pandemic, and we helped to secure the support scheme for them.

The covid pandemic had a devastating impact on people across the country, and tens of thousands of people lost their life. We must never forget the tragedies of that pandemic, as people lost mothers, fathers, grandparents, siblings, friends, husbands or wives. People were left isolated, unable to see others for weeks on end. They were unable to visit sick relatives, attend the wedding of a loved one, or hug their family at funerals. It is possibly a measure of how much time has passed and how much has changed since then that only a minority of those in the Chamber were Members of Parliament during the pandemic; I think I am the only Liberal Democrat in the Chamber who was here then. Like many MPs during the pandemic, I received heartbreaking correspondence from my constituents. Their struggles will stay with me, and I will remember their suffering for as long as I continue to represent my constituency.

I reflect with gratitude on the bravery of the doctors, nurses and carers who did everything they could; they often worked incredible hours to save lives and support those around them, and often put themselves at risk. I think of the thousands of people who selflessly helped their communities, be it as vaccinators, by picking up prescriptions, or by shopping for elderly and vulnerable neighbours. We must not forget those who suffered, and those who made sacrifices to ensure that the suffering was limited as much as possible.

The strong sense of public service and neighbourliness shown by people across the country was not reflected by the Government of the day. The covid inquiry has confirmed that systematic and political failings worsened people’s suffering. A lack of scrutiny and accountability led to wrong decisions, often with catastrophic results—from the lack of preparedness for a pandemic to the failure to protect those in care homes, the cruelty and inflexibility of the isolation that people endured in the most desperate circumstances, including on their deathbed, and most shockingly of all, partygate. We must ensure that there can never again be such suffering or such a lack of preparedness.

It is particularly important that the Government continue to recognise the contribution made by small businesses and the self-employed during the covid pandemic. The Government should ensure that they have learned the lessons of that period, and keep under review its long-term impacts. Ensuring that people and businesses can leave behind the series of economic challenges that began with the pandemic—including the energy crisis, the rising cost of living and the growing tax burden—and remain resilient is essential to our long-term economic and social wellbeing.

The Government need to do more to recognise the value of the self-employed, contractors and small businesses to our economy. There is so much more that they could do to support them, and to show the value of what they contribute—the flexible working, the specialist expertise and so on. There is a range of ways that contractors, the self-employed and small businesses can support the broader economy. We need to do much more to recognise that value. The Liberal Democrats are calling for greater transparency and support for the self-employed in, for example, Making Tax Digital. That was originally intended to simplify the tax system, but it has created new burdens, costs and confusion. We must make sure that the self-employed are properly informed and supported through that reform.

The Liberal Democrats strongly supported the expansion of workers’ rights during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, and we pushed for some of those benefits to be extended—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is referring to the self-employed and small businesses who were impacted by covid-19 financial support, but I am not convinced that Making Tax Digital and the Employment Rights Bill fall within the scope of this debate.

[Sarah Olney]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wanted to reflect the value of the self-employed to our economy, and to reflect on how, as we learn the lessons from covid, that group of workers can be supported more broadly. That is a pressing issue for now, but I accept that we are debating what happened six years ago.

The extremely challenging period that small businesses and self-employed people went through just a few years ago makes it even more important that the Government address the major challenges that they are experiencing here and now. For many, those challenges include repaying the loans that they took out to maintain their business. Today, as they face increased cost challenges, that continues to be a huge burden. I sincerely hope that the Government will listen to the impassioned speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and think about how they can do more to support self-employed people, contractors and small businesses, who contribute so much to our economy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Clause 1

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I rise to speak to clause 62 and schedule 12.

I certainly welcome the fact that, though belatedly, the Government did get to the point of climbing down on the £1 million threshold. They should have gone much further: this tax should not exist at all. If there is to be such a tax, it should be at a viable threshold. The climbdown was not delivered with great grace; indeed, it followed a debate in this House in which the Minister doggedly defended the £1 million threshold, telling us it was fair and necessary—the very words that he uses now to defend the £2.5 million threshold. However, even though that was the manner of the delivery, the climbdown, so far as it goes, is welcome.

We need to be aware of the limitations on how far this concession does go, as it will very swiftly be diminished with time because of the lack of indexation. This is a diminishing win—a win secured by our farming communities through their determined campaigning, but a win that will melt away as each year goes by. Take my part of the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland. In the past five years, land values have increased by 40%. If that trajectory continues for the next five years, in today’s terms the threshold will be worth only £1.5 million. It will lose 40% off its value.

Unless the Government are willing to face up to the need to index-link the threshold, the bona fides of their conversion on this issue is very suspect indeed. If they have genuinely realised that £1 million was wholly inadequate and £2.5 million as a minimum was necessary, they need to sustain that value going forward. That is the real test of the bona fides of this Government on this issue. They cannot simply sit back and wait for the Treasury to increase its tax take because land values rise and the value of the £2.5 million diminishes every time that happens. If it is only a tactical move to buy time, then time is on their side, because in due course this will fritter away to the point where it is of very little value indeed.

My plea tonight is for the Government to demonstrate that they have genuinely realised the need to protect farming families by committing to index-linking this concession. Without that, it will diminish very severely with time, and surely those who feed us and keep bread on our tables are the people this Government should be thinking about. They are not thinking about them if they insist on a de minimis threshold that will dimmish almost out of sight as time goes forward. That is the test of this Government.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I want to speak to amendments 42 to 47. The Bill fails to recognise the specific way in which family businesses are different from businesses whose shares can be traded. The tax changes announced at the 2024 Budget treat family businesses as though they are a liquid asset or as if their underlying value is expressed in tradeable shares, but family businesses are neither. Shares in a family business have only a nominal value, and it is this nominal value that is transferred upon death. No cash arises from the transaction—unlike with the sale of shares on an open market. That means that money to pay any tax charges arising on the transfer must be made out of the business’s current assets or by disposing of its fixed assets. The value of a family business is often in its fixed assets—typically land, buildings, plant and machinery, as well as patents, copyright and goodwill.

The purpose of business property relief was to enable those assets to pass intact from one generation to the next in order for the business to be transferred as a going concern and to maintain steady revenues that guarantee employment and supply chains. Removing BPR from the inheritance tax regime will mean that assets will need to be sold to pay the inheritance tax. That will not only reduce the overall value of the company but limit its ability to generate future revenue. Asset sales will already be subject to capital gains tax before the net value can be released to the shareholder by way of a dividend to pay the individual IHT liability, and that dividend itself will be subject to tax, so the asset sale has to realise sufficient cash to pay three separate taxes.

Members might argue that assets being disposed of by one company does not take them out of the economy, and indeed our tax system should ensure that assets are allocated to wherever they can be most efficiently exploited, but this change to BPR does not ensure the efficient reallocation of assets from one business to another. It forces the sale of productive assets that were being efficiently used, and there are no guarantees that the asset can be put to its most productive use under its new owner.

Recent experience has shown that UK assets are increasingly being picked up by foreign investors, increasing the risk of job losses, restructuring and head office operations being moved abroad. Forced sales that need to be completed within IHT timescales are unlikely to make their full market value. In a specialised market in which there are few annual sales, one depressed sale value can influence the valuation of other assets in the same class, having a knock-on effect on all company balance sheets.

Death comes to us all in the end, being the only certainty in life apart from taxes. The IHT regime recognises and allows for assets to be passed down the generations without being taxed as long as seven years has passed between the date of the gift and the death of the bequeather. For many family businesses, the change in BPR rules will just mean that they have to actively plan for an orderly transition of shares to enable them to take advantage of this provision. But for some families, it is already too late to plan effectively.

The largest employer in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames is a family-owned business with the majority of shares owned by the founder, who is in his 90s. Even were the shares to be transferred now, there is little chance that seven years will elapse before his death, and therefore there is every risk that the firm will need to be broken up in order to pay the IHT liability, putting hundreds of jobs at risk.

Of course, tragically there is always the risk of unexpected death. While not being its principal purpose, one of the advantages of BPR is that it relieves the families of the deceased from involving themselves with complicated business transactions while mourning their unexpected loss. I welcome, of course, the announcement of the raising of the BPR threshold from £1 million to 2.5 million, but that merely reduces the number of companies that will be liable for the tax rather than addressing the issue.

There is currently no certainty on either the number of businesses that will be affected or on the amount of additional tax revenue that will be raised by the measure. The OBR has not delivered a costing based on the change to the policy announced in December. Given that the policy will trigger behaviour change, it is unclear to me that the benefits of this measure will outweigh the potential harm to employment in otherwise thriving businesses up and down the country.

I am sympathetic to the Chancellor’s instincts in this matter—I too, think we should be prioritising the needs of entrepreneurs over the protection of inherited wealth—but the likely meagre returns to the Treasury as a result of this policy do not justify the likely impact on employment that will occur if otherwise thriving businesses are forced to be broken up.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I rise to speak on clause 62 and schedule 12, and my new clause 1. As we have already heard from the Northern Ireland Benches, this is about listening and recognising Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. I acknowledge from the outset the deep anxiety and distress caused to many farmers across Northern Ireland, including in Lagan Valley, by recent inheritance tax proposals. Farming in Northern Ireland is not just an economic activity; it is a community, a way of life and something that is deeply special and has been rooted in the land across Northern Ireland for generations.

As many have said, it is also central to our food security. I cannot for the life of me understand why, at a time of ongoing and increasing geopolitical insecurity, we would take this step. Farmers in Northern Ireland responded with a united, constructive and responsible voice. I pay tribute to the Ulster Farmers Union, the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster and any farmer who took a stand on this important issue. That unity mattered, and it forced movement from the Government.

I will not gainsay that or try to nit-pick: I welcome the U-turn. We should never have been in this position, but I do welcome the change. The original £1 million threshold was never fit for purpose for Northern Ireland. Analysis by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs showed that it could have pulled about 50% of Northern Ireland farms into inheritance tax compared with about 5% of estates generally across the UK. That level of impact was clearly disproportionate. I therefore welcome the increase in the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million and the decision to make the allowance transferable between spouses. Credit is due to the farming community alone for the united front that secured this long-overdue change.

But while many families will feel relief, as other members of the Committee have outlined, real uncertainty remains in particular for older farmers and those who cannot simply plan around sudden policy changes. I place on record my thanks to my colleague Andrew Muir MLA, the Agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland, and his officials. He has been steadfast, evidence-led and relentless in standing up for Northern Ireland’s farmers. That included repeated engagement with the Treasury and a joint letter in November with the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and Finance Minister, which called clearly for a higher threshold and spousal transferability. This is devolution working at its best, no matter what others may say, but it also shows why Westminster must listen when Northern Ireland speaks with one voice.

Northern Ireland is different, and one-size-fits-all policy does not work for Northern Ireland. Farms in Northern Ireland are smaller on average, intergenerational and family-run, and often land-rich but cash-poor. Land values, as others have elucidated, continue to rise faster in Northern Ireland. Even with a £5 million transferable threshold, DAERA estimates that the number of impacted farms would fall to about 5%, but those farms account for around 27% of the total area that is farmed. I am clear-eyed about this. Not every farm will be able to avail itself of the £5 million threshold, and poorly calibrated tax policy can force land sales, break succession and undermine the long-term viability of family farms.

Taxes

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Maynard]

I have already said that the Government should keep their promises, so there we are. May I continue, please?

We want to back hard-pressed households and small businesses and push for practical steps that will help ease the burden on families and get our high streets thriving again. We have called on the Government to respond to the crisis in our hospitality sector through an emergency VAT cut. That would boost footfall on our high streets, thus protecting jobs in a sector that employs people from all walks of life: young, old, those returning to work, those vulnerable part-time workers and everyone in between.

We also propose bringing down household energy costs as winter is coming by removing the biggest levy baked into people’s electricity bills and, in effect, putting more than £90 a year into the pockets of the average family. Indeed, that will be closer to £250 for some of the least well-off, who rely more on electricity for their heating. This is about supporting local businesses at the heart of our communities, which we all represent, and making a real difference to people’s lives by making it cheaper for them to heat their homes. For too long, our high streets and the small business owners on them have been crippled by the policies of successive Governments.

All that needs to be paid for and needs to be done in a way that is pro-growth and pro-business and which shields households from even greater bills each month. That is not an easy circle to square—I will not pretend that it is. We, as Liberal Democrats, seek to bring deliverable and progressive ideas to the table. If the Chancellor chose such ideas, she could deliver them in her Budget, which is just days away, and the impact would be felt by households across the country with almost immediate effect.

First, we call for a time-limited tax on big commercial banks levied on the massive windfall profits that they receive due to unintended consequences of our financial system. Because of high interest rates and the way the quantitative tightening programme works, the Treasury hands over billions of pounds to the big banks every year via the Bank of England, effectively subsidising banking profits at the expense of the taxpayer. Figures from the OBR confirm that, as things stand, we are on course to hand the big banks £50 billion over the course of this Parliament. Banks never expected to receive that windfall, they never relied on it and never took any risk to reap it. They have only received the payments because inflation and interest rates shot up. That needs to be corrected. It is fair and reasonable to return a portion of that unexpected windfall to the taxpayer and it will do nothing to undermine the health of our financial sector to claim it back.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that interest rates shot up in the way he has just described as a direct result of that mini-Budget three years ago, and that that is precisely why the taxpayer is now paying such large interest rate payments to the banks? Is it not therefore right that the Conservative party should get behind our plan to tax the banks, to reclaim some of that money for the taxpayer?

[Charlie Maynard]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] People might be joking about it, but our reputation as a country matters. That is why people invest in our country, and that is why traditionally our debt prices have been low. When we self-sabotage, we pay for it not just for a few weeks or months but for years, and we are paying for it now.

Taxes

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Let me be clear: the legacy left behind by the last Conservative Government is one to be ashamed of. Their incompetence in governing left schools and hospitals crumbling, social care cripplingly underfunded, and record levels of sewage in our lakes and rivers. Their record is a dispiriting picture of low growth, high interest rates and record levels of inequality.

We know that this Government inherited a mess, and we know that the cause of that mess was years of reckless economic mismanagement, but that cannot be allowed to serve as cover for measures that damage business or cause suffering for the vulnerable in our society. The decisions taken by this Government at the autumn Budget have not worked. The national insurance jobs tax will damage small businesses, lower people’s living standards and undermine the Government’s own ambitions for growth. People endured years of Conservative mismanagement, which is why this new Government should be doing far more to grow our economy, create new jobs and improve living standards.

The Liberal Democrats acknowledge that the Government had tough decisions to make. However, instead of raising national insurance, cutting disability benefits and cutting departmental budgets even further, they should be taking bold and ambitious steps to grow our economy, which is the best way to raise tax revenue and boost living standards. That is why we have been calling on the Government to ignore the scaremongering from those on the Conservative Benches, and urgently negotiate a new, bespoke UK-EU customs union.

On taxation, as set out in amendment (b), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), we all know that the Government are desperately looking for ways to raise revenue. I encourage Treasury Ministers to take a look at the measures set out in last year’s Liberal Democrat manifesto, which would ensure that revenue is raised in a fair way, taking into account the huge amount of economic inequality that, sadly, we see across the United Kingdom.

This huge inequality in our country threatens to rip our social fabric apart, which is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a better way: raising revenue fairly, doing so practically and tackling inequality; increasing taxes on some of the biggest and wealthiest corporations, including the big banks, by reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for banks; ensuring that the wealthiest people in the world who are doing business here are taxed effectively, by raising the digital services tax from 2% to 10%; fairly reforming capital gains tax in a way that cuts tax, or keeps it the same for the vast majority, while ensuring that the wealthiest 0.1% cannot avoid paying their fair share; and doubling remote gaming duty to ensure that gambling companies pay their fair share. Those steps could happen immediately, so I hope Ministers, who are keen to fill a fiscal hole, might follow our advice.

The previous Government did so much damage to our high street businesses, but the Labour Government’s national insurance jobs tax has only made things even harder for them and their workers. High street businesses are the beating heart of our economy at the centre of our local communities, and they create the jobs that our communities rely on. The changes to employer national insurance contributions announced in the autumn Budget are an unfair jobs tax which will have highly damaging impacts across many sectors: on social care providers; on GPs; and on the hospitality sector, which has been hit by an extra £3.4 billion in annual costs through the cumulative impact of the changes announced in the autumn Budget. The Liberal Democrats voted against the changes to employers NICs at every opportunity. I once again urge the Government to scrap those measures.

As the motion looks to examine the causes of the economic challenges faced by people and businesses across the country, a perhaps surprising omission is the ongoing disastrous damage caused by the Conservatives’ pitiful Brexit deal. The appalling agreement negotiated by the last Conservative Government has been a complete disaster for our country, particularly for high street businesses, who are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports. The dismal picture of the financial impact of their terrible Brexit trade deal is becoming increasingly clear. A recent survey of 10,000 UK businesses found that 33% of currently trading enterprises experienced

“extra costs directly related to changes in export regulations due to the end of the EU transition period”.

Small businesses have been particularly badly affected, with 20,000 small firms stopping all exports to the EU. And a recent study has found that goods exports have fallen by 6.4% since the trade deal came into force in 2021.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the steps this Government are taking to rebuild our relationship with the EU, but I urge them to recognise that this should only be a first step towards negotiating a bespoke UK-EU customs union. Independent analysis has shown that a closer trading relationship with the EU could boost GDP by 2.2%. That would bring in roughly £25 billion of extra tax revenue every year, which would be crucial for fixing the public services which the Conservative party left broken.

More broadly, as we look at measures which would ease the pressure felt by so many businesses and boost the economy as a whole, we continue to call on the Government to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. In 2019, the previous Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of the business rates system, but they failed to deliver it. Meanwhile, the current Government pledged to replace the system in their manifesto, but still no action has been taken. The current system penalises manufacturers when they invest to become more productive, leaves pubs and restaurants with disproportionately high tax bills, and puts local businesses at a disadvantage to online retail giants. The Liberal Democrats have called for a complete overhaul of the unfair business rates system and its replacement with a commercial landowner levy that would shift the burden of taxation from tenants to landowners. Our proposals for fair reform would cut tax bills, breathe new life into local economies and spur growth. Equally important, it would provide long-term certainty for businesses, which is what everybody across the UK wants.

On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we know the extent of the challenges the Government faced when they came into office. We acknowledge that they inherited a dire economic landscape—challenges now exacerbated by an unreliable actor in the White House and an aggressive Russia—but that cannot be an excuse for the mistakes the Government are making. They must take bold action to boost our economy. As such, we support the calls in today’s motion to scrap the national insurance jobs tax and reverse the changes to agricultural property relief. People across the country are still struggling with the cost of living crisis, just as small businesses remain burdened with sky high energy prices, now compounded with an unfair jobs tax and an unfair business rate system.

The Liberal Democrats will continue to urge Ministers to go further and act with more urgency, investing in skills by reforming the apprenticeship levy, properly funding social care and boosting growth through negotiating a bespoke UK-EU customs union to give our economy the boost it so desperately needs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

It was great to be with my hon. Friend in Warwickshire just a couple of weeks ago to welcome some of the investment, through our industrial strategy and our spending review, which will turbocharge the British economy, creating more good jobs and paying decent wages in all parts of the country, including in Warwickshire.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Last week, ahead of the launch of its ethnicity code, the Lending Standards Board announced it would be closing, following the withdrawal of support from major high street banks. This was going to be a groundbreaking step towards tackling the barriers that ethnic minority business owners face in accessing finance. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the ethnicity code is implemented, supported and scaled, so that its principles are embedded across the financial sector?

[Emma Reynolds]

I am aware of the situation. I reassure the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to ensuring that firms continue to deliver good customer outcomes, now and in the future, with proportionate regulation and oversight. I am happy to engage with her in more detail on the subject she mentions.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Last week, the Liberal Democrats welcomed the announcement of investment in public infrastructure and transport projects, which we have long called for. We are glad that today the Government are setting out a 10-year infrastructure plan to realise those projects, and the Liberal Democrats will be closely scrutinising it to ensure that it delivers for communities across the UK.

Boosting our infrastructure is vital, given the appalling mismanagement under the last Conservative Government that left our school and hospital buildings crumbling while neglecting critical infrastructure, from transport to renewable energy generation. Today’s plan must draw a line under the disastrous mismanagement of projects such as HS2, which promised to connect our country and communities only to end up another hollow Conservative promise, long delayed and billions over budget. While we welcome the Government’s intention to deliver productive investment, we will closely scrutinise its implementation.

I have been concerned that Ministers have been unable to answer questions regarding delegated funding from the structures fund, such as for Hammersmith bridge in my constituency. Will the Minister confirm that specific projects have been selected, and will he ensure that infrastructure funding is distributed fairly for the benefit of all regions? Will he set up a crumbling hospitals taskforce to identify creative funding ideas, speed up construction timelines and put an end to the vicious cycle and false economies of delayed rebuilds, which lead to rising repair costs?

As we look carefully at the implementation of these plans, the Government must ensure that we have a workforce equipped with the necessary skills to meet these commitments. Does the Minister therefore agree that it is time to replace the broken apprenticeship levy with a broader, more flexible skills and training levy? Will the Government fulfil their promise to make Skills England an independent body with employers at its heart?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Lady is right to point to the fiasco of HS2, which my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary updated the House on yesterday. The complete and utter negligence in delivering on that project over many years has left us with the legacy of having to pay more for longer, which has implications for all the other things we would like to do in the country. We commissioned the James Stewart review, which was published yesterday. All its recommendations have been adopted, and lessons are already flowing through this infrastructure strategy, so that we never end up in that situation again.

The hon. Lady asked me about the structures fund, which was a particular fund that we prioritised because we know that in many constituencies, bridges in particular often miss out on funding and are in desperate need of it. She will have to speak with the Department for Transport about the allocations of that funding, but I will make sure that she gets an answer from my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary.

Spending Review 2025

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I am very pleased that we were able to make this multi-year commitment on coal tip safety. The Government provided money for this in last year’s spending review, but that was for just one year, and today we have been able to give certainty that money will be available for the vital work that is necessary. I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming it; it is a shame that Plaid Cymru did not.

My hon. Friend has been a staunch supporter of reform of the miners’ pension scheme. We made reforms in the Budget last year, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets him to discuss what more we can do to secure a fair pension for miners in retirement.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

London Members were hoping to hear more about infrastructure investment in the capital today. We are looking for spending on the Bakerloo line extension, and spending to deal with the Croydon bottleneck. I even dared to dream that Hammersmith bridge might one day be fixed, but all we have heard from the Chancellor is her reiterated support for the expansion of Heathrow airport. As she will know, Heathrow expansion is opposed by every political party in the capital, and by the Mayor of London. It is not welcome. The negligible economic benefits of expanding Heathrow do not compensate for the massive environmental and noise impact that expansion will have on many people in the capital, particularly my constituents. May I ask the Chancellor to look again at her support for Heathrow, and consider the greater merits of many other infrastructure projects across London?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Lady started that question wanting to be a builder, and ended it by being a blocker. I suppose that is not surprising, given that the Liberal Democrats voted against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill yesterday, while we Labour Members supported it, because we want to get Britain building and to create prosperity and wealth in all our communities. In today’s spending review, we have provided an integrated settlement for the Mayor of London and a multi-year settlement for Transport for London. We have also supported expansion at City airport, and we have an in-principle commitment to expansion, and a second runway, at Gatwick. This Government are backing London, but most importantly, we are a Government for the whole country. That is why we have announced significant investments across the UK today, which are much needed.