Night Flights: Impact on Communities

Debate between Sarah Olney and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Whether he can confirm.

[Sarah Olney]

I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that that will be a full analysis of the health and mental wellbeing impacts and of all the other things we have been talking about today.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Debate between Sarah Olney and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Committee stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. That was a very long intervention and it was too confusing. Was the hon. Lady speaking about something completely different from that which the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) was discussing?

[Sarah Olney]

I was talking about my new clause 13—

[The Chairman]

It is not the hon. Lady’s new clause; it is down as the Liberal Democrats’ new clause. Is it the official Liberal Democrat—

[Sarah Olney]

I beg your pardon, Dame Eleanor. The new clause is in my name, but I apologise for taking too long on my intervention.

[The Chairman]

We have to be careful not to allow things to be confused at Committee stage. Everyone gets their turn.

Government’s Education Catch-up and Mental Health Recovery Programmes

Debate between Sarah Olney and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I will try to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for bringing this debate before the House today, because it is such an important issue. When I think about everything that is happening across Richmond Park as we emerge from the pandemic, this is the No. 1 issue in my constituency, particularly the mental health aspect. I have had lots of conversations with schools throughout the pandemic and as we have emerged from lockdown, and this is the most important thing, more than anything else.

The education catch-up funding has been very welcome and has been well used across my constituency, but it is the mental health impact of the lockdown that is having the biggest impact on our youngest citizens. When I speak to headteachers, I hear all sorts of stories. They tell me about the new reception class that started in September 2021: with these four and five-year-olds, so much of their lives has been spent in lockdown that they are suffering extreme separation anxiety from their parents. It is not unusual in any reception year to find that one or two children get anxious and teary about separating from their parents, but they have whole classes who are crying for hours, which is completely unprecedented. I fear for our very youngest as they are entering their school years.

Going up through primary school age, we are finding that, in the older years, the children who spent two years at home sat in front of laptops are finding it really difficult to play with each other. Small boys do not know how to play football in the playground any more. I do not know about anyone else, but it is those little details that I find really distressing, particularly as the mother of an eight-year-old son: the thought that our young people do not know how to play with each other. They do not know how to share in the classroom, or how to talk to each other. As we get through into secondary school, the impact of the past two years is really beginning to show in young people who have spent too much time on the internet over those years. They have become isolated and do not know how to reach out, and are really struggling with their self-image and their mental health. They have spent too much time looking at sites that are frankly unhelpful for their education. Misinformation has been a massive source of problems during this pandemic for all sorts of people, but for our young people most of all.

I want to pay my own tribute to all the teaching staff and everybody involved in education across Richmond and Kingston. They have been absolutely heroic and have really stepped up for our young people, and I am absolutely in awe of what they have achieved, but what is really coming through from them now is that, more and more, they are having to deal with mental health issues in the classroom. They are not trained to deal with those issues, and they have enough to do to catch up on the academic side, particularly for pupils who are approaching exams: there have been so many absences in this academic year, which is a real problem for those staff.

We need to broaden the mental health resources that are available in the community. We need more school nurses, and those nurses need to have training in mental health. We need to open up more access to child and adolescent mental health services, because the waiting lists are a real problem. We need adolescent mental health services at our GPs. We need to give parents more options so that, when they are at their wits’ end with how to help their children, they know where to go, so that they are going not to schools for help—schools that are ill-equipped to give it—but to a range of different sources across the community. I know that time is short, so if this is the only point I can make, please can we have more resources to help our young people with their mental health in schools and outside them? That, more than anything else, is what Richmond Park needs.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The time limit is now three minutes. I call Jim Shannon.

Transport for the North

Debate between Sarah Olney and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Can I make it clear to those who are gesturing while sitting down that I have called to ask questions several people who were not here at the very beginning of the Minister’s response to the urgent question? I should explain to the Chamber that I have been very lenient today because I am aware that the Annunciator was not changed until several—[Interruption.] No, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) must not dissent from what I am saying. It is a very simple explanation of why I am being kind and considerate to the Chamber.

I could stop and say that the moment the Minister gets to his feet, anyone who is not in the Chamber at that moment is not allowed to utter a word, but in my judgment that would mean that neither the Minister was properly questioned nor the Government held to account on this important matter. On this occasion, the monitor was not changed, this part of business started early and several people were taking part in an important event with Mr Speaker downstairs. I have therefore been lenient, because I think it is more important, when there is a matter of judgment, to come down on the side of giving colleagues the opportunity to ask their questions and to hold the Government to account. That is my judgment and why I have done this, and it ought not to be questioned.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Both today and last week when Ministers talked about the scrapping of the eastern leg of HS2, they have talked a lot about improving journey times, but we all know that one of the reasons for doing HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail was, above all, to improve connectivity and capacity. Can the Minister explain how the new integrated rail plan and today’s announcement about Transport for the North are going to increase capacity and connectivity, and will this reduce fares to encourage more people to stop using their cars and get on to trains?

Rail Service Reductions

Debate between Sarah Olney and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady has to be heard, so please leave quietly. It is the first time I have had to say that in nearly two years. I think we have achieved that.

[Sarah Olney]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting me the opportunity to have a debate on this issue and also for ensuring that I can be heard.

This is an issue of specific importance to my constituents, but it also has broader implications for our country’s approach to climate change, infrastructure and the recovery from the covid pandemic. I asked for this debate in response to South Western Railway’s recent consultation on the future of its services. Like all our rail operating companies, SWR has run a reduced service during the period of the pandemic, and has been supported by considerable public funding. That has been essential for keeping our public services going and to supporting the economy, both through the lockdown and as we move forward.

SWR is, understandably, looking ahead to its post-pandemic operation, and has put forward a revised timetable for consultation. The revised timetable proposes to cut services from many of the stations in my constituency. It will be cutting trains from North Sheen and Mortlake stations from once every fifteen minutes to once every half hour, and removing peak hour services from Kingston and Norbiton. The proposals have been strongly resisted by me and by my neighbouring MPs in Kingston and Twickenham, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), and by many, many residents across my constituency and beyond.

SWR has justified the proposals by asserting that commuter travel is likely to recover to just 60% of pre-covid demand. That seems extremely unlikely. In April to June this year, passenger numbers on SWR, according to the Office of Rail and Road, were 45% of the level that they had been before lockdown restrictions began. This was a period where there were still many restrictions in place and workers were being asked to work from home if possible. It is ridiculous that SWR thinks that it can make long-term forecasts of commuter demand when it does not have any post-lockdown demand figures to look at.

Transport for London figures for Overground journeys on their network were already showing 55% of pre-lockdown demand by August, and anecdotal evidence—from me and from many other commuters who are using the train services more regularly now—shows continued growth in rail journeys both in the centre of London and on suburban services since that time. I suspect that somebody in SWR has just assumed that all commuters will make a choice to work in their offices on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays in future and have extrapolated a post-covid demand of 60% from that assumption. However, it is ignoring the large numbers of schoolchildren, for example, who depend on suburban services to get to and from school, not to mention their teachers and other school staff, and the large number of workers across many industries and the public sector who will need to be in their workplace five days a week.

The Government have been most insistent in recent weeks that they expect to see civil servants back at their desks on a full-time permanent basis, for example, and we know that many younger workers prefer to be in the office than stuck in their bedrooms at home. It is much too soon to be making assumptions about how people will carry out their working lives once the fear of covid and contracting covid has disappeared. For example, in the past few weeks—as we know, covid numbers are on the rise—we have started to see a slight tailing off in the growth of rail users, perhaps in response to the understanding that we are not yet out of the woods in the pandemic, that people still need to take care and that we still need to be cautious. I do not think it is possible to make any forecasts of post-pandemic railway usage until such a time as we can be confident that we are completely out of the pandemic.

The assumption that demand for services will reduce highlights the great challenge facing commuter services. For many decades, rail operators have assumed that commuters are a captive customer and, because they are forced to make the same journey five days a week, that demand for rail services will continue and grow and be inelastic to price increases. They have assumed that ever-increasing fares will continue to be paid by commuters who have no alternative other than to use the rail services that they are offered by their local rail operator.

However, the pandemic has revealed to us that we can continue to work successfully from our homes and other locations, and that we therefore have a choice. We have a much greater range of commuting options to choose from. If we want, we can stay at home and work just as successfully, in many industries and sectors, as we could if we were in the office. We may need to go into the office only for a few hours. We may choose to travel later. We may choose to come home later. We may choose to adopt any kind of working pattern and to be based somewhere between home and the office. There is one assumption that we might be able to make with some confidence: it will no longer hold true, particularly for people living in the suburbs, such as in my constituency, that there is a huge number of people who will require train services to get them to their offices before 9 o’clock in the morning and who will therefore be captive to price rises on the trains.

I think that South Western Railway’s mistake is to assume that the increased range of options will necessarily mean that fewer people will choose to travel at peak time and to plan accordingly. It betrays an extraordinary lack of confidence in its service to assume that once people have more options, they will not willingly choose to use trains. Instead of seeking to persuade people to use trains, South Western Railway has decided to cut supply. That is not the entrepreneurial spirit that railway privatisation sought to inspire.

The challenge that the country faces now is not just from covid. We also face the far greater challenge of cutting our carbon emissions, and much of that reduction needs to come from changing the way we travel. Government have made a clear commitment to modal shift as part of their strategy to reduce transport-related emissions and that means encouraging travellers to use trains, buses and active travel instead of motor cars. There is no doubt that people have continued to use their motor cars. We see motor car journeys now at similar and even greater levels than before the pandemic. If we are to meet our carbon emission goals, we need to redouble our efforts to encourage people to travel by train.

How would a free market in rail travel respond to the challenge presented by home working and car use? It would cut prices to stimulate demand, and yet, we can see that the cost of rail tickets has increased by 36% over the past 10 years compared with just a 9% increase in the costs of motoring. What would be the impact of cutting services on rail operator income? It would decrease demand for rail services and cut fare income. Rail operators would then be forced to increase fares on remaining services to cover their costs. With a greater choice of how and when to travel—indeed, of whether to travel at all—more and more commuters will choose not to use a train service that offers ever-increasing prices for fewer and fewer services. That will have a knock-on impact on our rail network as a whole. We will see underused stations gradually closed and fewer and fewer services. Rail operators will find it harder and harder to cover routine maintenance costs. Even if we do not think that we can yet forecast user numbers, I confidently forecast that reduced rail services and reduced income will result in a spiral of fewer and fewer services, eventually cutting off those services entirely. The Rail Minister and I are both united in very much wanting to avoid that.

It is clear that now is not the time to be thinking about cutting services. While commuters are thinking about how to structure their working lives, we need to incentivise rail travel and encourage commuters and other travellers to use it. The rail industry has already identified that there are great opportunities for growth in leisure travel. Let us improve the offering—more comfortable seats, better catering options, more space for luggage, and more reliable wifi—and offer competitive pricing to make it a more economical option than travelling by car.

I love trains. They are, by far, my preferred way to travel and, although there are many advantages to working from home, I was surprised to discover how much I missed my commute during lockdown. The growth of our suburban train network during the 20th century created new towns and neighbourhoods, and enabled many more people to enjoy life away from the cramped housing of the city, but our city centres depend on being accessible to a large number of people. We cannot maintain the unique economic, cultural and social life of central London if we discourage people from travelling into the city. We cannot tackle the challenge of climate change if we do not invest in affordable and accessible alternatives to the motor car. I call on the Minister to act to stop these proposed cuts in railway services and instead encourage people to use them.

Planning applications in Richmond Park

Debate between Sarah Olney and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

[Sarah Olney]

Petitions

Debate between Sarah Olney and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

I know you want me to be quick, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would like to mark the fact that I am the final MP to be participating virtually. With your permission, I should like to mark that occasion by saying a huge thanks to all the technical staff who have made our virtual Parliament possible over the past 18 months. It really is an extraordinary, and dare I say, historic achievement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate what the hon. Lady has said, and let us fervently hope that she is the last Member of Parliament to participate virtually by video link. Let us hope that when we next meet everyone will be able to be here in this Chamber.

I say to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) that I hope I have not stopped an important part being recorded in Hansard, but his petition will be there.

[Sarah Olney]

I will now quickly present my petition. I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the UK regarding planning applications in the constituency of Richmond Park.

The petition states:

The petition of the residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that localist planning principles must be applied to the Former Stag Brewery planning application, GLA references 4172, 4172a & 4172b and the Homebase, Manor Road planning application, GLA reference 4795; further that weakening the planning decisions made by local authorities at local level risks allowing unsuitable development, including architecturally displeasing development, environmentally damaging development, and development that is not primarily designed to meet the need of the local community; further that the Former Stag Brewery planning application cannot be seen in isolation from the Homebase, Manor Road application, the partial closure of Hammersmith Bridge and other relevant issues; further that GLA must institute a holistic approach by assessing the Former Stag Brewery application and then reviewing the Homebase, Manor Road application accordingly.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government, and in particular the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government of the United Kingdom, to meet with Sarah Olney, MP for Richmond Park, to discuss the implications of the Former Stag Brewery planning application and the Homebase, Manor Road planning application.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002685]

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Debate between Sarah Olney and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I can well understand his consternation. The behaviour of hon. Members when they are outside this building is, of course, not a matter for the Chair, but what is a matter for the Chair and for Mr Speaker is the safety of Members of this House, of people who work here, and of the many, many people who have continued to work here, through a sense of duty, during these last difficult weeks. It will be obvious to the Committee and to anyone watching our proceedings that Mr Speaker has gone to a great deal of effort to make sure that Members and staff working here are protected. Social distancing rules, as one can see by looking at the Benches and the way in which this entire building is now set out, have been very rigorously developed to make sure that everyone who works in this building, who is here to do their duty, is protected and will not put other people, including their constituents and their families, at any risk.

If any Member of this House is openly flouting the rules that we have asked every citizen of the United Kingdom to observe to keep the virus under control, and to protect the vulnerable and to protect the NHS, then that Member is putting not only himself or herself at risk, but everyone else at risk as well. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s observations will prove not to have been accurate. I am not suggesting that he would say that they were, but I cannot make any comment until I know the facts for certain. I hope that the facts are not as he has stated them, but if it transpires that the facts are as he has stated them, then it should be incumbent upon anyone coming into this building, if they know that they have put themselves at risk of contracting or passing on the virus, to act responsibly. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.

We will resume the Committee stage. I was hoping I would have some sort of indication that someone might wish to speak. I call Sarah Olney.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Thank you, Dame Eleanor. I was not expecting to be next, but I willingly take my place. I state my intention not to press my amendments, but I would just like to say a few words on why I tabled them.

We are in an emergency situation. The response to coronavirus has been first and foremost a public health response, but the necessary measures taken to contain the spread of this appalling virus, supported by all the hon. Members of my party, have now resulted in an economic crisis. While we look forward to a point where the public health emergency has passed at least sufficiently to allow some semblance of a normal life, the economic crisis is likely to have longer and more far-reaching effects. In my constituency, as in those of every parliamentary colleague I am sure, the most immediate impacts are being felt by our small businesses and the self-employed. If we are to plot the most effective path out of this crisis, it is to our small and growing businesses that we should allocate the most care and attention. Apart from the important role that they play in supporting our communities and providing jobs, the new businesses that will emerge from the current shutdown will be offering the innovative goods and services necessary for a new way of life that we may have to get used to. Our recovery—both physical and economic—depends on the next generation of entrepreneurs, and it should be the first priority of the Secretary of State to identify and support them.

The Liberal Democrats support the temporary measures in the Bill. They are sensible measures that should carry successful businesses through the current crisis until such time as they can thrive again on their own terms. We support them, however, only as temporary measures designed to respond to the specific challenges posed by the current crisis. We oppose the bundling into the legislation of permanent changes to our insolvency and corporate governance processes. Permanent changes should be subject to a greater level of scrutiny and debate. My amendment 14 sought to put all the proposed changes on a temporary footing, able to be renewed, but also allowing the proposed permanent measures to be reintroduced to the House at such time as we may be able to consider and debate them properly.

Introducing the proposals as temporary measures would also allow their effect to be properly analysed. Our particular concern is for the ipso facto clause, which can be triggered if an insolvency effectively ends a contract to supply. This will require key suppliers to continue to supply struggling companies, despite the risk that they may not get paid. This transfers the risk from the struggling company to the supplier, which, whether in an economic crisis or not, is unacceptable. In times when cash flow is limited, it is not sufficient protection for a supplier to get in the queue with other creditors in the event of one of its customers falling into administration. Suppliers should retain the right to choose to withdraw their services if they perceive that their resources will face a lower risk return elsewhere. To compel them to continue their supply would be unethical.

I am particularly concerned that such a change would have a disproportionate impact on smaller businesses, especially those that only have the capacity to service a handful of clients, and would be unduly disadvantaged by being required to supply goods and services without the certainty of being paid. I accept that there is a balance to be struck between the needs of customers and suppliers, and that during these difficult times supply chains are critical and need to be supported, but we need to take time to consider the long-term risks of introducing such a change to our insolvency procedures, and the introduction of emergency legislation is not that time.

The acid test of any new legislation at this time should be whether its provisions stimulate and support economic activity. There will be, regrettably, some businesses that will not survive the shutdown. For the sake of those who lose their jobs and livelihoods, it is imperative that capital and investment can be quickly diverted towards those endeavours that can thrive and provide new employment and economic activity. The increase in the scope of exclusions to the ipso facto clause will have precisely the reverse effect, injecting precious working capital into companies that cannot create economic value from it. Now more than ever is not the time to restrict our small business activity in such a way. I urge the Government to adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal that all the provisions of this Bill be time-limited and that we consider the permanent provisions more fully at a later date, when we would have greater insight into the impact of their introduction on our business environment.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Sarah Olney and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Of course the big topic of this Budget had to be the coronavirus. We are facing the gravest health crisis in a century, and the Government have no greater responsibility at this time than to plan their response. I am aware that at this very moment we could be standing on the edge of an escalation in our response to this crisis. I am conscious that some people think that even to address other topics at this time might be seen as an indulgence, so I welcome yesterday’s news that the Government have immediate and effective plans to re-fund the response to the coronavirus. I particularly welcome the news that statutory sick pay will be available to help people who would not otherwise be eligible. Supporting people who are required to self-isolate during this crisis is as essential to dealing with the social impacts of the virus as the additional funding available to the NHS will be to dealing with the health impacts.

However, while a short-term injection of funds to address the immediate crisis might be an appropriate response to the coronavirus, the Chancellor appears to have extended this approach to the whole of his Budget. It was a litany of short-term emergency measures. His speech yesterday left a whole wasteland of ungrasped nettles. If this Conservative Government, at the beginning of a five-year Parliament with a majority of 80, cannot bring themselves to make some tough choices to re-programme our economy to meet the challenges of climate change, and to reset the course of this nation’s economic journey as we leave the European Union, when on earth will they?

The impact of business rates on town centre businesses is a matter of enormous concern in my constituency. We are seeing increasing numbers of empty shops and shopping parades across Richmond and Kingston. Town-centre shops are not on a level playing field with online retailers, who are taking increasing market share with goods that are routinely sold at below cost price. Bricks-and-mortar retailers are further disadvantaged by having to pay punitive levels of business rates calculated on the value of property that they operate out of, with no regard to their level of turnover. Major reform of business rates to maintain our town centres at the heart of our communities is long overdue and has been called for on many occasions by Members from all parts of this House. In our 2019 manifesto, the Liberal Democrats called for a landlord tax to be paid by those who receive the proceeds from the underlying value of the property. This would relieve small businesses of the burden of taxation altogether. It is precisely the kind of radical reform that is urgently required to save our town centres. There was much press speculation that the Chancellor might announce a measure of that kind in the Budget. It is therefore a huge disappointment to find that he has once again ducked the issue.

While the scrapping of business rates for the coming year to mitigate the effects of the coronavirus is surely welcome, it does nothing to resolve the long-term problem. The bills will return again in 2021, when businesses will face not only the after-effects of the coronavirus but the expiry of the transition period in our exit from the European Union. A short-term crisis measure does nothing to help businesses plan for the long-term or to build up resilience for the mixture of unexpected and self-inflicted shocks to the economy. I welcome news of a review of business rates and look forward to hearing its outcome, but it is disappointing that more was not done to grasp this opportunity now.

I have read the forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, and I note that its economic outlook is informed by the assumption that the UK will make an orderly transition to a new trading arrangement with the European Union. Its forecast under those conditions is for a 4% downturn in GDP over 15 years. I was therefore surprised to hear so little mention of Brexit in the Chancellor’s speech. I know that the Prime Minister’s éminence grise has banned the use of the word, but to have so little reference to the major economic upheaval of our time in the first Budget after our departure from the European Union is nothing short of astonishing.

I am more sceptical than most about the Conservative Government’s promises of a bright new rainbow-filled future, but I nevertheless thought that there would be some opportunity that they would wish to take advantage of. We have thrown off the shackles, we are free to determine our own future—and we are going to stop charging VAT on tampons! Grateful as I am—and I am sure I speak for the rest of the female population—to save on average about £1 every year on the cost of my sanitary protection, I am somewhat surprised to find that this is the limit of the Government’s plans for our post-Brexit future. Is that really it? If I sound incredulous, it is partly because legislation to cut VAT on sanitary products was agreed by the European Parliament in 2018 and would have come into effect in 2022.

I accept that negotiations are ongoing, but I would be grateful if the Government gave the House an update at the earliest opportunity of their plans for the talks next week in the light of the coronavirus and an estimate of how that will affect their plans to conclude the negotiations for the new free trade deal by the end of the year. I repeat the call that the Liberal Democrats have previously made: the negotiations should be halted and an extension to the transition period agreed, to account for the time that will surely be lost over the spring and into the summer in the efforts to manage the virus.

The OBR report references the fact that the major boost to Government income from this Budget is the reversal of the planned cut to corporation tax that was due to be implemented this year. The Liberal Democrats called for that reversal in their 2019 manifesto, and I am pleased to see that the Chancellor took up our suggestion. While we would not wish to see taxes on business set at a punitive or discouraging level, we believe that businesses should pay their fair share towards an equal society.

For the self-employed, the biggest missed opportunity of this Budget was the failure to address the enormous issues presented by the planned implementation of the IR35 legislation in the private sector. An uplift in the minimum income level for class 4 national insurance contributions is no consolation to those who face losing their livelihoods as organisations refuse to take on contractors or source their contracts from overseas, to avoid the unnecessary burden that the legislation will impose. It is not too late to halt the implementation and conduct a thorough review of the costs and benefits of this legislation.

For all of us, the largest nettle that goes ungrasped is our response to the climate emergency. The Chancellor announced funding for many new road schemes across the country but little for mitigating measures to reduce carbon emissions. The plans announced for carbon capture and storage are pitifully inadequate, and not enough is being done to invest in electrical vehicle charging infrastructure.

It is a particular shame that the issue of carbon emissions from domestic homes was not addressed, as the barrier to real change on that is the lack of funding. If we are to meet the Government’s net zero target by 2050, we need to start a comprehensive programme of retrofitting insulation to domestic homes and to install more efficient forms of domestic heating. Such a move would have a beneficial impact on domestic energy bills everywhere and, in particular, would alleviate fuel poverty in many homes. I want to reiterate the Liberal Democrats’ support for the Government in dealing with the coronavirus challenge in the months to come—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady can finish her sentence.

[Sarah Olney]

Thank you. I appreciate that I have gone over my time, but I have waited a long time to speak.

In applying a crisis response to our longer-term issues, the Government are leaving a field of ungrasped nettles that will come back to sting us all when we are able, as we hope, to continue life as normal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the sake of clarity, all the Deputy Speakers have been very lenient with Members making maiden speeches. That leniency does not extend to others.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Debate between Sarah Olney and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb). My constituents in Richmond Park will have listened with great envy to tales of an efficient, on-time train system, so I thank her for that.

The most recent estimates of the tax gap in the UK—between what is due to HMRC and what is actually collected—are in the region of £35 billion. As a proportion of overall tax owed, this is just over 5.5%. The proportion has actually fallen in recent years, but this needs to be set against a backdrop of increasing austerity, which impacts disproportionately on the poorest in society. If the Government’s goal is to balance the books, they need to collect all the money they are owed with the same rigour as they manage their expenditure. A society that is quick to sanction those who fall foul of the rules on claiming benefits should be just as quick to penalise those who avoid paying their fair share of tax. As parliamentarians, our interest in the tax gap should not be in its size, its proportion as a share of tax collected or its comparison to prior years, but in the efforts taken by the Government to reduce it, as an indicator of their commitment to fairness and the equal treatment of every citizen, regardless of their income.

As we transition from our membership of the European Union to whatever we are headed towards, attention must be focused on anti-money laundering regulations. The proposed sanctions and anti-money laundering legislation would give Ministers powers to scrap existing EU regulations and replace them with UK laws. The Liberal Democrats are concerned that enthusiasm among some on the Conservative Benches for a bonfire of regulations—a “Singapore-on-Thames” style, low-tax, low-regulation UK economy—will result in these new regulations been watered down, to the benefit of those who would prefer less intrusion in their financial affairs. What assurance can the Government give us that the UK outside of the EU will clamp down just as firmly on tax evasion as it did when it was within EU structures?

The Conservatives’ previous attitude to tax havens does not inspire. Sir Vince Cable, while Business Secretary during the coalition, introduced a “people with significant control” register for anyone who owns more than 25% of a UK registered company, or otherwise exercises significant control over it. These PSC registers were due to be extended to cover the British overseas territories, until they were vetoed by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, after intensive lobbying. Will the same forces be brought to bear on our post-EU anti-money laundering regulations? Will the Conservatives stand up for the ordinary taxpayers of this country and put in place robust measures to tackle financial crime?

The Liberal Democrats called for the extension of the register of beneficial ownership to all British overseas territories so that accurate assessments of tax owing can be made. Companies that do not voluntarily disclose this information should be barred from bidding for Government contracts, on the basis that companies that may be avoiding contributing to the public purse should not be expected to benefit from it. Furthermore, HMRC should be properly resourced so that tax avoidance can be identified and redressed. With tax inspectors stretched to the limit, too many claims go unscrutinised and too few spot checks are carried out. The Social Market Foundation estimates that under-reporting is considerably more prevalent than current analysis suggests, and that the tax gap may in fact be much wider than the stated £35 billion. The 2019 Liberal Democrat manifesto called for a general anti-avoidance rule, under which all the little loopholes and anti-avoidance measures could be prosecuted without specific legislation. HMRC could make far greater progress in closing the tax gap if it had sufficient legislative tools. A Government committed to levelling up and treating all taxpayers fairly would introduce such a measure in their forthcoming Budget.

I confess to a little wry smile when the Minister mentioned the Making Tax Digital programme and its hoped-for success in reducing the tax gap. Before I was elected to this place, I was the financial accountant for Historic Royal Palaces. In that role, I was responsible for introducing Making Tax Digital into the organisation, and I have to say that although it was successfully implemented and the organisation is now reporting under that regime, the implementation was significantly held up by the very poor drafting of the legislation that introduced it.

The tax gap needs to be closed. This is money that belongs to us and to our constituents. Week after week, we all see the consequences of too little money in our public services. The tax gap is money taken out of the pockets of the poorest in society, and the Government must not sit back and allow this to happen.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am afraid that I have to impose a time limit of six minutes with immediate effect. This way, everyone will get a chance to speak.