Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Nov 2024 · Aircraft Noise: Local Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. She speaks passionately on behalf of her constituents in Twickenham, who I know are blighted by these issues just as much as my constituents in Richmond Park. She is right about the health impacts of long-term exposure to nocturnal aircraft noise, which is strongly linked to sleep disorders and broader health impacts. For each additional 10 dB of night-time aircraft noise that communities are exposed to, there is an increase of between 14% and 69% in residents’ risk of high blood pressure, increasing the risk of strokes and heart attacks. Other researchers have found links between long-term exposure to aircraft noise and an increased risk of obesity, depression and cardiovascular issues. The human cost of these flights is substantial, but when I have raised this issue in the House, Ministers have fallen back on a study by York Aviation that argued that night flights add billions to our economy. That study has been repeatedly challenged on both its outcomes and methodology, and I urge the Minister to instruct his officials to examine the wider body of evidence. Researchers at the transport research service and consultancy CE Delft found that a ban on night flights would harm the national economy only if the passengers who currently arrive on scheduled flights before 6 am were not transferred to other flights. In addition, the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise has pointed out that estimates of the value of night flights often massage definitions of night-time jobs, which inflate key figures. In the light of that, I urge the Government to commit to commissioning a full independent analysis on the impact of night flights on our economy, residents’ physical health and local people’s mental wellbeing, to inform a potential ban on night flights at Heathrow. While night flights are a constant concern to my residents, the spectre of the third runway continues to hang over south-west London. Hansard shows that the third runway has been mentioned no fewer than 115 times in this House, and has been the topic of three debates, two early-day motions and countless open letters. Despite the efforts of dozens of MPs, the last Government resolutely refused to abandon the project. They said that we should ignore the 210 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that it would generate every year, the £100 billion it would cost to clean up the damage that the runway would do to our environment, and the impact it would have on air quality in our communities.

• 14 Nov 2024 · Aircraft Noise: Local Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the various packages that are available for people affected by noise. As he will appreciate, a number of my constituents are in that position, yet many are finding that some of those packages are insufficient and difficult to access. Will he meet me to discuss some of those individual cases?

• 14 Nov 2024 · Aircraft Noise: Local Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I am pleased to hear that there will be a proper study of the impact of aviation noise on sleep disruption, and I very much look forward to that publication. He may have missed the early part of my speech, where I asked for a much more robust study of the economic benefits of night flights. Will he comment further on that?

• 14 Nov 2024 · Aircraft Noise: Local Communities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to finally begin the Adjournment debate. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this important and timely debate. As the MP for a very vocal airport community, I welcome the Minister to his role and reassure him that he will be hearing from me a great deal over the coming Parliament. This topic is close to my constituents’ hearts. Every morning, at 4.30 am, they hear jet engines above their heads; every year, a Heathrow airport executive threatens to bring back the third runway; and every decade, a new proposal to change the flight paths is put forward. My constituents are not alone. In the UK, more than 23% of the British population live between two and 10 miles from an airport. Although they accept that aircraft noise is a fact of life, they should not be asked to tolerate constant attempts to increase the number of flights above their homes. In the opening months of this new Parliament, Labour has a chance to step away from the damaging policies of the past and build a new relationship with airport communities—a relationship in which the needs of local people and our environment are genuinely balanced against the demands of the aviation industry. To begin rebalancing the relationship, I urge the Department for Transport to consider three requests: first, to acknowledge the health impacts of night flights on airport communities and work to ban them above heavily populated areas; secondly, to accept that the expansion of Heathrow airport would fly in the face of Britain’s climate targets and have an unacceptable impact on my constituents in Richmond Park and elsewhere across London and the south-east; and thirdly, to recognise that any proposals to change flight paths above London and the south-east should be accompanied by a proposal for a “do minimum” approach, ensuring that people do not have to accept change merely for the sake of change. I turn first to night flights, which are the most intrusive form of aircraft noise. There is clear evidence that they harm the physical health of residents who live under flight paths. Long-term exposure to nocturnal aircraft noise is strongly linked to sleep disorders and broader health impacts.

• 14 Nov 2024 · Aircraft Noise: Local Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the past week the Prime Minister gave new impetus to the achievement of our net zero targets, and it is essential that we have another look at the damage that a third runway would cause at Heathrow. We must seriously re-examine the case for proceeding and, as my hon. Friend says, also look at the impact it would have on our communities. A meta-analysis of 70 studies published between 2000 and 2020 has shown that researchers consistently find elevated levels of ultra-fine particulate matter in airport communities. Constant exposure to those particulates can lead to decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage, and premature death. Allowing the third runway and the 260,000 flights that it will add to London’s skies is not only an annoyance to residents; it is a risk to their health. The third runway would have further far-reaching consequences other than simply tainting the air that my constituents breathe. At COP29 this week, the Prime Minister vowed to cut UK emissions by 81% before 2035, but his own Chancellor has refused to take the third runway off the table. I know from reading the 115 references to the third runway in Hansard that Ministers from both main parties are happy to avoid answering questions from Opposition MPs. For that reason I urge the Minister to consider the words of his colleague, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who said: “I raise the issue of the Heathrow third runway gingerly, but if we are so serious about this climate emergency, I do not see how we cannot look at all the things that the Government and the private sector are doing and ask whether they make sense in a net zero world.” —[ Official Report , 24 June 2019; Vol. 662 , c. 522.] In the last Division on the third runway, seven members of the current Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, opposed expansion. I urge the Minister to work across Departments to ensure that Government policy reflects their commitments to our local communities and our planet before any decision on the third runway is made. Finally, night flights and the third runway have been constant sources of concern to my residents over the past decade, but they must now contend with the Government’s new proposals for airspace modernisation. Although I understand that the proposals are intended to improve efficiency at the airport and bring aviation in London into the 21st century, I ask for caution. Last year, the London Assembly passed a motion calling on the airport to recognise the damage that its proposals would have on Richmond Park’s wildlife and ecology. The motion highlighted that redirecting 60,000 planes over London’s largest nature reserve flies in the face of decades of conservation efforts. Indeed, the noise from long-haul flights and the additional pollution from fuel dumping could change that fragile ecosystem for years to come. At the same time, airspace modernisation would lay the groundwork for an increase in the number of aircraft movements at Heathrow, and expose new communities across south-west London to aircraft noise directly above their homes for the first time. The proposed UK airspace design service will of course help to guide the development of those new flight paths, but it is essential that the public are given a genuine chance to choose between the proposals. When the proposed flight path systems are put to public consultation next year, I urge the Minister to ensure that residents can choose a “do minimum” option. New guidance systems can be integrated, and small amendments to current systems made, but ultimately there should be an option to maintain the path in a roughly similar location. We should not ask communities simply to accept change for the sake of change. They deserve a real choice over the future of their skies, rather than a forced decision between bad options. London is one of the most overflown capital cities in the western world. Hundreds of thousands of Londoners across the city experience the negative impacts of aircraft noise, yet the Government tiptoe around real measures that would improve residents’ lives. By banning night flights, abandoning the third runway, and giving our constituents a genuine choice over the positioning of flight paths, Ministers would demonstrate to London’s airport communities that we are being heard. The previous Government’s policy on the aviation sector was marked by an inability to stand up for the rights of communities in the face of Heathrow and other airports. The Minister now has a chance to be better than his predecessors, to put people before profit, and to consider what is really best for the capital and airport communities across the UK.

• 14 Nov 2024 · Aircraft Noise: Local Communities · Hansard source

  More

  A luddite?

• 14 Nov 2024 · Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats support the extension of this legislation and its ambition to make our second Chamber more equal and representative. If passed, the Bill will extend the timeframe for the process of accelerating women bishops to the other Chamber, meaning that when a vacancy arises among the 21 bishops appointed by seniority, it will be filled by the most senior eligible female bishop, with the goal of reaching gender parity as soon as possible. We are glad of the intention behind the Bill to address the current stark gender imbalance among our Lords Spiritual. We support that aim and welcome steps to ensure that Parliament better reflects the country it serves. Fundamentally, however, we want to see complete reform of the House of Lords, strengthening the authority of our second Chamber with a democratic mandate. Parliament should be a body that represents and reflects the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up this country, and we must do all we can to make that happen across both Houses. The Bill aims to ensure significant female representation among the Lords Spiritual by extending the arrangements of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act by an additional five years, so that its powers continue until 2030. Without it, the position would return to the status quo ante whereby bishops became Members of the House of Lords according to their time in office. Given that the legislation allowing women to become bishops was enacted relatively recently, in 2014, it is vital that the provisions of the 2015 Act are extended in order to continue to address the historical inequality and accelerate the move towards gender parity in our upper Chamber. The extension of the Act is a positive step to ensure that bishops in the Lords are more representative of the country as a whole as well as their congregations, and the Bill, in supporting a move towards gender parity, is a significant step in moving towards a more representative Parliament. Although we support the legislation and welcome all moves towards creating a more balanced Parliament, we must question why the latest legislation has been unsuccessful in reaching the goal of gender parity for bishops in the upper Chamber over the past decade. What further measures need to be taken to increase accessible routes to create a more equal Parliament? I ask the Minister why the legislation continues to be restricted with a time limit, and what conversations he has had with the Church of England regarding that. Does he believe that five additional years is sufficient time to reach equal representation, given the progress achieved by the original piece of legislation? The 2015 Act allowed just six women bishops to take up seats in the House of Lords, although I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for her excellent speech, which really highlighted the successes of the women who have been able to take up those roles. We must question why the latest legislation was unsuccessful, and what other steps we should take in order to reach the goal of gender parity.

• 14 Nov 2024 · Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that it is our collective loss that they did not take up the opportunity. It is vital that we go further in moving towards equality in all aspects of public and political life. Broader reform of the House of Lords is an essential step in achieving that. I was glad that the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill moved through this Chamber earlier this week, if perhaps not with the speed that we might have hoped. With not a single current hereditary peer being a woman, that legislation is an important step in addressing the gender imbalance of the other place, and we support it. This new Parliament has seen a series of firsts: the first time the proportion of women elected to the House of Commons has surpassed 40%, the first time this country has had a female Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the first time we have had a black woman leading one of the main political parties in this country. While I am glad to support today’s legislation, which will accelerate the move towards gender parity in our Lords Spiritual, it is vital that we continue to take steps to build a more equal and representative Parliament at all levels. In our recent general election, only 37% of candidates put forward by major parties were women. We are grateful to organisations such as 50:50 Parliament and Centenary Action for their tireless work supporting more women into politics at all levels. Diverse Governments are more resilient and make better decisions. It is essential that our elected bodies are drawn from the widest possible pool of talent and experience, and that Parliament better reflects the country it serves. More broadly, we are supportive of wider political reform, including of our upper Chamber. We believe that there are critical steps that the Government must take to strengthen democratic rights and encourage broader participation in politics. We will continue to urge the new Government to be bolder in modernising our upper Chamber, including by introducing the promised retirement age, implementing the findings of the Burns report and giving the Lords the proper legitimacy that our second Chamber should have through a democratic mandate. Political engagement is an historic low. Voter participation in our recent general election was the lowest since 2001—fewer than 60% of eligible voters cast their ballot. It is vital that we do all we can to restore public trust in Government, and broadening equal representation across both Chambers is a crucial step in doing that. We look to the Government to support our pledges to modernise our electoral system, including by investing in electoral procedures to ensure that the electoral register is accurate and up to date. We will continue to call on the Government to scrap the Conservative party’s voter ID scheme, and to expand political and democratic engagement by extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. In this year’s general election, the highest ever proportion of women were elected to Parliament, and women now make up more than 40% of the House of Commons for the first time. It is important that both Houses of Parliament represent and reflect the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up our country. This legislation is important in moving towards more representative politics. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for significant reform of the House of Lords for decades. Although we are proud to support the Bill, and grateful that it will improve the gender balance in the other place, ultimately we would like our second Chamber to be given a proper democratic mandate, and we will continue to push the Government to introduce bolder and broader parliamentary reforms.

• 14 Nov 2024 · Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. There was a great flurry of interest when I was stood here on Tuesday, making many of these points about the make-up of the House of Lords. I agree with him that it is extremely strange that the people who spent such a long time discussing these issues on Tuesday afternoon did not want to take the opportunity to discuss them further today.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Representation of the People · Hansard source

  More

  Everyone should have the right to vote. It is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy. Encouraging voter participation and democratic engagement should be at the centre of every Government policy, but political engagement is at a historic low. Voter participation in our recent general election was the lowest since 2001, with fewer than 60% of eligible voters casting their ballot. It is vital that the Government do all they can to encourage public engagement with politics. We must act to restore public trust and to ensure that we remove obstacles that prevent people from exercising their full democratic rights. The Liberal Democrats are therefore glad to see the Government introduce measures that support veterans. While we are pleased that the regulations will make voting more accessible for veterans, we are concerned that the support does not extend to other affected groups, and we call on the Government to repeal the voter ID scheme entirely, to ensure that all eligible people can exercise their democratic right as easily as possible. On Monday, we marked Remembrance Day. Every year, it serves as a solemn reminder of the bravery and sacrifice of so many who put their lives on the line in the defence of our liberty and democracy. We must ensure that all our veterans are properly supported and that their work is truly recognised. Liberal Democrats support a wide range of measures to support veterans, from ensuring that veterans impacted by the cost of living crisis are getting the support they need to doing more for unpaid carers in the armed forces community. It is shameful that the previous Conservative Government originally failed to include veterans’ ID in their list of acceptable identification when they first introduced this legislation. The regulations will make it easier for veterans to vote through the expansion of accepted forms of ID at polling stations. While the Liberal Democrats are supportive of measures to support veterans in accessing appropriate identification, we urge the Government to remove the requirement for ID altogether. Veterans are being let down. It is a scandal that those who put their lives on the line in the defence of our country too frequently fall through gaps in support. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a fair deal for our veterans and military personnel. That includes placing a legal duty on Departments to give due regard to the armed forces covenant, establishing a centralised information hub for the families of service personnel, reaching an agreement with the European Union for reciprocal access to spousal employment for families of serving personnel and cancelling the Conservative Government’s ill-advised cuts to the Army. In 2022, the last Conservative Government introduced a new law requiring voters to show photo ID to vote in general elections, local elections and referendums in England. Being able to vote is a fundamental democratic right, yet thanks to the Conservatives, it is now at risk. Millions of voters are affected by this unnecessary and undemocratic requirement. The Liberal Democrats are opposed to the voter ID scheme, and we have called continually for the scheme to be scrapped.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Representation of the People · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will know that the number of incidents of personation—I was just coming to this point—in 2022 was fewer than 13 and no prosecutions have taken place. He may say it is less than 1%, but that resulted in several thousand people being unable to exercise their democratic right to vote in the general election, because of the unnecessary requirement to produce voter ID. There may well be the risk of voter fraud, but it is yet to materialise in any significant way, and we have seen that this measure, brought in to combat that supposed risk, has resulted in thousands of our fellow citizens being unable to exercise their democratic right to vote. We are therefore opposed to the voter ID scheme and continue to call for it to be scrapped. The shambles of the last Conservative Government created a crisis for democracy in this country with their cronyism, rule breaking and constant sleaze scandals, and public trust in Government is worryingly low. Successive Conservative Prime Ministers acted without integrity and treated Parliament and the people with disdain. The voter ID scheme is just a further example of that. We continue to lead the fight against this deeply unfair, unnecessary and expensive scheme. The impact must not be underestimated. Every vote matters, and we must ensure that we are not preventing people from making their voice heard. The report published today by the Electoral Commission found that around 4% of eligible people who did not vote said that was because of the voter ID requirement. More in Common found that 3.2% said they were turned away at least once on 4 July. If that was reflected across the UK, that would equate to more than 850,000 people. Of that 3.2%, more than half said that either they did not return or they came back and were still unable to vote. It is important to note that recent figures from London councils showed that three in 10 Londoners who were turned away from polling stations due to a lack of appropriate voter ID did not return to vote. It is essential that people who have a legitimate right to vote are not prevented from exercising that right. More broadly, voter ID has not impacted all constituents equally.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Representation of the People · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that he does not see why political parties that compete fairly should have anything to fear. I put it to him that it is not a fear of political parties; it is much more about upholding the rights of voters. It is their interests that we need to protect, not the interests of political parties. That is why we are calling for the abolition of voter ID, although I fully take on board his points about the situation in Northern Ireland.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Representation of the People · Hansard source

  More

  I am quoting, obviously, sources from the Electoral Commission and More in Common—organisations that have carried out extensive polling on this question—and people say they were turned away because they did not have the correct voter ID. I think the hon. Lady is quibbling, frankly. There is no doubt that significant numbers of people were unable to vote in this last election who had the right to do so, and that was because of this unnecessary legislation. Research following the general election indicates that voter ID legislation disproportionately impacts minority ethnic groups, with Hope not Hate reporting that 6.5% of ethnic minority voters were turned away from a polling booth at least once, compared with 2.5% of white voters. Furthermore, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was a Cabinet Minister when voter ID was introduced, described the law as an attempt to “gerrymander” elections in the Conservatives’ favour. While we cannot know how those who did not cast their ballot would have voted, and so cannot directly measure the effectiveness of that deeply worrying intention, research by the Electoral Commission showed that the clearest impact of the voter ID requirement was in relation to social grade. The specification for accepted forms of ID specifically related to proof of address has disproportionately affected young people and people living in social housing. We know that the dire economic situation inherited by this Government has required the Chancellor to make tough decisions, as we saw with the recent Budget statement. Given the need for the Government to make spending more efficient, why are they choosing to keep the voter ID scheme in place? The scheme is projected to cost £120 million over the next 10 years. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money, and it is an obvious place where the Government could save money, redirecting it to support some of the most vulnerable in society or to fund vitally needed infrastructure projects. More broadly, we are supportive of wider electoral reform, and we look to the Government to support our pledges to modernise our electoral system. Electoral Commission research shows that potentially as many as 8 million people are incorrectly recorded on the electoral register across the UK. We should be removing barriers for all voters to encourage voter participation and public engagement. Improvements in the system could be achieved through modernisation of the registration system, such as a requirement on public bodies to share data with electoral administrators to improve the register’s accuracy. Given the huge cost of the voter ID scheme—£120 million over the next decade—could those resources not be better spent in modernising the electoral register and ensuring that all eligible voters are correctly recorded? It is vital that barriers to voting are removed for all eligible voters and that the deeply worrying findings of the Electoral Commission regarding voter registration are addressed. The Liberal Democrats want to strengthen democratic rights by expanding political and democratic engagement. We want to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about the additional barriers that voter ID will present to younger voters, once the right to vote is extended to them, because they will find it that much harder to find appropriate ID. We call on the Government to enshrine the ministerial code in legislation, give Parliament the powers to hold Ministers to account and protect politics from corruption and sleaze. We also want to see this new Labour Government be bold in strengthening the power of local authorities who know best what their communities and towns need. At the 2022 elections, there were 13 cases of alleged personation investigated, and no further action was taken in any of those cases. Would the Minister not agree that the much more concerning issue is that of an inaccurate electoral register? It is vital that we remove barriers to voting and do all we can to ensure that the 8 million people who are currently not correctly registered are not excluded from casting their ballots. Voter ID, which will cost £120 million over the next decade, is like using a sledgehammer to try to crack a nut. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money. While I appreciate the steps that the regulations will take to support veterans, they will do nothing to improve accessibility for many of the most affected communities, such as those renting from a social landlord, the unemployed, lower social grades, disabled people and young people. I question why the Government do not remove the barrier entirely, and I urge them to scrap the Conservatives’ undemocratic voter ID scheme altogether.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Representation of the People · Hansard source

  More

  As I said to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), the risk of being prevented from voting because of an inability to produce the relevant voter ID is much higher than the risk of personation. That is borne out by all the evidence and research. The hon. Gentleman managed to cite one instance in Eastleigh. I put it to him, and to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), that that single instance is likely to be outweighed many times over by the number of people who were prevented from voting by the requirements.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of new clauses 7 and 8, which stand in my name, and their associated consequential amendments. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), simply because I think that much of what he said supports my amendments. Certainly some of the points he made, I shall be making also. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are proud that it is our party that has for decades led the call for reform of the House of Lords with a democratic mandate. The Bill is a welcome step forward, and one that we support. However, we do believe that broader and bolder reform of our upper Chamber is needed, which is why I have tabled these two new clauses to extend the powers of this legislation. The new clauses would finally see the House of Lords with a democratic mandate and would ensure that the House of Lords Appointments Commission could never again be sidestepped and ignored by an unscrupulous Government.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to say that we support that ambition long term. However, I do not believe that the Bill is the correct vehicle for it. As the Minister said in her opening remarks, there is currently a widespread consensus on the Bill and tacking on new clause 1, which the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) tabled, would threaten its passage in the other place. I want the Bill to be passed as quickly as possible, so we will not support that new clause today. We want to take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties. We also want this new Labour Government to be bold in transferring more powers from Westminster and Whitehall. We believe that local authorities know best what their communities and towns need, and we want the Government to acknowledge that by boosting their authority and powers. We continue to support the findings of the Burns report in 2017, which recommends cutting the House of Lords to 600 peers and outlines ways in which to ensure that that happens. Although the removal of hereditary Members is an important step in that process, we will continue to push the Government to make further reforms in future. In particular, we look to them to uphold their manifesto commitment to introducing a retirement age, a measure which would further aid the reduction and subsequent management of the size and membership of the upper House. We want the second Chamber to have proper democratic legitimacy. Ultimately, we want to move towards replacing the House of Lords with an elected Chamber. We believe that moving to a fully democratic, elected Chamber is essential to strengthening the integrity of Parliament and the authority of our second Chamber. New clause 7 would enshrine a democratic mandate for our second Chamber in the Bill, thus strengthening the integrity of our Parliament. New clause 8 would prevent a life peerage from being conferred on a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission recommended against the appointment. We have consistently spoken out against the current system of prime ministerial appointments, which ingrains patronage, reinforces the elitism of British politics and contributes to so many people losing faith in our system. We would like the Government to reassure us that they will not follow in the footsteps of the previous Conservative Government, who allowed the other House to balloon in size, and that they will do everything possible to prevent a culture of sleaze and cronyism from developing in their Administration, as we saw under the previous Conservative Government. As former Prime Minister Boris Johnson proved by becoming the first Prime Minister to ignore the advice of HOLAC, making deeply inappropriate appointments to the other House, it is far too easy for a culture of sleaze to develop in the heart of Government. It is essential that we strengthen and improve public confidence in politics. I hope the Minister agrees that accepting this amendment would strengthen the integrity of any Government and prevent the kind of behaviour I have described from returning to Westminster. The new clause would ensure that recommendations made by the House of Lords Appointments Commission could no longer be bypassed by the Prime Minister, improving the integrity and democratic powers of our second Chamber. I am glad that the Government have indicated that the Bill is a first step in reforming the other place, and that in their manifesto they committed to reforms such as changes to the appointment process. I am grateful to the Minister for the Cabinet Office for his recent commitment to consider improving the mechanisms for reviewing appointments to the other House and implementing safeguards to protect against cronyism. If the Minister and the Prime Minister are sufficiently convinced that they will never override HOLAC—which they should be—do they agree that enshrining that principle in law is a good thing? New clause 8 would strengthen the powers of HOLAC and I urge the Minister to support it to remove the perception that the House of Lords will now be more subject to patronage. I also ask him to set out a timeline for introducing broader reforms, which would bring the appointment of peers more in line with those of other honours, such as knighthoods, which require an overview of the relevant skills, knowledge and experience of the candidate. We are clearly living in a new era of politics. Political engagement is at an historic low. Voter participation in our recent general election was the lowest since 2001, with fewer than 60% of eligible voters casting their ballot. It is vital that we do all we can to restore public trust in Government. It is also important that Parliament represents and reflects the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up our country. Currently, not a single hereditary peer is a woman. The privilege of hereditary peer membership exacerbates the distinct gender imbalance of the second Chamber. The Bill, which removes the last remaining hereditary peers’ membership of the other place, is a significant step in moving towards a more representative Parliament. I hope we can all agree on the inappropriateness of hereditary status as a qualification for membership of a second Chamber in a modern parliamentary democracy, and that being the son, grandson or great grandson of a former courtier, colonial administrator, or 20th-century businessman is neither reason nor justification for a seat in a democratic Parliament. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome the Bill and we are grateful to the Government, because in the legislation and subsequently we hope to see the most significant modernisation of the upper Chamber in a quarter of a century.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, how polite of the right hon. Gentleman to say so. Obviously, I do not personally recall what happened in 2007. What we are trying to establish today are the steps that can be taken to reform the House of Lords. We very much support the step that we are debating today—that first step upon which, as the Minister said in her opening remarks, there is broad consensus. We want to see broader reform of the House of Lords and we want the Government to bring forward further proposals in due course. New clause 7 is about pushing them to produce those further proposals in a timely fashion, so that we can hold that debate in this Parliament and progress the cause of measures on which we can find consensus across the House.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We intend to support the Bill, because we want to see the abolition of the hereditary peers; that is very much part of what the Liberal Democrats want. However, we want to see more; we want to go further; we want to see broader reforms. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have heard not only an appetite from all sides to support the Bill—as the Minister said, there is broad consensus across the House for that—but a great zeal on the Tory Benches for further reform. I therefore do not understand why there would not be broad support for my new clause, which calls on the Government to enshrine in this Bill a commitment to go further, because that is clearly what so many Tory Members are saying they would like to see. With so much trust in politics having been destroyed by the chaos of the previous Conservative Government, we must take this opportunity to underscore the integrity of Parliament, with transparency and democratic authority in our second Chamber. We are grateful to the Government for introducing this legislation so early in the Parliament. Fundamentally, the Liberal Democrats do not believe that there is space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege. New clause 7 would impose a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords through introduction of directly elected Members. Around the world, trust in the institutions and levers of the democratic process have too often frayed over recent years. In our democracy, we must ensure that the vital link between the people and their institutions remains strong. A democratic mandate is central to that mission. Reform of our upper Chamber has been a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy. We must do all we can to restore public trust in politics after the chaos of the previous Conservative Government. By introducing a democratic mandate for Members of the House of Lords, we can ensure that trust in politics is strengthened. The disregard with which the previous Conservative Government treated the public’s trust threatened to erode faith in our democracy. The Bill is an opportunity to underline our commitment to democratic values and to begin to rebuild that trust. The new clause would strengthen the democratic mandate of the second Chamber, and Liberal Democrats call on the Government to support it as well our calls for wider reform to modernise our electoral system. We want to strengthen democratic rights and participation by scrapping the Conservative party’s voter ID scheme.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I very much look forward to having that debate in a future Session of this Parliament and on a future piece of legislation. That is why I tabled new clause 7—to call on the Government to make a commitment to future legislation, so that we in this House can debate and support broader and further reforms to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Pension Credit: Uptake · Hansard source

  More

  22. What progress her Department has made on meeting pension credit application targets.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Pension Credit: Uptake · Hansard source

  More

  In the weeks following the Chancellor’s announcements on the winter fuel allowance, the number of pension credit applications doubled, then nearly tripled. Now the DWP is delaying releasing any more data on this subject. I am concerned that the Government know that they will not be able to process the applications on time, and that the information is not being put into the public domain. Will the Minister tell me exactly how many pension credit applications have been submitted since 16 September, and whether the backlog will be cleared before older people start having to make a choice between heating and eating?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this year, I spoke with the now Minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), about my campaign to make court transcripts free. She was supportive, but was not sure that Labour could commit to spending the £2.2 million that it would cost. The Justice Committee has urged the courts to consider whether artificial intelligence-powered transcription could reduce the cost of producing court transcripts. Will the Minister commit to carrying out the Committee’s recommendations before the end of this parliamentary Session?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. I refer him to our general election manifesto in which, as I have already said, we set out a range of tax-raising measures, including reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts on big banks and taxing the social media giants. There are plenty of ways that the Government could have raised taxes more fairly than by placing additional burden on small businesses, which will be the engine of economic growth. Brexit is another reason why our economy is not growing in the way it should. I urge the Government to acknowledge the seriousness of yesterday’s report from the OBR outlining the continual damage that Brexit red tape causes UK businesses, and the OBR finding that weak growth of trading, exacerbated by Brexit, will reduce the overall trade intensity of the UK economy by 15% in the long term. We understand that rebuilding our relationship with Europe is a gradual process. However, we are disappointed that the Government have ruled out joining the single market in the future, even when relationships improve. We urge them to consider the breadth of benefits that a strengthened trading relationship with Europe would bring. The Liberal Democrats want to forge a new partnership with our European neighbours —built on co-operation, not confrontation—and to move to a new comprehensive agreement.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in this debate in response to the first ever Budget delivered by a female Chancellor. This Government have inherited a mess, and we know that the cause of that mess is the legacy of reckless economic mismanagement left behind by the previous Government. The Liberal Democrats are glad that the Chancellor has listened to our calls for investment and support for the NHS to start repairing all the damage done to local health services by the Conservatives. We will continue to stand up for our constituents, and press the Government to act with urgency and to provide the support to public services that is so desperately needed. The NHS has been stretched to its limits after years of Conservative neglect, and the Liberal Democrats have been tirelessly campaigning for an emergency health and social care budget to get it back on its feet. We therefore welcome yesterday’s announcements. However, we need to see outcomes, including people being able to see a GP within 7 days, cancer treatment targets being met and people having a dentist appointment when they need one. We will hold the Government to account for delivering on these issues. Millions of people have a long-term health condition that makes them too ill to work and millions more are stuck on NHS waiting lists. Many others cannot leave hospital because there is no care provision. The Liberal Democrats have always understood that we cannot have a thriving economy and strong public finances until we fix the crisis in health and social care, so we welcome some of the steps that the Government announced in this direction yesterday. The Liberal Democrats have campaigned on improving support for carers. While I am glad that the Government’s review will look again at getting rid of the cliff edge for carer’s allowance and the earnings limit, I hope that the Chancellor and her colleagues will consider a broader review to give family carers the support they deserve. We will hold them to account for ensuring that this new funding is delivered for patients and carers, including through extra GP and hospital appointments. I also welcome the promise made by the Chancellor yesterday of full compensation for the victims of both the contaminated blood scandal and the Horizon scandal, and I hope that that can be delivered quickly to bring the victims closer to the justice they deserve. The previous Conservative Government yet again showed themselves to be totally shameless with the revelation that, while they promised to compensate the victims of the hideous infected blood scandal, they entirely neglected to set aside the funds to actually pay for them. It is essential that there is transparency in Government spending, and we are glad that the Government are strengthening the powers of independent bodies, such as the OBR, to ensure that taxpayers receive value for money. We were glad that, during the Chancellor’s Budget, she committed to investing to modernise the systems of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs using the very best technology, and we are glad that she has committed to recruiting additional HMRC compliance and debt staff. Investing in HMRC reduces the risk to businesses and individuals in navigating the bureaucratic and often complex processes associated with this service. I have heard from businesses in my constituency of the risks they face by not being able to directly speak to someone at HMRC. Strengthening these services with greater resources should benefit not only businesses, but all those required to complete self-assessment. Greater resources will protect citizens from unfair charges, including the loan charge, and allow people to access clear advice and support, making our tax system more efficient. While I am pleased to support many of the announcements made by the Chancellor yesterday, I am concerned by her decision to raise employer’s national insurance contributions. I fear that this will be deeply damaging to many already struggling small businesses and care providers, so we urge the Government to at least consider exempting social care from the employer’s national insurance tax rise. The Chancellor has provided extra funding for the NHS and other public sector organisations to cover the cost of the tax rise. However, the vast majority of care providers are in the private sector, so will not benefit from this help. Small businesses are the beating heart of our local economies. For years under the last Conservative Administration, these businesses have struggled, having to carry the burden of rising energy prices, interest rates and the red tape of the Conservative’s Brexit deal. I urge the Government to go further than the announcements made yesterday on business rates by fundamentally overhauling the broken business rates system, which is destroying our high streets and town centres. The Liberal Democrats believe that there are much fairer ways of raising revenue. Our manifesto set out our calls for a fairer tax system, including raising money by reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for the big banks, or by asking the social media giants to pay a bit more. We do not believe that it is right or fair for the Government to instead increase the burden on small and medium-sized businesses, which are the engines of our economy and which are already struggling under the unfair tax system set out by the last Conservative Government. We welcome yesterday’s news of increased funding for schools. Supporting children and young people must be central to any Government policy. After schools were left to crumble by the last Government, we are glad to see an increased investment in education. However, the Liberal Democrats oppose ending the VAT exemption for independent schools. We do not support taxing education, and we believe parents should have a choice about how they educate their children. We were disappointed that at no point in the Chancellor’s Budget was there a mention of Europe. The Government cannot indefinitely ignore the damage that the Conservative’s shambolic Brexit deal continues to have on our economy.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and she is absolutely right. The first thing we should be doing is negotiating a youth mobility scheme. We owe it to our young people, who are struggling more than most in the current economic environment. The mismanagement of our economy by the outgoing Conservative Government has left deep challenges, and we understand that undoing that damage will not be easy. Nevertheless, it is not right for the consequences of these decisions and for this burden to be carried by some of the most vulnerable in our society. In July, I urged the Chancellor to remove the two-child limit on social security payments in her first Budget, and we are disappointed that this did not happen. No child should grow up without adequate food, a warm home or security for their future. Currently, 1.6 million children are affected by the two-child benefit cap. Parents subject to these limitations have less available income for childcare costs, and therefore experience barriers to employment. The Liberal Democrats believe that removing this cap is the most cost-effective way of immediately lifting children out of poverty and getting more parents back into the workforce. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have also listened to our constituents and heard from countless pensioners who are worried about how they will afford their energy bills this winter. Since the cut to the winter fuel payments was announced, I have been inundated with expressions of local people’s disappointment at this decision. We will continue to urge the Government to give their full support to measures to boost the uptake of pension credit, and to ensure that all those eligible for pension credit claim both the benefit itself and the winter fuel payments. For years, the previous Government failed to keep our communities safe from crime. It is vital that the new Government urgently restore the proper community policing that local people deserve. I ask the Government to clarify how and when the Chancellor will fund the thousands of new neighbourhood officers that her Government have promised. The Metropolitan Police Service has drawn on its financial reserves, slashed spending and sold off assets. During the election, our constituencies were promised more community police officers, but the Met has already made cuts and savings of over £1 billion, and next year it is facing a funding gap of over £450 million. The Liberal Democrats are pleased to see the Chancellor’s goody bag of infrastructure projects, yet I personally was disappointed that this did not extend to funding for Hammersmith bridge. Some 22,000 vehicles a day used to cross the bridge, and those cars are now causing gridlocked traffic throughout my constituency in Mortlake, East Sheen and Barnes. It will cost £250 million to fix Hammersmith bridge, a sum no local authority can afford to pay, so I hope the Government will consider what more they can do to assist with the bridge’s reopening. We all agree that we need economic growth and a stable economy after the chaos caused by the last Government. We know that this dire economic situation requires tough decisions. I welcome many of the steps that the Chancellor announced yesterday, but the Government must ensure that this does not come at the expense of the most vulnerable. I ask the Government to set out a timeline for the delivery of their proposals for investment, and I urge them to act with the urgency required to ensure that people can access the services they need when they need them. The cost of living crisis will not be solved by hitting families, pensioners, family farms and struggling small businesses, and our economy will not grow strongly again unless we repair our broken relationship with Europe.