Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Steel provides vital materials for our national infrastructure, from defence to renewable energy, and creates thousands of jobs across the UK. The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the action that the Government are taking to protect British Steel and ensure that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe do not go cold, but we are clear that the nationalisation of British Steel must be a temporary step to rescue the business before it can be returned to the private sector. We believe in a thriving, privately run steel industry, supported and empowered by the Government through an effective steel strategy.

Although the Liberal Democrats support this step, the Government must provide more detail on the plan, including how they will find private co-investors who can help to modernise the sites and put the money in to help to create more jobs. They must also ensure that the key stakeholders, including industries that rely on steel such as defence, are properly engaged in and represented through the process. We cannot afford another collapse of British Steel in a few years’ time, and we must move on from interim short-term measures to create a robust long-term plan for the future of the plant and sustainable domestic steel production, with an emphasis on national security.

I wish to speak first in favour of amendment 1, which stands in my name. Fundamentally, it is about parliamentary accountability. If the Secretary of State is to exercise a significant transfer power, Parliament should, at the very least, be told why that action is necessary and in the public interest. The amendment would not prevent the Government from acting; it would simply require Ministers to explain their reasoning before exercising the power, providing far greater accountability and transparency. Requiring a statement to both Houses would help to ensure that the use of the powers is proportionate, justified and open to democratic oversight. The Government already argue that the powers will be used only where necessary. If that is the case, there should be no objection to setting out those reasons clearly before Parliament. Amendment 1 proposes a modest and reasonable safeguard. It does not create a veto or impose an onerous process; it merely asks Ministers to account for their decisions.

I wish to speak in favour of amendments 2 and 3, which seek to ensure that regulations relating to property transfers and share transfers are made subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. The transfer of property or shares by ministerial regulation is not a minor or purely technical matter. These provisions are the heart of the Bill and give the Government significant powers with substantial financial, operational and public consequences. Given the importance of such decisions, does the Minister not agree that it is entirely appropriate that Parliament should approve such regulations, rather than having to rely on the limited scrutiny afforded by the negative procedure? The affirmative procedure would guarantee a debate and a vote in both Houses, ensuring proper democratic oversight before the powers were exercised. At their core, amendments 2 and 3 are about reinforcing accountability, transparency and parliamentary sovereignty in the exercise of delegated powers, and I urge Members to support them.

New clause 2, which also stands in my name, would establish a stakeholder advisory committee to ensure that decisions made under the powers in the Bill included input from the relevant groups and those most affected. The exercise of principal transfer powers could have major implications not only for the steel undertaking itself, but for workers, local communities, supply chains and strategically important industries across the country. The proposed committee would bring together voices from industry, the workforce and local authorities, ensuring that decisions were grounded in practical expertise and real-world consequences. The inclusion of sectors such as defence and critical national infrastructure is particularly important, given the strategic significance of the steel supply to national resilience and economic security. A structured advisory mechanism would improve transparency, strengthen confidence in decision making and help to ensure that interventions are sustainable and effective. New clause 2 is about ensuring that the public interest is determined not behind closed doors, but with the benefit of broad expertise and stakeholder input.

I wish to speak in favour of new clause 3, which recognises that intervention in a steel undertaking cannot simply be about ownership or transfer powers in isolation. It must be about people, jobs and the long-term future of industrial communities. If the Government exercise these significant powers, they should be required to set out a clear strategy for protecting workers and supporting economic transition. Not only is the steel industry strategically important to the national economy; it is often central to the identity and prosperity of the local communities within which it is situated. Workers in these industries possess highly valuable and specialised skills. Any transition strategy should therefore prioritise the protection of skilled employment wherever possible. Where change is unavoidable, there must be a serious commitment to retraining, reskilling and redeployment opportunities so that workers are not left behind. New clause 3 would help to ensure that Government intervention was accompanied by a coherent industrial strategy, rather than being another short-term fix and crisis management.

Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. It creates thousands of jobs across the country and is central to many communities, and we rely on it for essential parts of our national infrastructure, from defence and transport to clean energy generation and advanced manufacturing. Although the Liberal Democrats are supportive of the pace and urgency of the Government’s action to protect British Steel, nationalisation must be a temporary step, and the Government must ensure adequate transparency and accountability throughout the process. I therefore urge the Minister to support these amendments, to ensure that the legislation can deliver the necessary support to the steel industry, while balancing the needs of local communities and workers and ensuring that the necessary steps are taken to ensure thorough parliamentary accountability.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

As you know, Madam Chair, I have been urging successive Governments for over a decade to back the British steel industry, so it is genuinely a pleasure to be here today as the Government do just that. I support this historic Bill.

Steel is essential for the UK’s economy. It supports thousands of well-paid, skilled jobs and plays a crucial role in ensuring Britain’s security, particularly in an ever more volatile and uncertain world. Yet for years the industry has been allowed to wither. Production has fallen and plants have been lost—and with them jobs, capability and capacity. We simply cannot afford to allow this precipitous decline to go on any longer.

Rotherham is a steel town. It has seen the consequences of past Governments’ neglect up close. Speciality Steel, which is based in Rotherham—and Stocksbridge—should be a crown jewel in our economy, but it has been allowed to lurch from crisis to crisis, choked of investment and left at the mercy of unscrupulous ownership, unfair competition and a lack of vision. The plants currently stand still, shuttered amid the fallout of Liberty’s collapse. The workers are furloughed and uncertain about what their futures hold. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the Committee on the current state of the sale, which is now in its final stages.

My concern is not limited to Speciality Steel. Steel in Rotherham is at the centre of our local economy, and the crisis has had a substantial impact up and down the supply chain. The Minister’s ambition for steel’s renaissance could also be a rebirth for local businesses and local communities, but that requires investment, foresight and commitment. The Government’s steel strategy sets out a strategic vision for the industry and, crucially, delivers real and profound change for the sector as a whole. With £2.5 billion of investment in the sector and an ambitious but achievable target of 50% of the steel used in Britain to be produced here, the strategy is a blueprint for a revitalised domestic steel industry; it is one that has been roundly welcomed by the sector.

Perhaps most importantly, the strategy sets out a new approach to steel imports. Time and again, I and other steel MPs in particular have warned that a failure to tackle cheap, often state-subsidised and heavily polluting imports would destroy any attempt to increase domestic production. Without a level playing field, British steel cannot hope to compete. It is therefore welcome that the Government have acted to protect UK steel producers from unfair competition through a range of new trade measures, quotas and tariffs. While that is good news for steel producers, we do need to get the details right. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for raising specific examples of that.

Alongside steel producers, Rotherham hosts a large number of steel stockholders and downstream businesses. I have raised with the Government a number of instances in which trade measures have been introduced on products not currently produced in the UK, or where UK production and capacity is far below demand. I urge Ministers to act to ensure that those businesses are not impacted unfairly and that trade measures conform to the realities of the UK market; to do otherwise risks inadvertently harming the very industries and communities that the Government seek to defend.

While the Bill will not have a direct impact on steel production in Rotherham, it does send an important signal. I am proud that the Government are taking resolute action to ensure that they have the necessary tools at their disposal to safeguard the future of British Steel in Scunthorpe. I hope that this will set a precedent as the situation with Speciality Steel develops and that they will take similarly decisive action there, should it prove necessary.

With the right support, British steel can—and should—play an ever greater role in our economy, in infrastructure projects and, crucially, in our national security. I know that steelworkers in Rotherham will be relieved to have a Government who are so clearly on their side—on the side of good jobs and a dynamic economy—and, most importantly, a Government who back British steel.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We rely on steel for essential parts of our national infrastructure, including in defence, transport, clean energy generation, and advanced manufacturing. Steelmaking creates tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs across the country, helping to power our economy and boost our local communities.

However, for too long, our steel industry has been neglected. The last Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and last-minute rescues. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and erected new trade barriers, making it harder for our steel producers to do business with their biggest export market across the channel.

We have a duty to stand by this vital sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges, including President Trump’s unfair steel tariffs, China’s anti-competitive state aid practices, and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are going to foster a thriving steel industry, we cannot allow more producers to collapse and more jobs to be lost, and we cannot risk our last blast furnaces going cold.

The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step, aimed specifically at turning around British steel, before returning it to the private sector. It is in that spirit that British steel producers also support this measure. The Liberal Democrats are clear that our country needs a vibrant, privately run steel industry. In the long term, only private enterprise—not Government Ministers—can ensure that the sector powers forward. We will be closely scrutinising these measures, and indeed the Government’s broader steel strategy, to ensure that they move us in that direction. We need to move on from a patchwork of last-minute rescues to a long-term plan that will set the industry on a truly sustainable footing. Right from the get-go, we would have liked to see plans to find private co-investors who can help modernise the sites and create more jobs.

Putin’s barbaric war in Europe threatens our national security; Donald Trump’s reckless tariffs are undermining our economy; and the continuing conflict in the middle east threatens business supply chains. All those factors make the future of reliable domestic steel production more important than ever for whole swathes of our economy. That is why the Government should ensure that industries that rely on steel, such as defence, are represented and involved in decision making relating to this legislation. We need stronger action from the Government on improving trade with the EU, so that our steel exporters can benefit from easier access to their biggest market, and so that our manufacturers get easier and cheaper access to the materials they need. A new UK-EU customs union would be hugely beneficial in that respect.

Last but not least, we need more ambition on the use of UK-made steel in our domestic market. We welcome the Government’s target of boosting domestic production from 30% to 50% of UK steel demand, although there is no clear timeline for that, and we cannot help but note that the equivalent target in the EU is 75%. While we understand the difference between the two markets, we hope that the Government will keep the target under review in the light of uncertain supply chains, and will consider further incentives for the use of UK-made steel in private sector projects.

The Liberal Democrats know that nationalising steel producers is not the answer in the long term; I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government also view this as an interim rescue measure. What specific steps do Ministers plan to take to ensure that British Steel becomes investable for the private sector, should the legislation be triggered? As the Bill progresses through the House, the Liberal Democrats will be carefully scrutinising the use of secondary legislation, with the aim of maximising accountability. Many of the Bill’s measures will be implemented through secondary legislation subject to negative resolution procedures. I hope the Minister agrees that the affirmative procedure would offer more meaningful parliamentary engagement.

I urge the Government to ensure that there is proper transparency for Parliament about costs associated with the legislation. Clauses 53 and 54 set out the process for the valuation of relevant businesses and the calculation of any compensation that might be paid to previous owners. While we understand that valuations will depend on factors specific to each business, the Government should publish detailed information about the criteria taken into account, and must ensure that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise proposed valuations and compensation amounts. Have the Government considered granting powers to the Business and Trade Committee to scrutinise spending on these measures? Lastly, will the Minister update the House on whether and to what extent the Bill will affect employee pension schemes? What conversations have been had with the Pensions Regulator to that effect?

Looking at the broader state of the steel sector, from 1 July the Government’s new UK steel and trade measure will impose tariffs on imported steel. While we understand the need to bring in such protections temporarily, due to the disruption caused by US steel tariffs and cheap, subsidised Chinese exports, the measure will have a significant impact on manufacturers who depend on steel as a key business input. In Business and Trade questions this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) mentioned Dynamic Metals, a firm in her constituency that is facing about a £3 million bill to import the specialist steel grades it requires for its services. While I welcome the Government’s aim of encouraging domestic production and the purchase of steel from UK steel companies, some specific grades of steel are not domestically produced, so the Government are harming the purchasing power of UK businesses. Will the Government commit to re-examining the application of tariffs on certain grades of steel to ensure that they do not inadvertently damage domestic buyers?

The Bill’s measures are subject to a public interest test, but there are limited details about what that test will involve. Will the Government allow Parliament to scrutinise the criteria for the test, and publish a detailed report setting out why they believe they have been met? How will the Minister ensure that the aim of protecting the vital infrastructure and manufacturing sectors is balanced with sustainable energy commitments? Will he confirm that when compensation is calculated, Jingye will be financially responsible for any environmental damage caused? What consideration will be given to the affected workforce, and to ensuring that jobs and skills are protected?

The Government are right to take action to protect British steel, but nationalisation must be a temporary step, taken in order to rescue businesses before they are returned to the private sector. We are supportive of the Government’s pace and urgency of action to assist the steel industry, but we need more details on the longer-term vision. I would be grateful if the Minister gave, in his response, the reassurances that I have asked for. How will the Government ensure that the steel industry becomes investable for the private sector, following nationalisation? How will Parliament have oversight, once the powers in the Bill are triggered? How will Parliament be provided with transparency regarding the costs associated with nationalisation?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Government announced their intention in the industrial strategy to use their procurement power to shape markets for innovation in the longer term. Tech start-ups in my constituency complain that the process of getting Government contracts is slow, risk-averse and structurally biased in its financial viability tests and paperwork requirements towards incumbents and US suppliers. As one of them put it to me, no one gets sacked for buying IBM. That surely prevents the Government from achieving their goal of greater innovation. What conversations is the Minister having with his Cabinet Office counterparts to ensure that our ambitious home-grown small and medium-sized enterprises are not being squeezed out of the competition for public contracts that could provide these firms with valuable growth opportunities and the innovation that our economy and public services so badly need?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Member raises an extremely important point: Government procurement can, of course, be an important lever for growing our economy. Whereas previous Governments used the fig leaf of being in the EU as an excuse to buy things from overseas simply because they were a penny cheaper, this Government are committed to ensuring that as much as possible of UK taxpayers’ money is spent in the UK.

The hon. Member asks what discussions I am having with Cabinet Office colleagues. I am having discussions with colleagues in the Cabinet Office, the Home Department, the Ministry of Defence and across Government, because there is a commitment among Ministers to ensure that Government procurement is targeted at British companies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a strong commitment to reduce regulation and bureaucracy, so we can ensure that these contracts are awarded more efficiently and more easily to small businesses in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

According to reports in both the Financial Times and The Times, the Government have asked supermarket retailers to reduce the price of essential food items, such as milk, bread and eggs. The chief executive officer of Marks & Spencer has described the proposals as “completely preposterous”. Can the Secretary of State confirm that instead of trying to impose price controls on private businesses, his Department will look to reduce the cost of Government-imposed burdens on retailers, such as business rates, national insurance contributions and energy costs?

[Peter Kyle]

There will be no price cap and there will be no price controls, but I am not going to apologise for throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the cost of living challenges that we inherited, along with an economy that was broken.

Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Inconsistencies and U-turns have become characteristic of this Government, but this is more than just a redirection of policy; this is a betrayal of Ukraine. This Government are abandoning our European ally in its moment of need by putting more money into the pockets of President Putin to fund his war machine.

Last month, the Liberal Democrats urged the Government to implement a bold plan to keep Britain moving, which included a 10p cut to fuel duty, but also featured proposals to boost public transport by slashing bus fares to £1 and cutting rail fares by 10%. This would have taken pressure off our forecourts, but the Government sat on their hands. Instead, the Government believe that our best course of action is to abandon all morality and to indirectly fund Putin’s illegal war. I would like to ask the Minister how much money will be spent on Russian oil products as a result of this decision, and will he admit that lifting these sanctions will indirectly fund Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but I do just need to explain to the hon. Lady that we are not lifting any sanctions. We are implementing new sanctions, which only come into force today. Up until now, it has been perfectly legal to import Russian oil products processed in a third country into the UK—up until now. It is only now, because of this Government, with the new sanctions that come into force today, that that will not be possible. I really do hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her comments.

The whole of this House stands 100% beside Ukraine. I myself am probably the longest standing critic of Putin in this House. Back in 2014, when others were in government and not doing anything about the invasion of Crimea, I was saying that we should be tackling Russian aggression, because otherwise, if Putin was allowed to take Crimea with impunity, he would come for the rest. I do recognise that Liberal Democrat Members have been calling in the Business and Trade Committee and elsewhere for us to tackle precisely this issue of Russian crude oil processed in other countries that ends up coming into the UK. Up until now, that has been a source of income for Putin, but we are the Government who are stopping this, not enabling it.

Social Enterprises and Community Ownership

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on her work in securing this debate.

The current landscape is extremely challenging for businesses of all kinds across all sectors, including social enterprises. I am sure that colleagues from across the House have heard from countless local businesses in their constituencies, on their high streets and in the heart of their communities, about the challenges they face, which range from the Government’s national insurance rise to sky-high energy bills and uncertainty over what the Employment Rights Act 2025 might mean for them.

Social enterprises are a major part of the UK economy, with around 131,000 social enterprises operating across the country. Together, these organisations generate around £78 billion in turnover every year, which shows that they make an impact economically as well as socially. They reinvest their profits to support social and environmental missions, with around £1 billion being reinvested annually into local communities.

The sector also provides jobs for millions, with around 2.3 million people working in social enterprises across the UK. Social enterprises are often more inclusive employers, helping people from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter the workforce and tackling barriers around gender, race, class and disability.

Community-owned organisations help to strengthen local economies by keeping wealth circulating locally and giving residents a direct stake in the services and businesses that shape their communities. However, many of these organisations face major challenges, including limited access to finance, rising operating costs and difficulty in navigating complex procurement systems. Without stronger support from the Government, many social enterprises risk being unable to scale their work, despite the enormous benefits that they bring to their communities. As we have heard from so many contributors today, community ownership also plays a growing role in protecting important local assets, such as pubs, shops, energy schemes and community centres, ensuring that they remain viable and locally accountable.

As we see unemployment at alarmingly high levels, the Government should be doing everything they can to support these organisations, which provide vital opportunities to local people. However, with employment costs rising sharply, access to a skilled workforce is an increasing issue that affects businesses of all kinds across the country. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the industrial strategy last summer and the commitment to an increase in skills and training, but the apprenticeship levy does not work: many businesses cannot get the funding that they need to train staff, and hundreds of millions of pounds of funding go unspent. We have been calling for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced with a wider skills and training levy, which would give businesses more flexibility over how they spend their money to train their staff.

It is welcome that the Government are focusing resources on training young people, but it is essential that opportunities for training and reskilling are available throughout life. The decision to defund level 7 apprenticeships for the over-22s risks limiting opportunities at a moment when it is more important than ever to provide opportunities for our young people.

More broadly, social enterprises, like many other kinds of businesses across the country, are struggling under Government decisions such as the rise in employer national insurance contributions. That continues to be the No. 1 issue raised with me when I speak to stakeholders and business owners. Small businesses in particular have been left struggling under the heavy burden of this jobs tax, and the Government must take steps to support those businesses, which are at the centre of communities and local economies. Thousands of social enterprises, which often provide community services, have felt the damaging impact of those changes. That is why I and all my Liberal Democrat colleagues have repeatedly called on the Government to reverse the rise in national insurance contributions and will continue to campaign for them to scrap this damaging policy.

The Liberal Democrats have also been calling on the Government to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. In 2019, the Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of business rates, but failed to deliver it. The current Government pledged in their manifesto to replace the system, but their recent Budget did not bring forward welcome changes for business. The Chancellor announced lower business rate multipliers, but the new, higher rateable values from the Valuation Office Agency will wipe out any benefit that businesses get from the lower multipliers, so I ask the Minister how the Government now plan to meet their own commitment in the small business strategy to introduce permanently lower business rates.

Liberal Democrats have always believed in helping individuals to be involved in the decisions that affect their lives. We believe that employee participation in the workplace, together with wider employee ownership, is important for diffusing economic power, promoting enterprise, increasing job satisfaction and improving service to customers. As we see business confidence down and unemployment up, I urge the Government to consider urgent steps to ensure that those vital policies will allow these important organisations to thrive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

[Peter Kyle]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

[Kate Dearden]

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

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

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

[Blair McDougall]

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

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 General Committees

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

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

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

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

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

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

Post Office Green Paper

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney]

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

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

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

[Blair McDougall]

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

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

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

Onshoring: Fashion and Textiles

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

[The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)]

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shockat Adam]

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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