Draft Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 General Committees

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The Liberal Democrats strongly opposed the Trade Act 2021, as it failed to provide sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of future trade agreements and risked weakening the UK’s high standards on health, food, labour and the environment. Despite that, the Bill passed the House of Commons in July 2020 without amendment, despite cross-party efforts to introduce greater transparency and accountability.

In contrast to the Labour Back Benchers, I was there and I tabled those amendments to require transparent investment courts for investor disputes, to ensure human rights considerations in trade negotiations and to mandate impact assessments of trade agreements. Those, along with other Opposition amendments such as protections for the NHS and food standards, were voted down by the then Government.

The Liberal Democrats further criticised the Bill for lacking clear national priorities or principles to guide future trade negotiations, such as commitments on climate action, animal welfare and international development. We warned that that omission could lead to deals that lower standards or allow foreign influence over public services. Then and now, we believe that the 2021 Act grants excessive power to Ministers, excluding MPs from meaningful involvement, and it provides no guarantee that UK standards, public services or democratic accountability will be protected. We will not vote against this draft SI, but we will continue to call for reforms to ensure transparency, fairness and parliamentary scrutiny in future trade policy.

[Chris Bryant]

The shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, argued for the benefits of Brexit—well, I have searched very high and I have searched very, very low for those. The previous Government even had a Minister for the benefits of Brexit, although he lost his seat, of course, at the last general election. I was a remainer and I remain a remainer, and we know that there has been significant damage to our ability to prosper because of what Brexit did to us. When I was at the World Trade Organisation last week, it was striking how many countries pointed to the number of UK businesses that are no longer trading in Europe because of the difficulties relating to Brexit.

I will say two things. First, we are where we are and we intend to exploit the ability that we have by virtue of not being in the European Union to its utmost, so as to secure trade deals wherever we can in the rest of the world. It may be that in some instances we are able to lead the way, such as on the free trade agreement that we have agreed with India, which is a significant success. That will point the way for the EU itself, in some cases, to be able to follow in our wake. It also gives us a seat at the WTO for the first time, which means that we can lead some of the conversations on reform of the WTO at the ministerial conference next March in Cameroon.

We will exploit the opportunity, but secondly, we must also ensure that, wherever possible, we secure the frictionless trade that was promised us by the shadow Minister and his ilk. We will try to secure that with the European Union because, frankly, any business in the UK that manages to find an export opportunity is more likely to be more resilient, succeed and grow into the future, which is precisely what we want for British businesses.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, sounded very grumpy. I always think, when a Liberal Democrat stands up, that they will be full of cheer and joy, and then they are always grumpy. I sympathise with some of the arguments that she makes about scrutiny, and I want to make sure, as Trade Minister, that we can provide whatever scrutiny is possible without so limiting our freedom of action to secure a deal with another country. It is a very careful balancing act and we need to get it right.

I was the Minister in the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office who took forward the clauses in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRaG. I stand by them. We will provide as many opportunities as we possibly can in relation to all the trade deals that we are going through at the moment for people to scrutinise, question and, if necessary, tell Ministers off. I will now give way for what will probably be another grumpy Liberal Democrat intervention.

[Sarah Olney]

I will ask this question in the brightest way I possibly can. The Minister referenced CRaG, which was passed in 2010. Does he still think that that is a sufficient level of scrutiny, given that we are now outside the EU and in a different trading environment to the one that we were in when those provisions were made?

[Chris Bryant]

We would obviously always want to keep that under review. As part of the CRaG process everything gets notified to the several Committees that might have an interest. When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee, it struck me that it was always at that moment that all the members would put their heads on the table—it was like the moment from “Absolutely Fabulous” when the accountant comes along.

There is a very strong argument that the whole of the House should take these trade issues far more seriously than we have in the past—though that is not me committing to changes in legislation, in case that is what the hon. Lady thought I was doing. She has started smiling again; it turns out I can put a smile on a Liberal Democrat face. However, I take the issue of how we consult extremely seriously. I know she is a trade envoy, and I still need to have a conversation with her about that.

Broadly speaking, everybody has said that they agree with the motion, so I should probably shut up.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I also welcome the ministerial Front Benchers to their new roles. The Liberal Democrats have long championed an industrial strategy. In government, we created the Green Investment Bank, the British Business Bank and the regional growth fund, and we opposed the Conservative Government’s damaging decision to scrap the industrial plan. We welcome the industrial strategy’s return, especially its focus on investing in skills.

However, businesses know that the apprenticeship levy does not work: funding is hard to access and millions go unspent. We welcomed the pledge in June to replace it with a more flexible growth and skills levy, but firms and young people are still awaiting details. Will the Minister provide details of what training this will fund, so that businesses and young people can plan ahead with certainty?

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words on my new appointment. I will not get ahead of announcements on that, but given the importance of skills to the industrial strategy, we are not waiting for those announcements. We have had TechFirst, a £187 million investment in secondary school pupils, undergraduates, PhD students, entrepreneurs and businesses, to help them get ahead on that. We have the engineering package of over £100 million, and the defence package of £182 million. We are making those investments now to ensure that the pipeline is there for those industries, which are the priority within the industrial strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Businesses across the country are struggling with unaffordable energy costs. The burden of this Government’s national insurance contributions rise and uncertainty over the Employment Rights Bill are compounded by the immense struggle caused by sky-high energy bills. I urge the Government to act with more urgency in addressing energy costs for businesses, including through accelerating the launch of the industrial competitiveness scheme, the consultation for which is not even due to be launched until the end of the year. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to cut operating costs for businesses, and will the Government consider Liberal Democrat proposals to break the link between gas and energy prices, halving bills within a decade and easing pressures?

[Peter Kyle]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we are in constant contact with the Energy Secretary. When I was at DSIT, we co-chaired the AI energy council, and we are working together to get the transition to renewable power done as swiftly as possible, generating the wealth that our country needs from the transition period. Also, we are lowering bills and, through some targeted interventions, ensuring that those key businesses get the support they need on the challenges with energy prices and supply that we inherited when we came into office.

Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing this debate. The Liberal Democrats support measures that work to strengthen employment rights, so yesterday we welcomed aspects of the Employment Rights Bill, such as boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening support for whistleblowers and increasing support for carers. All those measures move us in the right direction, but as the legislation progresses through Parliament, we remain concerned about the specific way in which many of them will be implemented. We must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and business.

In the debate yesterday, my colleagues and I highlighted several concerns about the absence of detail in the Bill. So many key elements will be left to secondary legislation or subject to consultation. Businesses in my constituency tell me that they are being left in limbo by the Government’s framing of the Bill, which prevents long-term planning. I am disappointed that the Government did not support the Liberal Democrat amendments that would have created more certainty for business in matters such as the definition of short notice when a shift is cancelled, or the changes to the period for making a claim for unfair dismissal.

Any new measures to support workers must go hand in hand with much-needed reforms to support our small businesses, such reforming the broken business rates system, bringing down trade barriers and properly reforming the apprenticeship levy. Although the impact of the Employment Rights Bill will be a significant shift for businesses, there are many other factors that remain challenging.

Small businesses are at the centre of our communities and our local economies, creating the jobs on which we all rely. We are glad that raising the employment allowance will help to protect the very smallest employers, but thousands of local businesses, including many in the hospitality sector, will still feel the damaging impact of the national insurance increase. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have persistently opposed these measures at every turn. Once again, I urge the Government to scrap them.

The Government’s decision to raise the rate of national insurance contributions while also reducing the threshold at which they are levied has significantly raised the cost of employing part-time workers, delivering a disproportionately large blow to the hospitality sector. Just today, the latest labour market figures show rising numbers of people claiming unemployment benefits, alongside many businesses facing workforce shortages. The Government need to scrap this failed tax, or we will not get the growth that we need to rebuild our public services.

It is not just about staffing costs. The Government must take other steps to boost the hospitality workforce, including introducing a youth mobility scheme with much more urgency and properly investing in skills and training. More broadly, they must look at measures that would ease the pressure felt by so many businesses and boost the economy as a whole. We continue to call on them to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. We also know that many businesses are struggling with sky-high energy costs, so I urge the Minister to consider Liberal Democrat proposals that will cut energy bills by a half within 10 years, by breaking the link between gas prices and electricity costs so that households and businesses can get the benefit of cheap, clean power and lower energy bills. I urge the Minister to look at our proposals to give businesses the support that they desperately need.

Most employers want to do the right thing by their staff. I have spoken to many businesses and key stakeholder groups that support the aims of the Bill but have raised significant concerns that some of the measures could backfire, leading to the loss of thousands of flexible, part-time and entry-level roles in particular. So much of the detail of the Bill is still undecided. That will compound the challenges that small businesses are facing, from the Government’s changes to employer national insurance to the reduction in business rates relief and the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices. We must find a way to support and provide clarity for businesses trying to plan ahead.

The Liberal Democrats remain supportive of many of the measures that the Employment Rights Bill will introduce to improve support for workers. However, as we see the impact of the legislation, we will continue to seek the right balance for both employees and businesses.

Employment Rights Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), and to hear his passion for the Bill; I wish him every success. I also welcome the new Secretary of State for Business and Trade to his place. I look forward to opposing him.

The Liberal Democrats support many of the Bill’s aims. We have long called for employment rights to be strengthened in several ways, including by boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening support for whistleblowers and increasing support for carers. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle, and that moves the country in the right direction. However, we remain concerned about how many of the measures will be implemented. We must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and business. Some of our worries arose from the extent to which crucial detail has been left to secondary legislation, or will be subject to consultations. That does not facilitate stability and certainty for business or workers, and it precludes long-term planning. That will particularly impact small businesses, start-up businesses and those businesses looking to grow. That is why we are supportive of, for example, the amendment that sets the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months; that would create certainty for business. Any new measures to support workers must go hand in hand with much-needed reforms to support our small businesses, which provide employment. Those reforms include reform of the broken business rates system, a removal of trade barriers, and proper reform of the apprenticeship levy.

I am in favour of Lords amendment 1, which would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them. The Liberal Democrats have long stood for giving zero-hours workers security about their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many zero-hours workers struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we also recognise that many value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Many young people and those balancing caring responsibilities alongside work value adaptability in their shift patterns. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures that workers can have security and flexibility.

[Katrina Murray]

I spoke to a hospital catering worker in my constituency who was contracted to work 12 hours a week, but she regularly worked 36 hours a week. However, when she took annual leave, she was paid for 12 hours a week. Does the hon. Lady not think that this catering worker deserves the respect of actually being paid for the hours she works, and of having a contract for the hours she works?

[Sarah Olney]

If the hon. Lady supported Lords amendment 1, the catering worker would have a right to request, and could get the certainty she requires. The amendment would very much offer that right, which she currently does not have, but it would also mean there was no requirement on the employer to maintain records, and the employer would not have the administrative burden of being forced to offer those hours to workers in the industry who did not require such flexibility. That is why we think the amendment strikes the right balance.

We strongly support the principle of enabling workers to obtain fixed-hours contracts, but we have concerns about the implementation method proposed in the Bill. Small businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant administrative burdens. Many small employers lack human resource or legal departments, and the change could be a significant cost for those with limited resources. That would compound other challenges, such as the recent increase in employers’ national insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. In the retail and hospitality sector, part-time and entry-level roles are often taken up by young people looking for flexible hours, people with caring responsibilities, and others who may not want to make long-term work commitments. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) offered a compelling example of a zero-hours contract giving someone what they required from work. For all those groups, flexibility is key.

The amendment is in line with our long-standing manifesto commitment to give zero-hours and agency workers the right to request fixed-hours contracts—a right that employers could not refuse unreasonably. The measure would maintain a flexibility that benefits both parties, whereas an obligation to offer guaranteed hours imposes a significant burden, which does not benefit either party.

We are clear that employees should be supported to exercise this right—and all employment rights—without fear of any negative consequences in their workplace, and we are pleased that the Government have taken steps to set up a unified Fair Work Agency. We hope that the Government will look into our other proposals—for example, the proposal to give zero-hours workers a 20% higher minimum wage to compensate them for the uncertainty of fluctuating hours.

The amendment strikes a balance between security for workers and flexibility for employers. Much of the contention about the Bill relates to the lack of detail and clarity around key definitions, which makes it hard for businesses and employers to plan. That is why I also wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 8, which would define a short-notice cancellation as a cancellation with 48 hours’ notice. That provides a workable balance. It gives employers clarity, while ensuring that workers are compensated when shifts are cancelled late.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that fair notice may be relative to the industry we are talking about? What is fair notice in, say, the retail sector may be completely different from what is fair notice for someone working on an offshore oil rig.

[Sarah Olney]

No, I do not think so. Forty-eight hours is a reasonable amount of notice in any sector. That is the kind of notice that enables, for example, parents to rearrange childcare, or other members of the family to rearrange their shifts. The 48 hours is a proper definition of reasonable notice, and 48 hours is 48 hours, whether you work on an oil rig or in a shop. I disagree that it is context-dependent.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I am passionate about ensuring that single parents can enter the workforce, and a big barrier to that is childcare. When thinking about which amendments the hon. Member will support, has she discussed the matter with any organisations representing single parents? Forty-eight hours does not seem like a lot of time.

[Sarah Olney]

As someone with a long history of having to arrange childcare at short notice, I am well aware of the limitations that needing to arrange childcare presents, particularly for working women, both those who are single parents and those in a relationship. Forty-eight hours is not ideal, but it is a reasonable compromise, and it is absolutely vital that employers have clarity about what “reasonable notice” looks like in this circumstance.

I wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 48. Businesses, particularly those in the hospitality sector, that rely on seasonal workers are particularly vulnerable to changes in labour regulations and the knock-on impacts on the cost and availability of labour. The sustainability of farming businesses, for example, depends on being able to get the right people to the right place at the right time, and obstacles to that can have a big impact on ability to generate produce for sale, and therefore on the sustainability of the business. If we allow a different set of regulations to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of “seasonal work” must be created to prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming seasonal work in inappropriate circumstances. While we do not believe that this legislation should create contrasting employment law requirements for businesses, we continue to defend the principle that businesses should be properly considered when secondary legislation is created, so I urge Members to support the amendment.

Lords amendment 46, tabled by my good friend and Richmond Park predecessor Baroness Kramer, would introduce protections for whistleblowers. It follows her long-standing campaign for support for whistleblowers, and I pay tribute to her commitment to the cause.

[Ian Roome]

There is no standard requirement for most companies to have a whistleblowing policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would be a good opportunity to put in place real protections for whistleblowers who try to highlight crime, danger and malpractice in the workplace?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The current framework for whistleblowing applies only if somebody has lost their job. It does not address the duty on businesses to follow up whistleblowers’ serious concerns about crimes. That urgently needs to be addressed.

Too many whistleblowers who raised serious concerns about matters ranging from fraud to patient safety are ignored by their employers, or are reticent to speak out because of fears of unfair repercussions. The new clause in Lords amendment 46 has received the support of numerous international civil society organisations, including Protect and Spotlight on Corruption. It would be a long-overdue update to our once world-leading whistleblowing legislation, and I urge colleagues from across the House to support the change.

I support Lords amendment 47, which would expand the right to be accompanied to employment hearings to include certified professional companions. Currently, employees may be accompanied only by certified trade union representatives, leaving many workers to navigate proceedings alone. Although trade unions provide valuable support to their members, only 22% of workers are in a trade union, including only 12% of private sector workers, with recent figures at a record low. The current provisions made sense at a time when trade union membership was higher nationally, but those provisions have become largely outdated as trade union membership has fallen and the labour market has modernised. Without the amendment, we consign many employees facing unfair dismissal to navigating the requirements of disciplinary hearings on their own, without any kind of professional or educated support.

[Dr Arthur]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the best protection against unfair dismissal is trade union membership?

[Sarah Olney]

No, I do not. I think that people should have the freedom not to join a trade union if that is what they wish, not least because their trade union contributions might go to a party that they do not vote for. Many professions these days are better represented not by trade unions that cover a whole range of different employment categories but by professional bodies. As an accountant, I was a member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. Had I been facing a disciplinary in relation to my professional duties, I would have been much better represented by a fellow member of that body than by a trade union.

[Katrina Murray]

I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Professional bodies are there to set the standards of the profession. Does the hon. Lady not recognise the conflict of interest that could arise from the professional body representing an employee at a disciplinary hearing when it has to uphold the standards of the profession?

[Sarah Olney]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but a fellow qualified accountant would be better able to advise somebody facing a disciplinary than an official from a general trade union, who would not necessarily understand the points in dispute.

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Lady makes good points in some parts of her speech, but not in others. The point of a trade union representative—or any representative who goes with an individual to a disciplinary process—is not to advise on the particulars of the worker’s skillset, but to ensure that processes are followed and the worker’s rights are protected. I fully understand what she says about accountancy, but are there people in her professional organisation who can give her employment rights advice? Disciplinaries relate to employees’ rights, not their professional skillsets.

[Sarah Olney]

As the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) have said, that has not been a requirement for professional bodies, but if we create the right for suitably qualified professionals to accompany employees, I fully expect that those bodies would go on to develop that capability. It is surely up to an employee to decide whether they want a fellow professional or a trade union official to protect and defend their interests. They should have the opportunity to make that choice for themselves.

The Liberal Democrats also support the retention of the opt-in system for contributions to trade union political funds. We believe in maximising choice and transparency for individuals in relation to the political funds to which they contribute. We therefore oppose measures that would make it an opt-out system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support of the trade unions. On the thresholds, does my hon. Friend agree that those who choose to abstain should be counted as “no” votes?

[Sarah Olney]

I am slightly surprised to be referred to as “hon. Friend”, not least because I am probably going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. To undertake such massive action, including in the NHS, and on the tube—we saw the level of disruption that that caused the public last week—there needs to be a positive vote in favour of strike action, which is why I back this amendment.

[Ian Lavery]

You haven’t understood my point.

[Sarah Olney]

I am happy to take another intervention.

[Ian Lavery]

I simply mean that if there is a threshold of 50% and it is not met, are those who did not participate in the ballot classed as “no” votes? Is that correct? It is pretty simple.

[Sarah Olney]

I think the point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that people who did not express a view either way should be counted as voting against. What I am saying is that in order to justify the levels of disruption that strike action has caused recently, it is important that a trade union can demonstrate that it has majority support from its workforce. That is why I support the amendment. We believe that the current threshold for strike action is suitable, and that making it easier to strike risks putting further pressure on public services and damaging the economy, as we saw last week with the disruption across the capital caused by the tube strikes.

Most employers are responsible businesses that want to do the right thing by their staff, and many of them support the aims of the Bill. However, they have significant concerns about the lack of clarity and the proposed implementation process. So much of the detail of the legislation is still undecided and will compound the challenges that small businesses are facing—from the Government’s changes to employers’ national insurance and the reduction in business rates relief, to the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices. We must find a way to support and provide clarity for businesses that are trying to plan ahead. The Liberal Democrats support many aims of the Bill and the spirit of measures that strengthen employment rights, but we will support the Lords amendments that will help to ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for workers and businesses.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government amendments, and thank those who have steered the legislation to this point.

This is a generational upgrade in employment rights, and as a Labour MP, I am very proud to support it. It is a landmark shift in some ways—a declaration that in modern Britain, hard work should be rewarded with decent, stable work, security, dignity and fairness. Having worked in the private and public sectors at different times in my life, I believe that the Bill strikes a fair balance between the workplace rights of the individual and the rights of the employer. That is why I welcome the extensive consultation that the Government have undertaken with the private sector and with trade unions and other organisations. I am a member of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the National Education Union and have proudly represented and spoken for them in my career to date.

I wish to speak about a number of the Opposition Lords amendments and my concerns about them in short order. I have concerns about Lords amendment 1. Zero-hours contracts have allowed people to be trapped by insecure work, low pay and one-sided flexibility. I know from speaking to shop workers in my constituency that they have not been able to plan ahead with their finances because of the unscrupulous nature of some working relationships with employers. That has left families unable to plan their weekly shopping and childcare as well as their futures, especially in respect of securing loans and other financial settlements. It has become a way for employers to manage down by allowing too many people to take very short hours and then not allowing them to gain other forms of employment.

The Government’s measures to ensure zero-hours contracts are controlled—where the individual can request zero-hours contracts but there is an onus on the employer to support guaranteed hours—strike the correct balance. I therefore reject Lords amendment 1 as the Government’s measures strike a fair balance between the employee requesting and the employer giving.

Lords amendments 23, 106 and 120 relate to sensible changes on unfair dismissal. As has been mentioned, under the last Government the unfair dismissal provision was set at 12 months and that was extended to two years under the current Government. This does not take into account the fact that many who are subject to unfair dismissal might have been working for the employer for a significant period and also be subject to paternity leave, parental leave and other types of support. We should be supporting people with secure provision in work, and I believe that six months is a fair period in which most employers would be able to grade that assessment.

I do not accept Lords amendment 48 on seasonal work. It would add a loophole by which employers could exploit workers. The Bill pays due regard to the realities of seasonal work, both at Christmas and in farming and other types of practice, and I would welcome consultation on such provision continuing.

On political funds, I urge colleagues to reject Lords amendments 61 and 72. We must return to a model that has worked for over 70 years where people choose to opt out of political funds, because securing employment rights is one of the endeavours of a trade union. The trade unions were set up to secure rights for employees, and seeking to achieve that is one of their political endeavours.

I have concerns about Lords amendment 62. The Conservatives complain about the 50% threshold but they did not adopt that in their former leadership election, and perhaps it will not be the threshold in their leadership election to come in the next six months. If they adopted their recommended 50% threshold of members, we might not see a replacement. If they cannot use it for their own internal processes, that raises questions about why others should be made to do so. I also encourage the Government to consider online balloting as a next necessary step. We do online balloting for many of our leadership processes and it is a sensible way forward, as well as other forms of engagement by post.

As a former teacher, I do not support Lords amendment 121. Negotiations should be conducted in a fair way and the Bill covers that, preventing one-sided correspondence between teachers and their professional body.

As a former special constable, while I accept Lords amendment 21 in principle in supporting our special constables on the ground, that should not just be for a single group of people but should be considered for others, perhaps including carers and other support workers. I welcome the Government’s review of employees’ right to take time off; that is the most sensible approach.

On balance, I am not surprised that the Conservatives and others do not support the Bill—I and others have written as USDAW MPs. I believe that we should support a balanced approach between employees and employers. I welcome the work the Government and former Ministers have done to that end. The Bill strikes a fair balance between those who work in the private and public sectors and the obligations employers are to offer, which is why I will be supporting the Government tonight.

Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

May I start by associating the Liberal Democrats with the Minister’s remarks in support of the employees, families and communities who are affected by this latest development? We welcome the Minister’s coming to the House today to provide some clarity.

Steel is a sector of huge strategic importance for our country. It provides vital materials for our national infrastructure, from defence to renewable energy, and it creates thousands of jobs across the UK. The neglect of the steel industry in recent years is just another part of the previous Government’s disastrous legacy. With Putin’s barbaric war in Europe and Donald Trump’s damaging tariffs causing economic turmoil, securing the future of steel production in this country is more important than ever. That is why the Liberal Democrats firmly believe that nothing should be off the table in supporting this critical sector.

For too long, our steel industry has been neglected. The Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and last-minute deals. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and put in place new trade barriers, which constrained our exporters. In the light of this latest insolvency, will the Minister set out what actions the Government are taking to set our steel industry on a truly sustainable footing? What reassurance can the Government provide that job losses can be avoided in the future? What progress has been made in bringing down industrial electricity prices through the measures announced in the industrial strategy? What are the Government doing to press President Trump to finally drop his damaging 25% tariffs on our steel exports? Finally, what steps are the Government taking to treat steel as the nationally strategic asset that it is, ensuring that more British-made steel is used to power our national infrastructure and other major projects here in the UK?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. She is right to ask about how we ensure that this nationally strategic asset is protected, and we are doing that. I have just set out the reduction in energy prices that the steel industry as a whole will benefit from—extending the super-charger from 60% to 90% to give network charge relief, which will bring significantly lower costs for energy prices for our steel industry. We are prioritising the procurement of British steel where the Government are spending money, because we believe that that is the right thing to do. We have already introduced protections for steel trading, and we are ensuring that we do everything we can, talking to our US counterparts all the time, about reaching a conclusion on the negotiations on the steel tariffs. I am optimistic about those conversations.

Of course, I speak to officials and other Ministers, and to the steel industry, about these issues all the time. We are lucky to have the Steel Council that we put together—trade unions, industry and others who are helping us to develop what we think will be an ambitious steel strategy that will ensure that the steel industry will not decline. The strategy will ensure that we will not be in the position we are currently in, where only 30% of the steel we use in this country is made in this country, and that we will be in a position where we can protect those good, experienced jobs and those good people who we want to support and make sure the industry grows.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The value that hospitality businesses bring to their local communities goes far beyond their economic contributions: they also provide a vital social value and essential entry-level jobs. Flexible hours and conditions in the sector help those with other responsibilities, such as carers and new parents, to access work, while also offering many young people their first jobs. However, retail and hospitality businesses have been hit hard by tax changes in the October Budget, and they are reporting reduced hours, cancelled investment and closures; there have been nearly 70,000 hospitality job losses just since October. As economic strategies are rolled out, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Department for Work and Pensions goals to get people back to work are not being undermined by policies that shrink job opportunities in these sectors?

[Gareth Thomas]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady about the huge importance of hospitality to all our communities and to helping many people who have difficult routes into employment to get their first steps back into a job. One of the steps we have taken is to set up our hospitality fund, working with the great organisation Pub is The Hub, to help landlords to diversify what they offer and drive more footfall into the pub. The fund also supports charities that are working with those furthest away from the jobs market to get into jobs. It is strongly supported by hospitality businesses through the Hospitality Sector Council. As I have said, we have a commitment to a small business strategy and we will set out further measures to help hospitality in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the plans in the recently announced industrial strategy to reduce some of the world’s highest industrial energy prices. However, businesses across the UK, especially in hospitality and on our high streets, are still struggling with unaffordable energy costs. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that small businesses can benefit from more sustainable pricing? Will he encourage his Cabinet colleagues to consider proposals set out by the Liberal Democrats yesterday to break the link between gas prices and energy costs, which would halve energy bills in a decade, so that people and businesses across the country can enjoy the true benefits of cheap, clean and renewable power?

[Gareth Thomas]

I have to apologise to the hon. Lady, because I have not yet seen the Liberal Democrats’ policy proposals, but I look forward to that treat over the summer. I am grateful to her for backing our plans on energy costs. We are supporting a pilot in the west midlands to help SMEs to reduce their energy costs. It offers full energy audits and funding to implement measures that can bring down energy costs. The scheme seems to be working well, and we have recently extended it.

Future of the Post Office

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome today’s announcement about putting local post offices on a more sustainable footing.

Post offices are an important part of our communities, providing a number of critical services on our local high streets, from community banking and foreign exchange to the provision of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency services. Often their services act as a lifeline, especially for the elderly, those with limited transport options and those in areas without reliable access to online services. Currently 99.7% of the population live within three miles of a post office, and 4,000 branches are open seven days a week. In the past three years, nearly 2,000 high street bank branches have closed across the UK, resulting in local post offices being the only place where local communities can access banking services.

As the Government bring forward their necessary reforms, it is vital that essential local services and post office jobs are protected. Will the Minister assure me that under this proposal no post office will be closed until a consultation with each local community has been undertaken? Although we welcome the increased digitisation of services, which will boost accessibility for those who cannot use face-to-face services, as well as productivity across the public sector, how will the Government ensure that post offices remain financially viable?

Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Volume 1

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. The Horizon scandal was an appalling miscarriage of justice, and today’s report highlights the extent of the human suffering that it has caused. Reading the stories of some of the victims in this report was truly heartbreaking, and it could not be clearer that far too many people’s lives have been irreparably affected. No scandal of this kind can be allowed to happen ever again. We warmly welcome the publication of the first volume of the independent inquiry’s report, which has the full support of the Liberal Democrats, and I sincerely hope that it will focus Ministers’ minds in getting victims the compensation and justice that they deserve as soon as possible. It is shocking that victims of this scandal have had to wait this long for their rightful compensation and justice. The Government need to move at speed and bring an end to this unacceptable delay.

Although we welcome the promise of full compensation, the Liberal Democrats will continue to hold the Government to account in order to ensure that victims get the payments they deserve as quickly as possible, so will the Minister confirm that the Government will implement the recommendations of today’s report in full? Will they set out a timeline for when all victims can expect to receive full and fair compensation? What conversations have the Government had with the Post Office and Fujitsu about restorative justice in the light of Sir Wyn’s recommendations? Lastly, when will the Government finally introduce legislation on a full duty of candour, for which sub-postmasters and the victims of so many other scandals and disasters have so long called?

[Gareth Thomas]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments, and I welcome the challenge to the Government to go further and faster on delivering compensation, not just from her and her party, but from across the House. She asked a similar question to that from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), who spoke for the official Opposition, on whether we would accept the recommendations that Sir Wyn has set out today. As I made clear in my opening remarks, we are very sympathetic to all his recommendations. Indeed, I was able to confirm today that we have accepted two of his recommendations: to provide compensation for family members and to move on the question of the best offer. I hope that gives the House confidence that we will meet the deadline that Sir Wyn Williams has imposed on us.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) rightly joins all sides of the House in challenging Fujitsu to recognise its responsibilities. I hope it will read Sir Wyn’s report and conclusions afresh and recognise that it now needs to make an interim payment. Restorative justice is one of the significant recommendations in Sir Wyn’s list, and we will consider that very carefully. There is a series of options as to how one might deliver restorative justice, and there would clearly need to be consultation with the victims. We will think through the different steps that we need to take in that regard.

Hospitality Sector

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for his work in securing this important debate. It has been a real pleasure to hear from so many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues about their constituencies. That underlines the fact that Liberal Democrats represent all the best places in the UK, and that is why tourism and hospitality is a very important sector for us.

I was lucky enough last summer to do a little tour through the constituencies of Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire; Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross; and Orkney and Shetland, so I can very much confirm that all three constituencies have excellent hospitality businesses that are very welcoming to visitors. This Easter, I was lucky enough to spend a few days in West Dorset in the wonderful town of Lyme Regis, and I have spent many happy family holidays in Westmorland and Lonsdale.

There are also many hospitality businesses in my constituency of Richmond Park. Just last Friday, I hosted a representative of VisitBritain, who came to see me because Kew Gardens in my constituency is second only to the Tower of London in this year’s list of the most-visited paid attractions in the UK. We had a long conversation about the issues affecting the tourism sector, and I was very interested to find that the Government have recently cut funding for efforts to promote domestic tourism. Those who are not as lucky as I am in having many colleagues who represent constituencies in such wonderful parts of the UK do not know enough about domestic tourism. I would like the Minister to comment on that.

As my many wonderful colleagues have already alluded to, the current economic landscape is really challenging for many businesses and industries. Years of dire economic mismanagement by the last Conservative Government have led to businesses facing huge challenges, ranging from recruiting and retaining good staff to soaring energy costs and the increase of trading obstacles following their botched trade agreement with the EU. However, many of those challenges are now being compounded by decisions taken by this Government.

Last autumn’s Budget hit the hospitality sector with an extra £3.4 billion of annual costs through the cumulative impact of changes to employer NICs, increases in the national living wage, and the near halving of business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. A recent survey conducted by UKHospitality of its members found that, since the autumn Budget, a third of hospitality businesses are now operating at a loss, with 75% having increased prices, two thirds reducing hours available to staff and six in 10 cutting jobs. Those cuts are a last-ditch attempt by many businesses to stay afloat, as they are crying out for support.

The Liberal Democrats welcomed many aspects of last week’s industrial strategy, but very little in it will alleviate the heavy burdens imposed on the hospitality sector by Labour’s tax reforms. The Liberal Democrats have called for the hospitality industry to be exempt from the hikes in NICs announced in the Budget, as we recognise the difficult position that many business owners have been in since the pandemic.

Small businesses are the beating heart of our economy and at the centre of our communities, and they create the jobs that we all rely on. We are glad that raising the employment allowance will shield the very smallest employers, but thousands of local businesses, including many in the hospitality sector, will still feel the damaging impact of many of the changes. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have voted against the changes to employer NICs at every opportunity, and I once again urge the Government to scrap these measures.

More broadly, we will continue to call on the Government to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. In 2019, the previous Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of the business rates system, but failed to deliver it. Meanwhile, the current Government pledged in their manifesto to replace the system, but still no action has been taken. The Liberal Democrats have called for a complete overhaul of the unfair business rates system, replacing it with a commercial landowner levy, which would shift the burden of taxation from tenants to landowners.

The current system penalises manufacturers when they invest to become more productive and energy efficient. It leaves pubs and restaurants with disproportionately high tax bills and puts our high street businesses at an unfair disadvantage compared with online retail giants. In too many places, pubs, restaurants and shops are being forced to close, taking with them jobs, opportunities and treasured community spaces.

More broadly, this outdated system inhibits business investment, job creation and economic growth, holding back our national economy. It has existed for too long, and it is time that the Government took action. Our proposals for fair reform would cut tax bills, breathe new life into local economies and spur growth. Equally, they would provide long-term certainty for businesses, which is what the economy across the UK needs.

With regard to long-term planning, I am glad that the Government introduced the industrial strategy last week. I welcome this commitment to stability, and I am pleased that it will allow businesses to look and plan for the future with more certainty. As the Government unveil their strategies to bring together skills development plans and a long-term industrial strategy to ease the pressures that so many employers face, we have reservations about the cohesion between these schemes. What steps are the Government taking to ensure effective collaboration and transparency across different strategies and public bodies?

We welcome last week’s announcement in the industrial strategy that we will see a funding boost for skills and training. However, the announcement stops well short of the fundamental reform that we need to address the workforce shortages that many industries are facing. British businesses must be able to hire the people they need with the skills they need.

A key cause of workforce shortages is ill health, and to tackle the problem, the Government must invest in our NHS and social care so that people can get the healthcare they need to rejoin the workforce more quickly. We have called on the Government to fix NHS backlogs, cut ambulance waiting times and raise the minimum wage for care workers by £2 an hour to boost our social care system and get people out of hospital quicker.

Any business will tell us that the apprenticeship levy does not work. They cannot get the funding they need to train staff, and hundreds of millions of pounds go unspent. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced with a wider skills and training levy that will give businesses more flexibility over how they spend money to train their staff. Will the Minister accelerate the reform of apprenticeships and empower Skills England to act as a properly independent body, with employers at its heart?

Finally, as we look more broadly at factors impacting workforce shortages, I once again urge the Government to act with much more urgency in introducing their youth mobility scheme. The changes to the immigration system implemented in April 2024, increasing the minimum salary threshold for skilled worker visas, shrank the talent pool from which hospitality businesses can recruit, contributing to greater staff shortages. Around three quarters of the hospitality workforce is filled by UK citizens, but international talent has always been attracted to work in the UK due to our pedigree for hospitality and developing careers.

A 2024 survey of 1,650 employers from across a range of sectors, including hospitality, adult social care and manufacturing, found that 49% of employers with hard-to-fill vacancies said that a reduction in the availability of migrant workers was one of the main causes. At a time when recent Government decisions in the Budget have added to the overall tax burden on hospitality businesses, with many considering whether their business remains viable, we must provide the tools that hospitality needs to help businesses grow so that it can boost the wider economy, including ensuring access to global talent.

I have heard from stakeholders in the hospitality sector, including business owners and supply chain managers, who have said that they would welcome proposals that would bring more stability to the sector, allowing them to make longer-term plans as part of a more predictable and robust regulatory framework. Again, will the Minister set out a timeline for the introduction of a youth mobility experience, which would be good for our economy, easing some of the burdens that the hospitality sector is facing?

Parental Leave Review

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to the much-needed review on parental leave. Every child deserves the best possible start in life and the opportunity to flourish, no matter their background or personal circumstances. Too often, parents struggle on inadequate parental pay and without good enough access to shared leave. Childcare costs are eye-watering, and the balance between family life and work has only become harder to strike.

The Liberal Democrats have been calling for an overhaul of the parental leave system, to give parents a genuine choice about how they manage their responsibilities in the first months of their child’s life. If I could gently correct the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), it was the Liberal Democrats who were proud to introduce shared parental leave in government. However, years later, millions of parents are still being denied the choice to spend more time at home, with around a quarter of fathers ineligible for paternity pay.

As we welcome this review into parental leave, I urge the Government to look more broadly into the prevalent inequality in caring responsibilities. What steps are they taking to support the millions of family carers who are looking after disabled or elderly relatives and who have no paid leave at all? Will they commit to a similar review into provision for unpaid carers and to make carer’s leave paid? Will they commit to reviewing the needs of carers and those of the families who have taken on kinship caring responsibilities? I welcome that commitment in the statement today, but do the Government plan to introduce statutory kinship care leave?

We call on the Government to use the review to finally deliver meaningful reforms that address the long-standing concerns of carers and their loved ones, as well as making changes to the circumstances of working families that can make parenting a joy rather than a burden, and end the dilemma of having to choose between work and family.

[Justin Madders]

I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ support for this review. The hon. Lady is right to point out that it was the coalition Government who introduced shared parental leave, although that is the first time in a long time that we have heard anyone admit that they were part of the coalition Government. She raised some very important points, a number of which will be covered by the carer’s leave review, which is also taking place. Kinship caring will be a part of that. I know that the Liberal Democrats have a long-standing policy on carer’s leave and pay, and the review will be cognisant of that.