Supporting High Streets
Sarah Olney Excerpts(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The current landscape is extremely challenging for high street businesses. I am sure that Members across the House have heard from countless local businesses in their constituencies, on their high streets and in the hearts of their communities about the challenges they face—from the Government’s national insurance increase to sky-high energy bills and uncertainty about what the Employment Rights Bill means for them.
I wish to contextualise the motion and the challenges of the business landscape after years of dire economic mismanagement by the last Conservative Government. On their watch, energy costs soared and economic chaos unfolded following their mini-Budget. Business confidence fell, in part because of the scrapping of the industrial strategy and the huge increases in trade barriers following their botched trade agreement with the EU.
Graham Stuart
Does the hon. Lady understand the immediacy of the problem facing companies in the high street? She has mentioned energy costs, and she is quite right to do so, but why does the Liberal Democrat amendment suggest that changes should be made to reduce them “within a decade”?
Sarah Olney
The Liberal Democrat plan aims to halve energy bills within the decade by scrapping the link between gas and electricity prices. We have a positive plan to make a real difference to energy prices for households and businesses.
I wonder whether the Conservatives have really learned the lesson from their time in government. I listened with interest when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) asked the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), about how their plans for business rate cuts would impact on local government finances, and he had nothing to say. To me, that is an indicator that the Conservatives have not yet learned the lessons of the mini-Budget, and that they plan to repeat all those errors again if they ever get back into government.
However, many of the challenges that businesses face are being compounded by decisions taken by this Government, from their damaging national insurance rise to continued uncertainty about Ministers’ approach to the Employment Rights Bill. The economy is practically stagnant, with business confidence down and unemployment up. The Government must act more urgently to support our high streets, which are vital to our local economies and provide the jobs that so many rely on.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Stalham, a beautiful market town in North Norfolk, is one of the places receiving support from the high streets taskforce to revitalise its high street, and local businesses are enthusiastically getting involved. However, to support businesses to thrive, we have to equip them with skills and expertise. Will she join me in praising the work of my local councils in providing training for small businesses, and does she agree that we need more ways to upskill and support business owners and managers so they can run the most successful businesses possible?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend represents his constituents and their businesses in North Norfolk so admirably. He is absolutely right about skills, which neither Conservative nor Labour Members have yet mentioned, but which are fundamental to powering the growth we really need in our economy.
Providing the support that our high streets need should not and cannot be done by cutting public expenditure, as the Conservative motion calls for, but by taking bold action: implementing the industrial strategy with more urgency, addressing the workforce crisis and negotiating a new bespoke UK-EU customs union to grow our economy.
In 2019, the previous Conservative Government made a manifesto pledge to fundamentally review the business rates system, and the Liberal Democrats agree that we need a fundamental overhaul of this broken system. However, throughout their tenure, they failed to keep that promise to businesses and local communities, so we will continue to call on this Government to reimagine business rates, and not just by tinkering around the edges and putting in place sticking-plaster solutions.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
On business rates, coastal communities such as West Dorset are heavily reliant on hospitality for providing jobs—over 6,000 locally—and it is vital to our tourism economy. The George in West Bay has seen its business rates go from £8,000 to £27,000, which basically ends any chance of its making a profit in the foreseeable future. How can we talk about supporting hospitality, tourism and small businesses when such businesses have to suffer those kinds of costs?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Businesses all across the country, including in my own constituency of Richmond Park, have reported similar massive increases in their business rates bills, and the Government urgently need to get to grips with that.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I would like to raise the plight of hairdressers. Angels in Thames Ditton in my constituency told me that this Government are hitting small businesses with higher employer costs, rising business rates and wage hikes that are already squeezing very thin margins. They are facing not just one increase, but a combination of high utility supply costs, wage rises, NI hikes and business rates that are all adding up, and they are really struggling to survive.
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just one thing or two things, but a whole range of different costs are being loaded on to businesses one after the other, all at the same time and during a time when the economy is very sluggish and growth is extremely difficult.
Tim Farron
My hon. Friend has listed a number of factors, but one that would not cost the Government very much money to put right is the lack of a workforce. In areas such as mine, 63% of all the hospitality and tourism businesses are operating below capacity, because they cannot find enough staff. There is surely room in town centres, helped by flexibility in planning law, to create more affordable housing in those town centres and create a workforce, as well as to create footfall to create demand for those businesses.
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are talking about high streets, but there is a much wider issue across the entire economy about the workforce. If we can get solutions to work for some of these things, they will have a knock-on impact, and many more sectors will see a boost to their economic prospects.
On business rates, which so many of my hon. Friends have raised, the current Government pledged in their manifesto to replace the business rates system, but still no meaningful action has been taken. As we are nearly 18 months into this Government, I wish to ask if they plan to keep their word on that commitment.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way four times in such quick succession. Of the £40 million of business rates levied this year by Surrey Heath borough council, only £1 million has been retained locally. Given that borough councils levy business rates and that businesses have an expectation that the money is retained locally, does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is vital that the money gets put back into the local economy to improve infrastructure and to increase the sense of place? If that cannot be done, perhaps business rates should be scrapped altogether and replaced with a more just way of raising funds.
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend’s local high street in Camberley is very close to my heart, because my first job was in WH Smith there some years ago now. He is absolutely right about business rates, and I repeat my question to the Government: please, what action are you going to be taking on business rates?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member should say, “What action are they going to take?” If she says, “What action are you going to take?” that means me, and I am not taking any.
Sarah Olney
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker: what action are they going to take?
While the last Government did so much damage to our high street businesses, the Labour Government’s national insurance jobs tax has only made things harder for them and for the workers. The Liberal Democrats have voted against the change to employer national insurance contributions at every opportunity, and I once again urge the Government to scrap these measures. The changes to employer national insurance contributions announced in the last autumn Budget are an unfair and deeply damaging tax measure that is hitting small businesses of all kinds—social care providers, GPs—and the lack of sector consultation and business foresight prior to the changes has been hugely damaging to business confidence.
The Government’s handling of the Employment Rights Bill seems to have only compounded that uncertainty. So much of the detail that was expected in the Bill has been left to secondary legislation or future consultation, making it impossible for businesses to plan ahead with certainty. The lack of clarity on probation periods risks piling undue worry on to business managers who are struggling to find the right skills in the first place, for which many of my colleagues have provided evidence.
Chris Vince
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. This is a friendly intervention. She is a pro-European. Is she pleased that IKEA, a brilliant Swedish company that invests heavily in this country and has a fantastic business model, is pro the Employment Rights Bill? Will she push her colleagues in the Lords to get it through and on to the statute book?
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There are many parts of the Employment Rights Bill that we are happy to support. However, there are some bits—
Sarah Olney
There are, dare I say, perhaps some bits missing, which mean it does not add up and we can’t put it all together—I don’t know where I am going with that, sorry! [Laughter.]
The training, hiring and retaining of a skilled workforce are issues affecting businesses across the country. The apprenticeship levy does not work and many businesses cannot get the funding they need to train staff, while hundreds of millions in funding goes unspent. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced with a wider skills and training levy, which would give businesses flexibility over how they spend their money to train their staff. We therefore welcome the Government’s intention to reform the levy and refocus it towards growth and skills, but we need faster progress and Skills England made into a properly independent body, with employers at its heart. However, we have concerns about moving funding away from level 7 apprenticeships, as we know this initiative increases social mobility. I will continue to ask the Minister if they will accelerate the announcement of the details of the new scheme, outlining exactly what training will be eligible so that businesses can plan with certainty and develop the workforce we need.
Perhaps the most obvious issue that has impacted our high streets over recent years is the last Government’s botched Brexit trade deal. Many business owners have highlighted the reams of red tape and trading forms that they must navigate to import goods from Europe or export them to the continent. This is valuable time taken away from the productive tasks involved in running a business, and Government policy has simply made life for managers far more difficult.
Meanwhile, unemployment has gone up and a range of sectors are facing acute labour shortages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has highlighted on many occasions in this place. Many high vacancies are concentrated in high street sectors such as hospitality, retail, the arts and entertainment. Those are exactly the kinds of industries that young people visiting the UK for a few years might wish to work in. A youth mobility scheme would offer British businesses a real opportunity to address staffing shortages by welcoming young people from EU countries for a limited period, bringing fresh talent and energy to our workforce. I ask the Government to set out a timeline for when their announced youth experience scheme will be introduced.
However, the Liberal Democrats welcome the motion’s call to increase support for high business energy bills. I urge the Government to act with more urgency in addressing energy costs for businesses, including by 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. The Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to look closely at our proposals to break the link between gas and electricity prices, halving household bills within a decade and significantly cutting business energy costs over the same period.
Graham Stuart
I would fascinated to hear from the hon. Lady precisely how the energy market can separate gas from electricity prices. If she has a plan to do so, it would be lovely to hear it.
Sarah Olney
By breaking the link between gas and energy, electricity does not need to be sold at the same rate as wholesale gas. We are advocating for a change to the way the market operates. That deserves serious consideration, because currently the current market and the current way it is managed is resulting in enormous energy bills for both businesses and households.
Our party also agrees that more must be done to tackle retail crime. Shoplifting not only causes shops to lose out on sales, with the costs then passed on to paying customers; it also means that staff members—often young people—are met with the possible threat of violence. Shoplifting has risen by a staggering 48% in England and Wales over the past five years, and by an even more horrifying 104% in London. Every time I meet the owner of a local store, I am told that shoplifting has become effectively decriminalised, as thieves do not feel the threat of reprisal. And then there is the impact on prices.
The Government talk about bringing down inflation. One measure that can be taken to reduce the cost of everyday goods is to tackle the rise in shoplifting. It is incredibly frustrating to me that the Government have not connected the dots between an increased fear of crime and the stripping back of our police forces’ ability to do their jobs. As is so often the case, shop owners are told by the police that it is not a cost-effective use of their resources to follow up on relatively minor thefts. However, to every local business and paying customer, it is. I urge the Government to recognise the detrimental impact that shoplifting is having in our society, and to take this issue seriously.
The Liberal Democrats acknowledge that the Government inherited a dire economic landscape from the Conservative party. However, 18 months in, I do not believe that businesses feel that life has been made easier for them. Small businesses are struggling with the cost of doing business. They are finding it hard to plan around parts of the Employment Rights Bill, and they are struggling under the burden of sky-high energy bills and the employer national insurance contributions rise.
Ms Billington
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I am interested in her acknowledgment that we have made specific progress in dealing with the botched Brexit deal left as part of the legacy of the previous Tory Government, which she may indeed welcome. For example, our sanitary and phytosanitary deal includes being able to boost exports by slashing red tape and bureaucracy specifically for our farmers and food producers, lower food prices at the checkout and co-operation on energy. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may chunter from a sedentary position, but it is actually really important when you look at how—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will know that interventions need to be short, and not read off phones.
Sarah Olney
I am, of course, delighted that we are making some small progress towards a better relationship with Europe—I welcome that wholeheartedly. However, we could go a lot further. The Liberal Democrats have been pushing for a UK-EU customs union, which would unlock many, many more benefits, but the Labour Government are very reticent. I welcome some of the noises from both the Treasury Bench and many Labour Back Benchers. I find it astonishing the number of Labour MPs I have encountered over the past couple of weeks who are suddenly desperate to tell me how very pro-European they have always been. I am very pleased to hear that, but I would say that I have not always heard that from the Labour Benches. But all progress in this area is welcome.
Dr Murrison
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I am listening very carefully to what she has to say. One of the more useful things the Liberal Democrats have done in the past is to support the future high streets fund, brought in by the last Government, but she has not mentioned it and neither did the Minister. That is surprising. Nearly £10 million of future high streets funding was given to Old Kent Road in Peckham in her constituency, but she did not mention it. A large sum of money was given to Trowbridge, the county town of Wiltshire, to good effect. What does she think of the fact that the future high streets fund has been ditched and replaced by something called pride in place, which is a pale reflection of the future high streets fund? Would she like to think about including that in her contribution?
Sarah Olney
I am very grateful to take advice from the right hon. Gentleman as to what I should and should not include in my speech. What I would say is that it is always targeted pots of money for individual places, but we have always advocated for a much more wide-ranging set of policies that would support all high streets wherever they are in the country.
The Government must take bold action to boost our economy. We urge Ministers to scrap the national insurance jobs tax and act with far more urgency on implementing the industrial strategy, cutting energy bills and strengthening our workforce. We call for bolder, more ambitious and fairer measures to replace business rates with a fair new system that can boost high streets and town centres, and we call on the Government to negotiate a new customs union with the EU, which would cut red tape for small businesses and supercharge our economy as a whole.
Indefinite Leave to Remain
Sarah Olney Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on his excellent opening remarks and welcome the Minister to his role. I hope he is enjoying his first day in the job.
Like many Members, I have heard from constituents who have grave concerns about what the immigration White Paper will mean for them. In particular, they are worried about the intention to reform the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain without any specific details surrounding the changes and exemptions. The lack of detail on such an important issue has led to great uncertainty and distress for many UK residents, including many of my constituents in Richmond Park, where we have been pleased to welcome over the last few years many new residents from Hong Kong, in particular.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My hon. Friend rightly said that the lack of clarity is harmful. It is cruel to people who thought they were on one path and now are not, but it is also counterproductive, because we may end up losing really talented people working our patches. It also undermines employers, who do not quite know what game they are playing. All of this is hugely counterproductive to our economy as well as simply not being fair.
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is exactly right. This is not just about the residents themselves; it is also about their employers, the places that they work and the wider economy.
My residents in Richmond Park are rightly concerned about how these changes could affect their lives, the lives of their children and their employment in the UK. The BNO visa is not a transactional visa; it is a moral commitment, which the UK offered in response to the national security law and the dismantling of promised freedoms in Hong Kong, so I am deeply concerned about the Government’s decision to extend the route to indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10 years.
The lack of clarity over the BNO visa, in the midst of increasing evidence of transnational repression from China and the looming planning decision on the Chinese mega-embassy, is concerning to me and to many of my constituents who could be affected by the change. The Government must do better to provide assurance for the hundreds of thousands of BNO visa holders across the country, starting by giving them clarity about their immigration status and how the White Paper will affect them.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about this being part of a promise that we made to the people of Hong Kong. When the route was introduced, the Chinese Communist party warned BNO applicants that they should not trust Britain. If we move the goalposts in the way we are now proposing, we may hand a huge propaganda victory to that Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be a big mistake?
Sarah Olney
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that he has many residents from Hong Kong in Carshalton and Wallington, and I really hope that the Minister will take on board the point we are making about the moral duty that we owe those people, particularly in the light of increased oppression from China.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) pointed out, the skilled worker visa route has offered a secure pathway for world-leading talent to join the UK’s workforce. In coming to the UK, those skilled workers have brought value to the economy, to key sectors such as care, and to their communities. That is why the Government’s failure to give detail on changes to the indefinite leave to remain qualifying period is so concerning. Not only do they risk up-ending the lives of so many residents and families, but they risk damaging our businesses and the economy.
A skilled, stable workforce is a key part of any growing business, and recent Government policy has already begun eroding the availability of that workforce in the UK. National insurance contributions have disincentivised hiring; red tape with the EU has made it more difficult to hire skilled workers from abroad; the newly created Skills England risks failing in its aim to upskill the British labour force if it is not given the independence it needs; and now, on top of all of that, the Government’s White Paper has added uncertainty for businesses looking to hire employees—yet another barrier to growth. The Government must provide clarity on the skilled worker visa as a matter of urgency.
Many BNO visa holders have built their life here in the UK and have made huge contributions to our economies and local communities, especially in my constituency; they have bought homes, started businesses and enrolled their children in schools. I therefore urge the Government to offer more clarity on their plans for the five-year qualifying period for those already on specific visa routes, and ask the Minister whether the Government will confirm and honour their original commitment to protect those agreements.
Strategy for Elections
Sarah Olney Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
We are very pleased that the Government have published the strategy, many aspects of which have the support of the Liberal Democrats. We have, for many years, championed votes at 16 and we are really glad that the Government have listened to those calls. We also welcome the measures to tackle dark and illicit money in our politics, and the recent plans to introduce supplementary voting for mayoral elections.
However, I am concerned that the strategy shows nowhere near the kind of ambition that we need to fix a system of elections that has left large swathes of the public feeling like their vote simply does not count. As Members across the House will know, last year’s general election turned out the most disproportionate result in history, with nearly 60% of people who voted not represented in Parliament by the candidate they voted for.
This opportunity cannot be wasted. Will the Government go further? Will they look at scrapping voter ID in its entirety? Will they look at introducing further measures to ensure that foreign oligarchs such as Elon Musk are not able to interfere in British politics, including through party funding? And will they finally scrap first past the post and introduce fair votes via proportional representation?
Rushanara Ali
The hon. Lady has a lot of questions. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary and local elections. Her party, in the coalition Government, had the opportunity, through a referendum, to campaign and institute the appropriate changes. Our focus is on ensuring we address the manifesto commitments we made, including a voting age of 16. I am grateful to her and her party for their support. We are also taking action to tackle illicit finance and foreign interference. I very much hope that she and her colleagues will work with us on that very important agenda.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Olney Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
Although I respect the hon. Gentleman and his views, we have a principled difference of opinion on this matter. As I have made clear, the Government’s considered view is that long-standing council tenants should be able to buy the homes that they have lived in for many years. I hope, however, that the right-to-buy reforms that we have made and announced today—reduced maximum cash discounts, allowing councils to retain 100% of receipts and exempting newly built social homes from the right to buy for 35 years—will create a fairer and more sustainable scheme.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
I was pleased that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill had its First Reading last Thursday. That landmark Bill will bring a radical reset to local government, deliver on our manifesto commitment to decentralise power, ignite regional growth with streamlined powers for mayors, and speed up new homes and infrastructure. It will empower communities to take back control of their beloved pubs and shops, helping local leaders to deliver a decade of national renewal, as promised in the plan for change.
Sarah Olney
I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome the provisions in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which recognise that first past the post is an unrepresentative electoral system. That is a welcome first step—although we would prefer alternative voting for mayoral elections—but if the Government admit that first past the post is not suitable for mayoral elections, why do they maintain that it is suitable for general elections?
Angela Rayner
Let me cover that point. Mayors serve many millions of people and manage multimillion-pound budgets, yet can be elected by just a fraction of the vote under the previous Government’s changes—despite the fact that the supplementary vote system had worked effectively for over a decade. Given that the large populations that mayors and police and crime commissioners represent far exceed those represented by parliamentarians, we think that this is the right approach.
London’s National Economic Contribution
Sarah Olney Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for securing this important debate. London is an economic powerhouse, which generates revenue for the entire country. The capital city’s contribution to the economy is nearly 25% of the UK’s entire GDP.
While redistribution of revenue across the UK is important, it should be noted that London has some of the highest rates of poverty. In particular, it has the highest rate of child poverty, at 35%, compared with a national average of 29%. Disparate income bands and living standards are more evident in London than anywhere else in the UK, but the cost of living is also greater in London than in any other area. The average London house price is more than double that in the rest of the country.
I raise those points because the Government’s changes to local authority funding will mean that London councils face a funding shortfall of an estimated £500 million. Consequently, most London boroughs will have to raise council tax by the maximum amount each year to raise revenue for the funding of key statutory services. It also means that some councils will be threatened with bankruptcy.
Redistribution of wealth across the UK is important, but the absence or poor use of measurements in the Government’s fair funding formula will produce unfair results for Londoners. The index of multiple deprivation is being used as a need driver in the fair funding formula, but, as the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) pointed out, that index does not include a measurement of deprivation after housing costs. London residents pay the highest average rents in the country, so excluding that statistic will result in an unfair measurement of deprivation, and London residents will lose out unfairly.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making excellent points. On deprivation and the cost of housing, does she agree with me that when we factor in London’s housing costs, London becomes the poverty capital of the country? Without vital funding for housing in London, London does not grow. If London does not get the funding it needs for housing, it holds the rest of the country back.
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. She is exactly right. Housing costs in London are far above the average for the UK as a whole. The average Londoner has to pay these costs out of an income level that is on average higher than across the country as a whole, but not to the same magnitude. Measuring deprivation based only on income before housing costs is a key unfairness for Londoners, because their housing costs are so much greater. She is absolutely right that if we underfund London, as will happen if the measure of deprivation after housing costs is not used, London will be underfunded and that will threaten the economic development and growth of the UK as a whole, because London is so essential to what happens across the UK.
The number of visitors that an area receives is also being used as a factor in the funding formula, but the review is using figures from the 2021 census. We were still coming out of the pandemic when those figures were collected, so London had significantly fewer visitors than in an average year. As somebody who has regularly travelled from outer London to inner London over the last few years, from 2021 to 2025, I can assure the Minister that the number of people on our tubes and trains has grown significantly. My data is anecdotal, but I am sure my impression is shared by many Londoners who made similar journeys in that period. If visitor numbers are to be used as a measure to feed into the fair funding formula, it is vital that up-to-date figures are used. I urge the Government to review the formula with updated figures to ensure that it does not produce inaccurate results, which will again result in unfair distribution of Government grants.
I and Liberal Democrats in general very much welcome the Government’s announcement of a 10-year infrastructure plan—a clear vision for housing, the economy and social infrastructure, which is required to drive growth and investment—but I am disappointed that the Government have yet to announce whether the £1 billion provision from the structure fund will be allocated towards the repair of Hammersmith bridge in my constituency, which, as I am sure the Minister knows, has been closed to motor traffic for six years. We remain uncertain about whether the Government intend the bridge to be repaired and whether they will commit to providing the funding for those repairs. Any indication of their position from the Minister will be welcomed by my constituents.
The closure of the bridge has affected local residents and commuters, particularly disabled and elderly residents, who have been cut off from the other side of the river, and emergency services remain unable to cross. It has also had a massive impact on businesses just south of Hammersmith bridge that relied on the passing trade. We look forward to the announcement of what the structures fund pot will be used for, and hope very much that some funding towards Hammersmith bridge will be included. I urge the Government not to miss that opportunity.
The bridge itself is a tourist attraction in my constituency. It is one of London’s oldest bridges—there has been a bridge on the site since the 1820s, and the current structure dates from the 1870s—and I dare say the fact that it is a museum piece is one of the many issues that has prevented funding from being allocated for its repair until now. It is one of many wonderful tourist attractions in my constituency. Kew Gardens was the second most visited paid-for attraction in the country last year. We also have the wonderful wetland centre just south of Hammersmith bridge and many other wonderful tourist sites, not least the park after which my constituency is named.
London as a whole is visited by more than 20 million tourists every year, who bring with them significant contributions to our economy. A key factor for tourists is to feel safe when choosing London as a destination, but the capital’s reputation as a safe city to visit is on the decline. It is vital that London has visible and sufficient policing to tackle crime and keep visitors and residents safe, but the Chancellor’s spending review did not include additional funding for the Metropolitan police, despite their commissioner warning that “eye-watering cuts” would have to be made if funding were not provided.
The cuts will be felt in my constituency. The disbandment of the dedicated royal parks police unit is of great concern to my constituents. The parks police serve Richmond park diligently, ensuring that crime and antisocial behaviour are kept to a minimum. Their removal will mean that our already stretched safer local neighbourhood teams have to take on additional responsibilities in their absence.
The Richmond Park constituency used to be home to three police stations, but after years of cuts not a single one remains, even though Barnes is one of 72 wards in London that are more than a 13-minute drive away from the nearest police station. These cuts cannot continue, and I urge the Government to stick to their commitment of increasing the police presence in London and across the rest of the UK. I receive daily emails from my constituents expressing their concerns about theft, violent crime and the lack of visible policing. Will the Government be able to provide assurances that my constituency will not have fewer officers serving it at the end of this year than before Labour took power?
Investment in London can and does boost economic growth, which provides investment for other regions. I urge the Government to understand and acknowledge the significant contribution that London makes to our national economy. London must not be short-changed by the Government. I encourage them to review the criteria for their fair funding formula, to invest in the repairs to Hammersmith bridge and to release more funding for the Met to ensure that residents and tourists feel safe walking our streets.
Political Finance Rules
Sarah Olney Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for his work in securing this important debate, and Members from across the House for their contributions this afternoon.
The Liberal Democrats support this motion, which aligns with our long-standing stance on political finance reform and protecting democracy from foreign influence. We have long called for reforms to prevent foreign interference and increase the transparency in political donations. We support strengthening the Electoral Commission by restoring its independence and increasing its enforcement powers, including higher fines for breaches of political finance laws. Our democracy should never be up for sale to foreign billionaires, oligarchs, or hostile states and, as such, we support this motion, which acknowledges some of those risks.
The Liberal Democrats will continue to push for strong measures to protect our political and electoral system. We want to take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties. I am proud that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) presented a Bill in this House to do just that. And we want to enhance regulatory powers to protect British democracy from the unprecedented threat posed by foreign interference and attacks on our democracy. Liberal Democrats will make protecting our democracy a national security priority.
We are seeing record levels of disillusionment with the political process, with citizens becoming increasingly disengaged. Research from the Electoral Commission highlights a significant drop in the rate of public confidence in political finance transparency, falling from 37% in 2011 to about 15% today. It has also recently pointed out the threat of foreign influence on social media, highlighting the rise in misinformation and artificial intelligence deepfakes in the run-up to the general election in July last year, as well as new issues arising from the changes to fact checking on popular websites.
Public trust in our electoral process was not helped by the disastrous record of the former Conservative Government. It was not just their successive sleaze scandals, which created a crisis of democracy in this country, or their exorbitant voter ID scheme, which disproportionately disenfranchises the young and those from ethnic minority communities, but their shameful decision to weaken the independence of the Electoral Commission, and that is a decision that will go down in ignominy. If we are to strengthen our democratic safeguards, and correspondingly strengthen public trust in our democracy, that has to start with empowering the Electoral Commission. That is why we need to reverse the Conservatives� changes. We want to strengthen the Electoral Commission by repealing the Government�s power to designate a strategy and policy statement for the commission.
The former Conservative Government also failed to take the threat posed by Russia seriously. They were content to allow Russian money to flood into the UK and also to allow Russian money to flow into the coffers of their own party. And the manner in which Boris Johnson let the Russia report sit on his desk was shocking. When that report was finally published, it laid bare the extent to which Russia is a threat, including to our democratic institutions. The report said:
�The UK is clearly a target for Russia�s disinformation campaigns and political influence operations and must therefore equip itself to counter such efforts.�
It called Russian influence in the UK �the new normal� and said that the Government had underestimated the response required to the Russian threat. We continue to call for the full publication of the unredacted report.
The Russian Government have been accused of orchestrating a widespread campaign of interference and disinformation that seeks to undermine the global order. In September 2024, the heads of MI6 and the CIA jointly warned that the international order is under threat in a way not seen since the end of the cold war, accusing Russia of a
�reckless campaign of sabotage across Europe�.
I hope that the Minister shares my concern that this week United States Defence Secretary Hegseth has announced the stepping back of US counter-cyber measures against Russia. That is an incredibly concerning decision by the Americans, which threatens not only their cyber-security but our own. Will she update the House on what measures the UK is taking to step up our defence of our democratic institutions? We will continue to urge the Government to designate protecting our democracy as a national security priority.
Turning to foreign oligarchs, it would be remiss of me not to mention Elon Musk. Let us recall that just weeks before Musk became a US Government official, he suggested that America should liberate the people of Britain and overthrow the UK Government. I hope that other parties will join the Liberal Democrats in unequivocally condemning such remarks. That incident further proves that we urgently need to tighten up political funding. That includes a cap on big donations. We must prevent foreign oligarchs from being able to interfere in our democracy.
The Liberal Democrats want to take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties, and we support the motion. A fair cap will ensure that politics serves our constituents and not big money. Over two thirds of the British public support a cap on political donations. We must deliver the reforms that people are demanding.
Proportional Representation: General Elections
Sarah Olney Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and all members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections for securing this important debate.
It has been an exciting few months for the cause of fair votes in Parliament, and I am pleased to see Members of so many political parties advocating proportional representation in today’s debate. At the end of last year, I was delighted that a Bill I had introduced to this House, calling for the establishment of proportional representation, was voted through to Second Reading. I thank every single Member who backed that Bill. It was the first time that Parliament voted in favour of PR, and I am determined that we will achieve that goal in this Parliament.
But I must also express my disappointment. Despite the Bill receiving the House’s express support on First Reading, it has not been given parliamentary time to allow it to progress through the legislative process.
Sarah Olney
People across the country are fed up with first past the post. The 2024 election was the most disproportionate in history, with the Government winning two thirds of the seats on one third of the vote—the second biggest majority of seats for any Government since the second world war on the lowest share of the vote ever recorded for a winning party. I think we can all agree that such distorted results are not healthy for our democracy.
Sarah Olney
It is no surprise that we are seeing record levels of disillusionment with the political process, with citizens becoming increasingly disengaged. This is reflected in the fact that turnout at the 2024 general election was the second lowest since 1918, at just under 60%. More than 40% of registered voters in the UK thought so little of the political process that they did not think it worth expressing a preference for one candidate over another.
Trust in politics will not improve if the public keep getting Parliaments that do not represent the balance of votes cast. This Parliament is the one that least represents how the country voted of any in history.
Sarah Olney
There was no Back-Bench speech from any Member of your party, and you will have your opportunity in a minute.
Sarah Olney
Your Back Benchers could have spoken in this debate.
There are many urgent and pressing challenges facing the UK today, but it is essential that the vast majority of its citizens actively support the mechanisms by which decisions are made to address them. Increasing levels of disengagement threaten our ability to respond both to immediate challenges and to long-term issues.
The Liberal Democrats believe, and have always believed, that a fair voting system is the essential bedrock of a functioning democracy. Democracy has proved to be the most effective and enduring of governing systems because it relies on a broad base of support across the population. A faulty voting system that delivers a majority Government on a minority vote undermines democracy and its ability to deliver effective government. In the face of growing worldwide threats to democratic Governments and institutions, the UK urgently needs to reassert the value of participative democracy as an essential component of peaceful and prosperous societies.
I am glad to know that support for electoral reform comes not only from Liberal Democrat Members but from across the House. I am pleased that Labour Members, in particular, agree that we need proportional representation, after their conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of PR two years ago. More importantly, recent polling shows that a majority of the British public is now in favour of scrapping first past the post and moving to proportional representation.
I welcome the establishment and the work of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which launched last year with the support of more than 100 MPs. Its report, “Free But Not Fair”, highlights many of the structural issues that have led to the decline of public trust in politics and engagement with elections.
I thank everybody for their contributions. The hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) is not in her place, but she made some important interventions. This issue may come under her remit as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, so I hope she will consider giving it more attention.
I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), for Hazel Grove, for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for their excellent contributions. I was particularly struck when my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham talked about how, in the past, we discriminated by wealth, gender and religion in selecting who could vote, whereas we now discriminate by geography. That is one of the key things we would overcome by replacing our voting system.
The Liberal Democrats share the pain of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). In 2017, we won 12 seats with 7.5% of the vote; in 2019, we won 11 seats with 12% of the vote; and in 2024, we won 72 seats with 12.2% of the vote. Just because, by some miracle of first past the post, we now have a proportion of seats that represents our proportion of votes, it does not dilute in any way our support for a more proportional voting system. I am glad we have the support of the hon. Gentleman and his Reform UK colleagues.
We must take urgent action to protect democratic processes and institutions in the UK from threats both here and abroad. We need to listen to the warning bell sounded by the general election that the citizens we seek to serve, and who must abide by the laws we pass, are becoming disenchanted with the political process. If we want to continue to be a beacon of democracy across the world, we must ensure that it serves its purpose both in giving a voice to the people and in delivering prosperity and stability. We cannot do the latter if we fail at the former.
First past the post is a broken and unfair system. Last summer, the Labour party won a landslide election victory, securing 63% of seats in the House of Commons in return for just 34% of the vote. This system leaves millions of voices unheard and creates a divisive, adversarial political climate, where collaboration is discouraged and accountability is often sidestepped. The Liberal Democrats have long championed proportional representation, advocating for a voting system where every vote truly counts. We must modernise our electoral system, creating a fairer process to engage voters, listen to the needs of constituents and rebuild trust in politics.
Winning a vote in Parliament for my Bill creates a historic precedent: for the first time, MPs have backed a proportional voting system in the Division Lobby. It would be an outrage were this Bill not given the opportunity to progress further through the House and to become law, so I urge the Minister to schedule an opportunity for the Bill to be read a Second time, in Government time, and to offer Labour MPs a free vote on the Bill.
Paul Holmes
Not at the moment, as I will make some progress.
Over the past several hundred years, our country has undergone myriad complex and contentious reforms that have revolutionised our systems of governance. Those changes have often been made in a piecemeal fashion over many centuries, from Simon de Montfort’s Parliament of 1265, in which representatives from towns and the shires were summoned together to discuss matters of national concern, to the great Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867, permitting the expansion of suffrage, to the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, which extended the franchise to all persons, male and female, over the age of 21. Those evolutionary changes have allowed us, as a country, to forgo frequent domestic upheaval and civil wars, which are a feature of other less stable systems.
I know I am in a minority of one this afternoon—apart from the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal)—but the Conservative party has long championed first past the post as the fairest and most effective way to elect representatives—[Interruption.]
Paul Holmes
I say to the hon. Lady, who intervenes from a sedentary position, that my colleagues in the Conservative parliamentary party are out in their constituencies, campaigning and standing up for their constituents, not focusing on a debate about an outdated system that will never last.
The Conservative party has championed first past the post as the fairest and most effective way to elect representatives, ensuring clear accountability, stable governance, and a direct link between elected officials and their constituents. Indeed, we continue to do that even after our historic and momentous defeats of 1997 and 2024. The party has continued to support first past the post, as evidenced by the submission to the Jenkins Commission in 1998, because we believe the way to win elections is to gain the trust of the public, not to gerrymander the system when things get tough.
Voters have already shown their preference for first past the post, as shown by the decision made by 13 million people who voted against the proposals set out in the 2011 voting system referendum. I know this is not popular among the parties in opposition, but I believe we should respect the results of referendums.
Representation of the People
Sarah Olney Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Everyone should have the right to vote. It is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy. Encouraging voter participation and democratic engagement should be at the centre of every Government policy, but political engagement is at a historic low. Voter participation in our recent general election was the lowest since 2001, with fewer than 60% of eligible voters casting their ballot. It is vital that the Government do all they can to encourage public engagement with politics. We must act to restore public trust and to ensure that we remove obstacles that prevent people from exercising their full democratic rights.
The Liberal Democrats are therefore glad to see the Government introduce measures that support veterans. While we are pleased that the regulations will make voting more accessible for veterans, we are concerned that the support does not extend to other affected groups, and we call on the Government to repeal the voter ID scheme entirely, to ensure that all eligible people can exercise their democratic right as easily as possible.
On Monday, we marked Remembrance Day. Every year, it serves as a solemn reminder of the bravery and sacrifice of so many who put their lives on the line in the defence of our liberty and democracy. We must ensure that all our veterans are properly supported and that their work is truly recognised. Liberal Democrats support a wide range of measures to support veterans, from ensuring that veterans impacted by the cost of living crisis are getting the support they need to doing more for unpaid carers in the armed forces community. It is shameful that the previous Conservative Government originally failed to include veterans’ ID in their list of acceptable identification when they first introduced this legislation. The regulations will make it easier for veterans to vote through the expansion of accepted forms of ID at polling stations.
While the Liberal Democrats are supportive of measures to support veterans in accessing appropriate identification, we urge the Government to remove the requirement for ID altogether. Veterans are being let down. It is a scandal that those who put their lives on the line in the defence of our country too frequently fall through gaps in support. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a fair deal for our veterans and military personnel. That includes placing a legal duty on Departments to give due regard to the armed forces covenant, establishing a centralised information hub for the families of service personnel, reaching an agreement with the European Union for reciprocal access to spousal employment for families of serving personnel and cancelling the Conservative Government’s ill-advised cuts to the Army.
In 2022, the last Conservative Government introduced a new law requiring voters to show photo ID to vote in general elections, local elections and referendums in England. Being able to vote is a fundamental democratic right, yet thanks to the Conservatives, it is now at risk. Millions of voters are affected by this unnecessary and undemocratic requirement. The Liberal Democrats are opposed to the voter ID scheme, and we have called continually for the scheme to be scrapped.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady’s party has the word democrat in it, so I want to understand something. If her policy was enacted, it would mean that people’s votes could be taken simply by someone going to a polling station and knowing the name and address of their next-door neighbour. Does she agree with that and, if so, does she not understand that her proposals would bring a lack of security to the voting system in this country, would encourage fraud and would make sure that results were not as accurate as they could be?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman will know that the number of incidents of personation—I was just coming to this point—in 2022 was fewer than 13 and no prosecutions have taken place. He may say it is less than 1%, but that resulted in several thousand people being unable to exercise their democratic right to vote in the general election, because of the unnecessary requirement to produce voter ID. There may well be the risk of voter fraud, but it is yet to materialise in any significant way, and we have seen that this measure, brought in to combat that supposed risk, has resulted in thousands of our fellow citizens being unable to exercise their democratic right to vote. We are therefore opposed to the voter ID scheme and continue to call for it to be scrapped.
The shambles of the last Conservative Government created a crisis for democracy in this country with their cronyism, rule breaking and constant sleaze scandals, and public trust in Government is worryingly low. Successive Conservative Prime Ministers acted without integrity and treated Parliament and the people with disdain. The voter ID scheme is just a further example of that. We continue to lead the fight against this deeply unfair, unnecessary and expensive scheme. The impact must not be underestimated. Every vote matters, and we must ensure that we are not preventing people from making their voice heard.
The report published today by the Electoral Commission found that around 4% of eligible people who did not vote said that was because of the voter ID requirement. More in Common found that 3.2% said they were turned away at least once on 4 July. If that was reflected across the UK, that would equate to more than 850,000 people. Of that 3.2%, more than half said that either they did not return or they came back and were still unable to vote.
It is important to note that recent figures from London councils showed that three in 10 Londoners who were turned away from polling stations due to a lack of appropriate voter ID did not return to vote. It is essential that people who have a legitimate right to vote are not prevented from exercising that right. More broadly, voter ID has not impacted all constituents equally.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The hon. Lady says that people have arrived to vote in somebody’s name and have been turned away and did not return when asked for ID. How can she be certain that they were the person they said they were?
Sarah Olney
I am quoting, obviously, sources from the Electoral Commission and More in Common—organisations that have carried out extensive polling on this question—and people say they were turned away because they did not have the correct voter ID. I think the hon. Lady is quibbling, frankly. There is no doubt that significant numbers of people were unable to vote in this last election who had the right to do so, and that was because of this unnecessary legislation.
Research following the general election indicates that voter ID legislation disproportionately impacts minority ethnic groups, with Hope not Hate reporting that 6.5% of ethnic minority voters were turned away from a polling booth at least once, compared with 2.5% of white voters. Furthermore, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was a Cabinet Minister when voter ID was introduced, described the law as an attempt to “gerrymander” elections in the Conservatives’ favour. While we cannot know how those who did not cast their ballot would have voted, and so cannot directly measure the effectiveness of that deeply worrying intention, research by the Electoral Commission showed that the clearest impact of the voter ID requirement was in relation to social grade. The specification for accepted forms of ID specifically related to proof of address has disproportionately affected young people and people living in social housing.
We know that the dire economic situation inherited by this Government has required the Chancellor to make tough decisions, as we saw with the recent Budget statement. Given the need for the Government to make spending more efficient, why are they choosing to keep the voter ID scheme in place? The scheme is projected to cost £120 million over the next 10 years. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money, and it is an obvious place where the Government could save money, redirecting it to support some of the most vulnerable in society or to fund vitally needed infrastructure projects.
More broadly, we are supportive of wider electoral reform, and we look to the Government to support our pledges to modernise our electoral system. Electoral Commission research shows that potentially as many as 8 million people are incorrectly recorded on the electoral register across the UK. We should be removing barriers for all voters to encourage voter participation and public engagement. Improvements in the system could be achieved through modernisation of the registration system, such as a requirement on public bodies to share data with electoral administrators to improve the register’s accuracy. Given the huge cost of the voter ID scheme—£120 million over the next decade—could those resources not be better spent in modernising the electoral register and ensuring that all eligible voters are correctly recorded? It is vital that barriers to voting are removed for all eligible voters and that the deeply worrying findings of the Electoral Commission regarding voter registration are addressed.
The Liberal Democrats want to strengthen democratic rights by expanding political and democratic engagement. We want to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about the additional barriers that voter ID will present to younger voters, once the right to vote is extended to them, because they will find it that much harder to find appropriate ID.
We call on the Government to enshrine the ministerial code in legislation, give Parliament the powers to hold Ministers to account and protect politics from corruption and sleaze. We also want to see this new Labour Government be bold in strengthening the power of local authorities who know best what their communities and towns need.
At the 2022 elections, there were 13 cases of alleged personation investigated, and no further action was taken in any of those cases. Would the Minister not agree that the much more concerning issue is that of an inaccurate electoral register? It is vital that we remove barriers to voting and do all we can to ensure that the 8 million people who are currently not correctly registered are not excluded from casting their ballots. Voter ID, which will cost £120 million over the next decade, is like using a sledgehammer to try to crack a nut. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money.
While I appreciate the steps that the regulations will take to support veterans, they will do nothing to improve accessibility for many of the most affected communities, such as those renting from a social landlord, the unemployed, lower social grades, disabled people and young people. I question why the Government do not remove the barrier entirely, and I urge them to scrap the Conservatives’ undemocratic voter ID scheme altogether.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the next speaker, I will announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024. The Ayes were 412 and the Noes were 16, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Sarah Olney
The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that he does not see why political parties that compete fairly should have anything to fear. I put it to him that it is not a fear of political parties; it is much more about upholding the rights of voters. It is their interests that we need to protect, not the interests of political parties. That is why we are calling for the abolition of voter ID, although I fully take on board his points about the situation in Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister
We are protecting voters when we prevent voter fraud, which is precisely what voter ID does. It is the ordinary citizen who is being protected—the citizen who wants to play by the rules, who wants to vote properly, and who does not want to cheat or personate others. That is the person we are protecting by introducing voter ID.
Sarah Olney
As I said to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), the risk of being prevented from voting because of an inability to produce the relevant voter ID is much higher than the risk of personation. That is borne out by all the evidence and research. The hon. Gentleman managed to cite one instance in Eastleigh. I put it to him, and to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), that that single instance is likely to be outweighed many times over by the number of people who were prevented from voting by the requirements.
Jim Allister
I respectfully suggest that there is probably an unknown hidden degree of personation. If a certain number of people are prosecuted, it does not mean that only that number of people are personating others. The way to rule out personation and present hurdles to it is to have voter ID. I really do not understand why anyone who wants a clean election, with only legitimate voters voting and only legitimate votes counted, would say, “We don’t want any protections to ensure that there’s no voter cheating.” Surely we should all want to be on the side of preventing cheating in elections. This really is the question: are we on the side of making it more difficult to cheat in an election, or on the side of making it easier? Surely we should all be on the side of making it more difficult. I therefore strongly defend voter ID.
Returning to the core subject matter, it is fitting that in the week of Remembrance Day we are adding the veteran card to the ID list. I look forward to that happening in Northern Ireland as well, but I want to raise a point that a serving soldier sent me a message about, which also touches on voting. He wrote:
“I just want to highlight a further issue that serving members of the Armed Forces when serving abroad can’t exercise their ability to vote due to the inefficiency of the now contracted British Forces Post Office. The length of time to request a postal vote”,
which is how most service people vote,
“and then to send your vote means you miss the deadline”
often. He then cited all the countries where servicemen are. Some can be as far away as the Falklands, Germany, Poland or Africa. He asked why we cannot have more efficiency in getting postal votes out to service people and back. That seems a legitimate question. He went on:
“Many other countries provide polling booths in their military bases or…in their embassies”.
Why do we not do that, Minister? Why do we not go further for our service personnel serving abroad, to ensure that they participate in the democratic process, as they are entitled to? Those are important questions that need to be answered, and a matter to which this House should give some attention.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Sarah Olney Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
During the last Parliament, the Conservative Government betrayed tenants across the country. They committed to giving renters the right to a safe and secure home by abolishing section 21 evictions, and then delayed for five years. In that time, nearly a quarter of a million people had their life turned upside-down by a section 21 eviction notice, and quarter of a million more have not complained about disrepair for fear of having such a notice served on them, so at least half a million people have suffered because the Conservatives did not keep the promise they made in 2019.
As we speak, two of my constituents face the consequences of the Conservatives’ inaction. They came to the UK seeking refuge from Putin and his illegal invasion of Ukraine. One is a full-time carer for his wife, who is physically disabled and suffers from multiple severe mental health difficulties. Over the past year, their landlord has repeatedly threatened them with eviction, leaving the couple in constant uncertainty regarding their housing situation. These threats have been accompanied by surprise increases in rent and verbal abuse so bad that one of my constituents was hospitalised after suffering a major panic attack. Despite paying their rent on time and acting in accordance with their lease, my constituents have been continually threatened with a section 21 notice. Now, they face an appalling Catch-22 situation. If they leave their property, they make themselves intentionally homeless and give up the housing safety net; if they stay, they risk having the life that they have begun to build torn out from under them at a moment’s notice. Their case is just one example of how a bad landlord can dominate their tenants’ lives, and why this legislation must be enacted without any further delay.
I join my Liberal Democrat colleagues in welcoming the Bill, not only for the security and confidence it will bring to our constituents, but for the broader measures it will introduce. I am glad to see proposals to give tenants the right to request a pet—a request that landlords must consider and cannot unreasonably refuse. We are pleased that the Bill contains a presumption in favour of keeping pets, as they are often an integral part of a family. I join colleagues in commending the Government for finally doing what the last Administration could not—banning no-fault evictions, increasing housing security and making the rental market fairer for all.