FAQsTermsPrivacyContact
State Logo
StateConstituenciesRepresentative
Back to Reading West and Mid Berkshire
Olivia Bailey

Olivia Bailey

Labour MP for Reading West and Mid Berkshire

Olivia Bailey is the Labour MP for Reading West and Mid Berkshire, and has been an MP continually since 4 July 2024.

Share
Website

Seat status

Marginal

Percentage of votes

2.92%

Recent swing

+12.1% Labour

Party

Labour

Top donors:

Linda Riley (£5,000)

Kevin Craig (£2,000)

Unison South East (£1,900)

Share donors

Explore what Olivia is advocating for

Filter by topic

Education

Independent Schools: Regulation of Proprietors

“I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for calling this debate, for her excellent speech and for her important advocacy on this crucial topic. I also join her in commending Mrs Middleton for her compassion and leadership; she has painted a powerful image of the staff clapping the pupils out on what must have been a very sad day. I also thank all Members who have contributed on this important topic this evening. The subject of this debate, as I know through my colleague’s recent ministerial correspondence and her speech this evening, has rightly drawn much attention. I am incredibly sorry to hear of the closure of Durham high school, which is clearly a much-loved local school. I am particularly sorry to hear of how suddenly this news was communicated and the significant disruption this will cause to the children’s education. When schools are closed in the state sector, we of course make every effort to minimise disruption, and this is something I would expect equally of leaders in the independent sector. It is clearly concerning that that has not happened in this case. As private businesses, private schools are responsible for ensuring their long-term viability and are free to make their own business decisions. However, while the Government do not play a role in the decision to close a private school, I can assure my hon. Friend that in this case, as with any closure, we are working closely with the local authority to ensure that places are available in local, state-funded schools for any child who requires one. I am happy to keep her up to date with this. I was also shocked to hear about the apparent nature of the behaviour of the owners of the school, including towards senior leaders, families and pupils. That is not the way we would all expect a reasonable and responsible owner to act while managing the closure of a business, especially one that affects children and families. On my hon. Friend’s points on how the owner of Durham high school has acted, I know that she has raised this directly with the Insolvency Service and with colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade. While we understand that the owner is not currently in administration, there are robust protocols that will be followed if an administrator ends up being appointed. This process would include considering the conduct of the company’s directors and an assessment of whether further review or investigation was warranted. Where evidence of misconduct is identified and enforcement action is in the public interest, the Insolvency Service will of course take appropriate action. On the wider issues my hon. Friend raises in relation to how the owner has conducted business at Durham high school, Ruthin, Malvern and other private schools, I know that this has been raised through the relevant channels at the Department for Business and Trade. On all cases where there is potential malpractice, my colleagues at the DBT will take the necessary action. On the topic of our statutory powers in relation to independent schools, the Department has a robust system in place around how proprietors are registered and regulated. The proprietor is the person or persons legally responsible for the running of the school. They are responsible for ensuring that all the independent school standards are met, including in areas such as safeguarding, health and safety, and quality of education. When a new private school wants to register, as 105 did successfully in 2025, they must set out how they will meet the independent school standards, and the Secretary of State carries out a number of safer recruitment checks on the proprietor of any proposed new school. These important, wide-ranging checks include an identity check and an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check, as well as checks to ensure that the proprietor is not barred from working in regulated activity with children, is not the subject of a prohibition from management order, and has the right to work in the UK. The Secretary of State has powers to prohibit a person from managing a private school. Any such prohibition prevents a person from being a proprietor of a private school. Any change of proprietor is considered a material change, and therefore the Secretary of State carries out the same suitability checks that I have already set out. Recognising the importance of the proprietor role, this Government have recently taken powers via the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 to allow the Secretary of State by regulations to create a fit and proper person test for proprietors of private schools. We are currently considering what might fall under this test, so this debate is timely and useful.”

Spoke in 50 debatesAsked 95 questions

National Defence

Draft Conversion Practices Bill

“If I may, I will start with an apology to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). I had intended my statement to be sent much earlier today, and I understand that it did not reach her in time; I apologise for that, because that certainly was not my intent. With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Conversion Practices Bill, which we are publishing in draft today. Across the House, we can all agree that nobody deserves to be abused, no matter who they are, but right now, gaps in the law are allowing a very specific form of abuse to occur: abuse driven by the false belief that being LGBT+ is shameful, that it can be forcibly changed, and that if you cause someone enough pain, you will somehow stop them being who they are. We are talking about people being shamed in front of a congregation, and pushed to the ground in an effort to remove the devil; about families threatening to rape and murder people, if they do not change their identity; and about people being beaten or sexually assaulted by those trying to “correct” who they are. These are real stories, real people, and real abusers getting away with it. Today, with this legislation, that stops. The draft Bill that we are publishing today fills gaps in our criminal law in order to ban abusive conversion practices. It gives victims and authorities a clear definition with which to identify, tackle and prevent this abuse. Specifically, the Bill creates a new criminal offence of abusive conversion practice, measured by three specific criteria: first, conduct intended to change a person’s sexual orientation or transgender identity; secondly, conduct that is abusive, in line with other criminal law; and thirdly, conduct that causes serious harm, alarm or distress that has a substantial effect on the victim’s day-to-day activities. We have listened to concerns that this legislation must not create a loophole that pushes abuse abroad, and have included a second offence of encouraging or assisting an abusive conversion practice outside England and Wales. We are also creating new conversion practice protection orders, to support victims as well as those at risk of abuse. These will be similar to protection orders for forced marriage and female genital mutilation, and can protect people even before abuse has happened. Breach of a protection order may be prosecuted as a criminal offence. Offences will carry a maximum penalty of five years in custody or a fine, while breaching a protection order carries a maximum penalty of two years or a fine. In addition to bringing in the new measures in this Bill, the Government will continue to fund the conversion practices support helpline, and are taking wider action to tackle abuse against the LGBT+ community, including by equalising hate crime legislation through the Crime and Policing Act 2026. In developing this Bill, I have consulted widely and spoken to many who have legitimate concerns about legislating in this area. I have heard concerns about freedom of expression, parental rights and religious freedoms. I have spoken to therapists who worry that their important exploratory work with young people might be impacted, and that they may be accused of conversion practices. I want to be completely clear today: I have heard those concerns and acted on them. This Bill does not remove anyone’s right to freedom of expression or religion, or to choose how to parent; this Bill simply prevents abuse. To ensure that there is no inadvertent chilling effect on important healthcare, there is an exemption in the Bill for all healthcare professionals. Across the globe, countries are acting to ban conversion practices. We have learned from the 28 countries that have some sort of ban in place. We have drawn on the important framework from the Council of Europe, fought for by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne). We have studied the evidence on the prevalence and types of conversion practice abuse, and we are clear about where there are gaps in the law. In the Bill published today, we are confident that we have learned the right lessons and got the balance right. This will be a comprehensive ban on abusive conversion practices, with no loopholes, and we have clarity that we will not inadvertently impinge on freedom of expression, important healthcare and people’s ability to parent how they choose. There has been a cross-party consensus for years on the importance of this ban. It was Baroness May who first promised legislation on this back in 2018, and there are Opposition Members who have held my job and worked hard on this issue. This ban has been in the manifestos of parties from across the political spectrum, because despite our other political differences, we can all agree that abuse is unacceptable. I hope sincerely that we can work constructively on this issue across the House. I welcome cross-party engagement as we discuss our draft legislation, and that is why we have requested and welcome pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill by a Joint Committee. I am confident that this process will make our Bill stronger. There are people today suffering crushing, hateful abuse because someone has decided that their identity is wrong and can be changed—abuse that is allowed to happen because our legal framework simply does not acknowledge it. I understand that this draft Bill will cause debate—these are not easy issues—but I welcome that challenge and that debate, because we cannot let fear of argument prevent us from remembering what matters: it is our job and our moral responsibility to prevent this pernicious abuse. I am confident that the Bill we are publishing today will do just that.”

Spoke in 55 debates
Share advocacy

Key Parliamentary Votes

See where your MP stands on these issues

DID NOT VOTE4 Sep 2025

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

✓ Passed — 336 For, 77 Against

VOTED AYE9 Mar 2026

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

✓ Passed — 307 For, 173 Against

VOTED AYE10 Mar 2026

Courts and Tribunals Bill

✓ Passed — 304 For, 203 Against

Where Olivia fits into things

Sir Keir Starmer

Sir Keir Starmer

Prime Minister

Olivia Bailey

Olivia Bailey

Labour MP for Reading West and Mid Berkshire

Surgeries

Monthly in-person, occasional online

Examples of successful citizen influence

  • Coordinated constituent emails leading to parliamentary questions
  • Local campaign prompting a public statement

Pressure that tends to influence

  • High volume constituent contact
  • Media attention on local issues
  • Cross-party committee pressure