Lisa Smart
Main Page: Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat - Hazel Grove)Department Debates - View all Lisa Smart's debates with the Cabinet Office
(1 day, 9 hours 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
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Thank you very much, Dr Huq. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair.
Across the country there is a clear and growing discontent, with many people expressing frustration over the way the country does—and, importantly, does not—work. Waiting times for doctors’ appointments are too long. Everything is so expensive, and more and more people feel like their income does not stretch to the end of the month. The social care reform we were promised will not arrive for at least three years, and new hospital projects will not be completed for decades. My own Stepping Hill hospital did not even make the list, despite its £138 million repairs backlog. Business owners talk of it being harder to take on and train new staff. Teachers report that they are not equipped to deliver the education our most vulnerable children need. And councils cannot stretch their budgets to do what most of us consider the basics—like filling the blooming potholes.
It is no wonder, then, that this widespread dissatisfaction is directed towards the current Government. Although they inherited various steaming piles of disaster from the previous, shambolic Conservative Government, Labour’s recent back-pedalling and flip-flopping is bound to test even their staunchest supporters.
Josh Newbury
The hon. Lady rightly refers to the steaming piles of rubbish that this Government were left, but many of us believe that the rot really set in in 2010, when the austerity programme was initiated with her party’s involvement. How many of those steaming piles of rubbish does she lay at her own party’s door?
Lisa Smart
No Government is perfect, but I am immensely proud—and will be to my dying day—that some of my friends in a same-sex relationship can get married, when they were not allowed to do so under the previous Labour Government. I am immensely proud—I say this as a school governor for 20 years—that the kids who need the most support get it through the pupil premium. And I am immensely proud, that that showed that a grown-up, consensual coalition Government can work. The hon. Member will know—I am sure he read Alistair Darling’s budgetary plans in the run-up to the 2010 election—that the then Labour Government planned to cut more than either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. So although I did not agree with everything the 2010 to 2015 Government did—no sane person possibly could—I am proud that we delivered what so many people wanted and needed. There is always work for every Government to do.
The million or so members of the public who signed this petition, including 1,987 of my Hazel Grove constituents, are calling for a change via a general election. They are feeling frustrated and disappointed that this Government have failed to deliver the change that they promised at the 2024 election.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
In my constituency of Epsom and Ewell, more than 1,500 people have signed this petition; I hear regularly on the doorstep how disgruntled and frustrated they are. They are tired of working so hard and barely making ends meet. Although the Conservatives left a complete mess, Labour has simply not delivered either. People are not any feeling better off. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must grow the economy? A great way to do that would be to have a bespoke customs union with Europe.
Lisa Smart
I am delighted that I am not going to be the first Liberal Democrat to mention a bespoke customs union with the EU. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend on that point; it is the biggest single lever that the Government could pull to boost growth in our economy.
Recently, we have seen the Government U-turn—rightly, in some cases—including on the family farm tax, following 14 months of calls for change from farmers, the Lib Dems and others. That has been alongside U-turns on winter fuel and benefit reform, to name just two others. I understand why a million people are underwhelmed. The Government have introduced a growth-crushing jobs tax that has stretched their manifesto pledge not to raise income tax on working people. As a result, jobs are being lost, economic growth is flatlining and the Government are not showing a clear enough vision to get us out of this mess.
While the Government now increasingly acknowledge that Brexit has been detrimental to economic growth, they have failed to take sufficiently meaningful action to address that reality. The figures are stark. According to the House of Commons Library, as of 2025 Brexit is costing British tax payers £90 billion annually in lost tax revenue. That is billions of pounds not funding our public services. The Government must move beyond merely attributing blame on Brexit and begin implementing solutions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) mentioned, we Liberal Democrats are urging the Government to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union, which could raise more than £25 billion annually for the Exchequer. A customs union would be the most effective means of dismantling trade barriers and stimulating economic growth. We must be far more ambitious in securing the best possible arrangements for UK relations with the EU—our largest trading partner.
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful.
More than 1,800 of my constituents have signed the petition that has prompted today’s debate. It would be arrogant for me to assume that those people are necessarily indicating their support for an EU customs union, although it would be sensible if they did. But what I hear from them is that they are feeling worse off than they did yesterday and face the prospect that their children will be worse off tomorrow than they are today. They have signed this petition asking for an urgent general election.
The Government have to reconcile this point: unless they can deliver meaningful growth that people can actually feel, there may not be a general election tomorrow but they will be made to pay a high political price the next time one comes. What are they going to do to give the UK the massive dollop of economic growth that this country needs and our constituents need to feel?
Lisa Smart
My hon. Friend, as always, speaks powerfully on these issues and I agree with him wholeheartedly, as I often do. This Government are struggling and the official Opposition look increasingly like a mediocre turquoise tribute act. However, we face an even more dangerous threat to our country’s values and our future if the next general election delivers the results that the current polls suggest. There are political forces who, if left to their own devices, would move us closer to a model similar to that promoted by President Trump: one without a universal NHS, where patients face high insurance costs or are denied care altogether; one that relies on expensive fossil fuels and permits widespread fracking while climate change accelerates; and one where the Government can erode basic rights and freedoms by leaving the European convention on human rights.
We must be clear about what this political retirement home for disgraced ex-Ministers represents economically. Its fiscal proposals mirror the disastrous Truss mini-Budget, which its leader praised at the time. He now proposes to replicate it through massive, unfunded spending commitments supported only by vague promises of unrealistic savings. Perhaps even more troubling is the platforming of anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists and dangerous health misinformation. Shamefully, the leader of a UK political party has adopted Trump’s approach of refusing to push back against dangerous misinformation, including false claims regarding paracetamol use during pregnancy that risk leaving expectant mothers suffering unnecessarily. That is dangerous claptrap from those seeking to win the next general election.
The Liberal Democrats advocate a fundamentally different approach to how we should change our country, in ways that the voting public would welcome and that would leave a lasting legacy. We must fix social care if we want to stand any chance of having an NHS that we can continue to be proud of. We must focus on genuinely local community engagement rather than centralised, developer-led planning, to get the homes, including the social homes, that our communities need and our constituents deserve, with zero-carbon homes as standard for all new construction. We must reform our politics and democracy so that the public feel that their voices are heard and that more people get what they voted for.
I welcome the Government’s plans for the removal for life of hereditary peers from being able to make laws, and I will welcome the introduction of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in future general elections. But that all feels a bit too timid, and the moment demands more. One of the most regrettable impacts of the Government’s cancellation of local elections in some parts of England is that it gives succour to those who seek to stoke distrust in our democracy and divide our communities. Trust in our politics is vital, and we all need to take to steps to build it, not destroy it. Changing the way our politics works by capping donations to political parties, restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission to remove political interference in how electoral rules are enforced, and changing the way we elect our MPs are all suggestions I make constructively to the Minister.
Proportional representation ensures that seats broadly match votes, that every voter has a meaningful say, and that Governments represent the majority of the electorate. This Government got roughly one third of the votes in 2024; they were rewarded with roughly two thirds of the seats and almost all of the power. Evidence shows that PR leads to higher voter turnout, more representative Governments and more stable policy making. We already have PR in the UK, just not here in Westminster: it is already used in different forms in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as in the vast majority of democracies worldwide. It is surely reckless to maintain an electoral model that consistently produces such wildly disproportionate groups of MPs and leaves millions of voters feeling ignored.
Lee Anderson
I thank the hon. Lady. She talks about representation and proportionality in the country and in this place. Is she aware that Reform UK got 4.1 million votes in the last election, but got five MPs, and the Lib Dems got 3.6 or 3.7 million votes and got 71 or 72 MPs?
Lee Anderson
They got 72 MPs. Yet the Lib Dems are allowed on every single Select Committee and Bill Committee, but Reform UK is not. Is that fair?
Lisa Smart
I would be genuinely delighted to talk about the many and varied ways in which we could change this place that I am sure the hon. Gentleman and I would agree about. There is a chance that we agree, although I am not entirely sure whether we still do, about how we elect people to this place. People elect their MPs to come here and represent them, and that includes fair representation on Select Committees, and that should be proportionate. Given the total of 650 MPs, including five Reform MPs, there is a risk that we would end up with about 100 MPs on each Committee to maintain proportionality. I do not think that that is practicable or practical.
The hon. Gentleman and I would agree in many ways on how we should reform this place and change it for the better. The voting tonight is due to start soon; we are going to be going for many hours until late tonight, as I understand it. I suspect that he and I will feel similarly about that as a way to run a country. [Interruption.] Voting is a good thing, of which there should more, but I think that other democracies in other parts of the world have found a more effective and efficient way of doing it than voting at midnight by walking through a corridor for 15 minutes.
It is reckless to maintain an electoral model that so consistently produces such wildly disproportionate groups of MPs and leaves millions of voters feeling ignored. If those trends are allowed to continue, it is not difficult to see how turnout will fall further, results will become even more distorted and political instability will grow.
We can look at what has happened in actual ballot boxes since the last general election: in 2025, the Liberal Democrats won more councillors than Labour or the Conservatives for the first time, and won more local council by-elections than any other party. We Lib Dems look forward to May’s local elections and are well up for the next general election, whenever it is called. It is shaping up to be a battle to stop Trump’s UK fanboys from doing to our communities what their idol is doing to America.
I am a bit worried about what the future holds for our country, but I choose to be optimistic. The British people are bright, innovative, witty and sarky, and they will not put up with snake oil salesmen peddling conspiracy theories and division for very long. The people will let the Government, whoever they are, know that they are livid with them—not usually by rioting in the streets but by taking the mickey out of them, mercilessly. Long may that continue.