Post Office Green Paper

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I do not think it will have surprised any of us to hear the Minister talk about the response from our communities, who say how much they value services in a physical post office. My constituents in High Lane and around the Fiveways in Hazel Grove still mourn the loss of their post office branch, but when I talked with Post Office Ltd and local retailers after the closures, they said that it was just not viable to offer those services, as the remuneration, and the business model, just did not fit in with their needs. The Minister talked about the desire to reduce the reliance on Government funding, and about looking at additional services, like prescription collection. Will he say a little more about where he sees the business model going for the Post Office, so that we can ensure that running a post office or delivering post office services is viable, and so that my constituents get the services that they need, where they need them?

[Blair McDougall]

Obviously the business model of the Post Office is a matter for the Post Office, but it would say to me that it is about continuing that central role of banking and financial services through the Post Office, and about experimenting with new models like the hub of the high street, where post offices can partner with other organisations that perhaps do not want the full expense of their own high street presence but can use the vast network of the Post Office. Finally, it is about the technological transformation that we are funding, which will improve the customer experience and improve the renumeration for sub-postmasters.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

We have had an extremely powerful debate. I will address a number of the points raised, but I want to start by talking about how the revelations of recent weeks and months have been shattering for the British public and deeply, deeply distressing for many of those directly impacted.

We have listened to the gut-wrenching stories of abuse endured by vulnerable women and girls. We were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) that we are, in many cases, talking about children. We have learned of the arrogance and cruelty of rich, powerful men who felt that no rules applied to them and who made a mockery of our values and laws. We have seen laid bare the hollowness of a political establishment that was manipulated so easily and that treated state secrets like cheap gossip.

Public trust has been catastrophically undermined by the Epstein saga, and we are now at a crossroads in our public life. If Parliament does not act with courage, faith in our institutions will suffer even more permanent harm, and they will remain under intense public suspicion and unease. To start to repair the damage, we must uncover the full and unvarnished truth. Critical to that process is demanding that every relevant Department comes clean and shares what was known about Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as special representative for trade and investment. What concerns were raised ahead of his appointment, did his suitability come into question, and what risks were identified throughout that process? The British people deserve to know what behaviour was tolerated, and by whom.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

On that point, I have been contacted by a constituent who played a public role in the middle east. They said that during their time in that role, they had to go through incredible checks—background checks and so on. Does my hon. Friend agree that the release of these files would enable us to see whether the same background checks that are applied to citizens like us in public life are applied to the royal family?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and to her constituent who has contacted her about that important point. My view, and the view of the Liberal Democrats, is that we should get to the bottom of how this role was created and the vetting that was done before the appointment, in order to understand the extent—or lack of extent—of that vetting. If somebody is being paid from the public purse, they should be held to an extremely high standard and there should be transparency about their role and the creation of that role, so I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

The public deserve to know whether sections of their Government at the time put in place systems to shield Mountbatten-Windsor from accountability, even at a cost to the national interest. Of course the police must undertake their work unimpeded, and of course anybody who has committed a crime should face justice if they are found to have committed that crime, but a police investigation—no matter what prosecution it leads to—is not enough. It is essential for the strength of our constitution and our social fabric that we go further and clean up the broken system that facilitated this scandal in the first place.

[Daisy Cooper]

One point that has been raised this afternoon is that even while the police go ahead with their investigations, there is still a job for this House to do. It strikes me that some of the most basic principles that we assume when we come to this place are being questioned. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is worth restating, for the record and for the public, that there are certain principles in public life that we have to make sure remain in place, as this case highlights? No one is above the law; taxpayers’ money and public office must be used for the public interest, not for private gain; Parliament has not just the right, but the duty, to hold the powerful to account and pursue all means of transparency; and ultimately, all powerful people must face a reckoning if they were involved in this scandal.

[Lisa Smart]

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, who has made a number of powerful interventions throughout this debate. This whole sorry saga repeatedly brings up arrogant, greedy men—mostly men—who have sought to enrich themselves further and increase their power.

[Luke Taylor]

I hope this intervention adds to my hon. Friend’s point. Does she find it ironic that the only person who has been imprisoned as part of the Epstein scandal is a woman?

[Lisa Smart]

My hon. Friend is not the only person to refer to structural sexism in this debate. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) made an extremely powerful speech about how, should we choose to do so as a Parliament, we could embed looking at sexism—at violence against women and girls—in our policymaking and our thinking in a way that would benefit the whole of society. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for raising the point that there remain many people who the hand of justice is yet to seek out with the full vigour it should.

We should be pulling back the curtain on Andrew’s use of the special envoy role and the whole system around him, on the power he had in an official, state-sanctioned position, and on the many missed opportunities for scrutiny and accountability, not least in this place. A number of Members from both sides of the House have talked about the importance of pace and speed; the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) made a very good point about making sure we get on with some of this work, which he also raised yesterday with the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister; and the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), reminded us that the wheels of justice often grind slowly. My deputy leader and hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) presented some practical solutions for how we can make sure progress continues at pace, so that one thing does not hold up another, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), reminded us that police involvement in this matter should not unduly delay the whole process. Of course, it is vital that the police should be free to do their job and do it well, but that should not unduly hold up the release of the information we are seeking.

We Liberal Democrats very much welcome support from across the Chamber for our motion, including from Members on the Treasury Bench. When the Minister winds up in a few moments, I would be grateful if he confirmed—like when the Government responded to the previous Humble Address that we discussed in this place—that any information will be released when it is available, only holding back that information that is directly relevant to a police investigation.

[Daisy Cooper]

A few moments ago, my hon. Friend referred to a comment that I made earlier in the debate. I am mindful that the Minister was not in his place at the time, so I wonder whether I could be indulged. [Interruption.] No, it was a separate point that I made later, when the Minister was out of the room for a second. Because there are so many things that could be examined during a public inquiry, I wondered whether Ministers would consider having an inquiry made up of two, three or more parts, given that there is precedent for such a thing. Might that be an answer, to ensure that some things that need to be examined earlier are not delayed too long? With the Minister now in his place, does my hon. Friend agree that we might hear from him on that point when he winds up?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us all of that insightful comment. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been fizzing with ideas. We have a real opportunity to improve our processes and our systems, and if the bravery of the women who have come forward to talk about their horrific abuse and their experience can reach its full potential, it is by improving the system so that things like this do not just keep happening.

A number of colleagues on both sides of the House have talked about a conspiracy of silence and the role of deference—the leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), used the word “sycophancy”, and I think she was absolutely right to do so. This has come from the whole establishment over several decades. A number of colleagues have talked about the role of journalists, which was a really interesting point. Some have talked about those who can be rightly proud of the role they have played in increasing transparency, accountability and the public’s understanding, but the Minister was also absolutely right to talk about some of the people who minimised child abuse and statutory rape, whose comments have not aged well, and who should reflect on some of what was said at the time.

This afternoon, we have also spoken about our own procedures in this place. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam used the phrase “parliamentary gymnastics”—that is not a phrase I am going to spend too long thinking about. We have spoken about the role of some of our predecessors—Paul Flynn has been talked about a lot—and about negative privilege not really being fit for purpose in this day and age. We need processes and procedures that enable us to do our job. We should be holding the powerful to account, and there should be power within Parliament to allow us to do so and to scrutinise decisions before they are made, as well as afterwards.

[Helen Morgan]

The scandal surrounding Jeffrey Epstein is reminiscent of other, similar scandals—perhaps not on the same scale, but certainly of a similar magnitude in terms of their impact on the victims. The one that comes to mind is the Jimmy Savile scandal, where people who knew what was going on did not feel able to speak up and break that conspiracy of silence, so victims did not feel able to come forward either. Does my hon. Friend agree that by embracing this opportunity to change the way we do things in Parliament, we can create a culture where people do feel empowered to come forward and break that conspiracy of silence, and where people who have observed things that they knew they should have reported do not feel constrained in their ability to report them, to ensure these terrible scandals do not happen in the future?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention; she made a number of very good points this afternoon reminding us of previous scandals and the importance of ensuring that we learn from them.

In the Peter Mandelson debate a few weeks ago, in which I sat in the same place, I think it was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) who talked about shame needing to change sides. That alludes to some of the cultural changes that we need to bring about. We as parliamentarians have a leading role to play in bringing about the cultural changes that we need to see. Anybody who is a victim or survivor must know that the stigma is not with them but with the perpetrators, and anybody who turns a blind eye should know that the stigma is with them for doing so.

Nobody should be above the law, and nobody in public office or in receipt of public funds should be out of the reach of parliamentary scrutiny.

[Layla Moran]

I am reminded of the debate brought forward by the Conservatives on Lord Mandelson and the proverbial parliamentary knickers-twisting that had to happen to work out that the way to deal with the issue of the intelligence services was indeed to allow the Intelligence and Security Committee to look at the papers. Is it not the case that we have the mechanisms in this place to scrutinise most things, but when it comes to the royal family we do not? Even if a Select Committee wants to do something on these matters, we self-censor with our own conventions that we apply to ourselves. Only we can change that. I am curious to know what the Government are going to do and whether there is a mechanism by which we change those conventions, because they are clearly the nub of the issue when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny.

[Lisa Smart]

Nobody should be above the law, and nobody should be above scrutiny. When good people get together, there is a willingness to embrace creativity and the nerdery of parliamentary procedures so that we can find a way to get to the truth that we need to get to.

Trust in our politics is vital, and trust in our institutions is further eroded every time we have one of these debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) talked about the impact on the reputation of this House and the vital role of trust in politics. There are too many people involved in politics for whom a lack of trust in politics is really useful. The stoking of division and mistrust means that there is space for voices that, in my view, are not welcome and we should reject. It is in all our interests and the whole country’s interest for there to be trust in our institutions and our political set-up.

During the debate we have been reminded of the need for proper processes to be in place. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) reminded us, not everybody can be relied on to be a good bloke. Many of our systems are based on gentlemen’s agreements and just expecting people to be a good bloke—and as has been repeatedly proven, it is simply not the case that people will be.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

In serving for a number of years as a senior civil servant, I experienced in Whitehall the impression that the monarchy should be protected and that nothing should be done to embarrass the royal family. I hope the materials we are seeking the release of through today’s Humble Address will ensure that we can scrutinise whether civil servants’ ability to check whether Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was an appropriate person to be a trade envoy was impeded, and will shed light on the relationship that should exist between Whitehall and the monarchy in the future.

[Lisa Smart]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have seen some press reports about civil servants who were doing their job and absolutely rightly questioning some of the expenses that were being put through, but they were overruled. That clearly is not good enough and not acceptable, and it is not what we should expect from our institutions and establishment. I completely agree about the importance of being clear about what we expect when somebody takes on a public role at cost to the taxpayer.

We should have very high standards. We should, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, talk about how we can ensure that those with power are held to account. She was entirely right in the points she made about what we do with this information, where we go with it and how we build from here.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) made a really strong speech in which he gave very constructive suggestions to the Minister of measures that we Liberal Democrats would support in bringing about change to the system.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that we are in the week of St David’s day, which is a terribly important day for all of us in Wales. In terms of accountability, she will be very aware of the long-standing stance that the Liberal Democrats have taken on the Crown Estate, which in Wales regrettably still has not been devolved. Its powers and funding have been devolved to Scotland, but not—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Can I just check whether the Member has been here for a while or just arrived? Members should not be intervening after traipsing in during a speech. I will allow Ms Smart to continue.

[Lisa Smart]

I will stick more within the tramlines of the debate that we have all enjoyed today, though I think devolution is a very good thing of which there should be more.

Parliament is calling today for transparency. The public deserve answers, not further silence. Cleaning up public life means acting quickly, openly and honestly. This goes to heart of public trust. Sadly, what we are talking about today is ultimately not an isolated incident. There has been a drumbeat of scandals. We have had mention of partygate, and in other debates recently we have talked about Nathan Gill’s treachery. Peter Mandelson has also been mentioned. All those things further shatter trust in our politics. It is obvious that the current system is broken, so it is beholden on all of us to take action. We need to clear out the rot, and we will keep pushing until corrupt and criminal behaviour is stamped out and the muck is cleared out of our democracy.

We are campaigning for a public inquiry into Epstein and his relationship with the British establishment. A number of contributors this afternoon referenced the Polish Government’s investigation into Russian links with Epstein, and it will be very interesting to see what that investigation turns up. The Humble Address is very clear that we want the publishing of all the relevant documents relating to the appointment as a special representative for trade and industry. We should see an end to negative privilege. MPs should be able to speak freely in this place about concerns that they have and disclose information in this place, even if the individual in the public post is a member of the royal household.

We should go further: we should have criminal sanctions for public figures who fail to whistleblow. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) talked about the importance of having an office of the whistleblower. We should have new legal protections for whistleblowers and a dedicated office of the whistleblower.

[Daisy Cooper]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. It has been a Liberal Democrat policy for a very long time to have an office of the whistleblower, and we very much hope that the Government take up that proposal. We have tried a number of times to introduce it through pieces of legislation in the other House in this Session.

There will be people at home listening to this debate who themselves may have information and want to volunteer it but do not know how to—they do not know whether to write to their MPs or whether there is a formal way in which they can bring the information forward. We have heard examples this afternoon from some speakers about information that they have heard or about intelligence officials who knew something. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has any thoughts on that and whether we might hear from the Minister what the Government’s message is to those people about who they should contact.

[Lisa Smart]

My hon. Friend is entirely right that a public inquiry is the best way to bring to light a number of the issues that we are talking about today. It is increasingly clear that there are people who were silent when they should have been loud. There are people who knew things who did not share them, and there are people in our country today who will know information that could usefully contribute to getting to the bottom of what happened—who knew what and when and, importantly, how we can stop this from continuing to happen in our system.

My hon. Friend is right to encourage anybody out with information to come forward and contribute. Today we have heard from colleagues who have worked internationally in different roles, and that is just the sample of Members who have been in the Chamber today; there will be countless people across the country who may have information, and she is entirely right to encourage them to come forward.

The people who have led to us being here today are the victims and survivors of Epstein and his cronies. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset talked about structural sexism and how people were not listened to, and other colleagues have referred to how victims and survivors were often not believed or, importantly, thought that they would not be believed. That stops us getting to the bottom of things like this.

[Anna Sabine]

On the point about structural sexism, it is not so much about the fact that people should be listened to, although that is absolutely right; it is more about the fact that we have a problem at the moment, particularly where there is a small group of leading figures in Government, who tend to be men. If we do not have women in those places and spaces, a lot of these issues do not get picked up or treated in the way in which they might do if there were women in the room. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good to see that the Prime Minister currently has some chiefs of staff who are women and that we would be pleased to see more women in key advisory roles, not simply as Ministers and Secretaries of State?

[Lisa Smart]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to make that point. The tone of some of the briefings about Ministers and Secretaries of State is notably different when it is a woman who holds office, and all the evidence shows that the best decisions are made by balanced teams that draw on a broad range of experiences. If everybody went to the same school or had the same experience, those teams will be missing an awful lot. My hon. Friend is entirely right to talk about elected Members and Ministers, but also about the officials who are working with them, advising them and supporting them. That is an extremely well-made point. Only when we have elected as many mediocre women to this place as we have mediocre men will we have achieved equality. [Laughter.]

But it should not have taken the bravery of victims in speaking up about their experience and seeking justice over years for Epstein’s cycle of cruelty and criminality to finally be interrupted. Where would we be if victims of Epstein, like Virginia Giuffre, had never come forward and if the right photograph had not been taken at the right time? We are left to wonder if Andrew might easily have remained a special representative today, operating without proper scrutiny and continually disgracing his office.

Once again, we urge the Government to commit to a statutory inquiry into Epstein’s links to our establishment, including Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, so that we can develop a full understanding of how it served him, what networks were formed that facilitated a prolific paedophile, and how widespread the complicity goes. Crucially, an inquiry can point us to what must change to protect people in the future. I also urge the Government and Members present to bring any further vital information to light right now, to ensure that there is no delay to essential scrutiny and transparency.

Andrew’s role as an envoy and the engagements he undertook were determined by those at the very highest levels of political power, including in the Downing Street of the time, and it is increasingly clear that he was protected, even while he betrayed public trust in his position as a special representative. He was protected by outdated rules that forbid Members of this place from raising concerns about any member of the royal household in most debates in Parliament. I fear that he was protected by powerful friends and allies repeatedly, and by a number of people failing to raise the alarm.

Today we can start to set that right. If we really believe that nobody is above the law, it must surely follow that no appointment is above scrutiny, that no one’s abuse of their public office should be hidden from the public gaze, and that no truth is too uncomfortable to come into the disinfectant of daylight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Lady is right: domestic production is important, which is why we have said that for decades to come, oil and gas will continue to be part of our energy picture in the UK. The number of imports has been increasing for a long time—it is not a recent trend. The North sea has been in transition for decades, and we must build up the energy that comes next. On her specific question, we consulted on what the future of the energy profits levy will look like. It comes to an end in 2030, and it is a matter for the Chancellor at the Budget. On the future of the North sea generally, we had a wide-ranging consultation, including on the future licensing position, and our pragmatic plan will be published in the coming weeks.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

10. What plans his Department has to increase the proportion of energy produced by community energy projects.

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

Through Great British Energy’s local power plan, we are rolling out the biggest expansion of community energy for decades. We are supporting projects with funding through the community fund, and Great British Energy will also support communities to roll out small and medium-scale renewable energy projects by providing commercial, technical and project planning assistance. That will increase its capacity to build a pipeline of successful projects owned by local communities.

[Lisa Smart]

More community energy is obviously good for the planet and for the pockets of bill payers, and it is certainly good for our energy security. The amazing volunteers at Stockport Hydro, Greater Manchester’s first hydroelectric producing plant which is in the River Goyt in my Hazel Grove constituency, tell me about the problems they are having with the Environment Agency stopping them doing their work. They were kept waiting for 227 days for the result of a licence inspection, and they have struggled to get information from it. A lead volunteer told me that if the EA continues in this way, community energy is “doomed”. What conversations is the Minister having across the Government to ensure that community energy delivers the clean power that we need?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question, and pay tribute to all those involved in Stockport Hydro for the work they are doing. Clearly, it has been too much of a challenge, and we need to make it easier. Alongside much-needed funding, we must make the regulatory landscape much easier, and across Government we are having a review of regulation to ensure that we can move faster to build things in this country. Nowhere is that more important than in communities that have come together to deliver a project. That is good for us as a country, good for social and economic growth and good for local communities, and we need to make it easier. I am happy to discuss the issue further with the hon. Lady, because these are the kinds of projects that we want across the country.

Parental Leave Review

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend, as a new father himself, will know about the system. He rightly referred to the complexity of the system and the lack of availability and opportunity, particularly for those in low-paid occupations, as well as those who are not directly employed. Those are all things that we will be considering as part of the review.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is of course to be welcomed that the Government are looking at how best to support families of all shapes and sizes in the early weeks and months of a child’s life. I know that the Minister is aware that there is currently a gap for those who are self-employed looking to grow their family through adoption, because he and I have corresponded on the matter. I listened carefully to his comments. He talked about adoption and about self-employment, but I wonder whether he could give constituents like Kirsty from Marple the reassurance she is looking for that an explicit stream of this work will look at self-employed adopters, who currently do not get any financial support from the Government.

[Justin Madders]

As the hon. Member said, she has raised this very important point before. Having had some recent involvement in the adoption system myself, I understand that it does not really fit into the current rights system. It is important that we look at that in the round and, as I have mentioned, those currently excluded from the system altogether because they are self-employed or in some other working relationship that does not fit within the statutory parameters will also be considered.

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The US is clearly seeking concessions from the UK, and it has been widely speculated that the UK Government are considering a reduction in the digital services tax as a way of placating Trump and his ally Elon Musk. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) asked the Secretary of State this question but I did not quite catch an answer in his response: will he commit today not to cut the digital services tax, as that is the way the tech giants pay their fair share here in the UK?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The hon. Lady has heard me say repeatedly that I will not go into specific negotiations, but ensuring that not just a US tech company but any tech company pays a fair rate of taxation in the UK, for the economic activity that it has in the UK, is something that all parts of the British Government are committed to—she does not need to be worried about that. In any discussion there will always be a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. In the main, those are trade issues. I understand that there are all kinds of speculation, but speculation is not always correct. I ask all colleagues to bear that in mind and understand that we cannot publicly share every single aspect of such a negotiation. If she is worried about US tech companies, or any tech companies, paying the right rate of tax in the UK, let me say that that is something we are deeply committed to.

“Chapter 4A

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon]

I certainly do. The previous Government never got round to introducing such a Bill. When the Conservative party was in government, all we had about the P&O debacle were crocodile tears or statements of sorrow from the Dispatch Box, which just do not cut it.

This Bill contains important advances, such as establishing bereavement leave and introducing menopause action plans. Over 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy, and 9 million people who have been with an employer for less than two years will benefit from the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one. It seems to escape the understanding of many Conservative Members that this does not mean that employers cannot dismiss people; it means that they cannot dismiss people unfairly.

The Conservatives are arguing for the right of employers to dismiss people unfairly. As it stands, before this legislation comes in, the only way that workers can claim unfair dismissal from day one is if it is a discriminatory dismissal. To be clear, an employer could, six months into someone’s contract of employment, say, “I’m sacking you because I don’t like people who wear green jumpers,” or, “I’m sacking you because I find your voice irritating.” That would be unfair dismissal. As it stands, people do not have the right not to be unfairly dismissed until they have accrued two years of service, and the Conservative party needs to come clean about that.

Before I move on to my new clause 6, I want to say that I welcome many of the Government amendments and the amendments tabled by Labour Back Benchers, including the many important amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who did such a good job at developing employment policy in opposition; the important amendments on sick pay, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain); and the important amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen).

My new clause 6 would right what I consider to be a historical wrong. The last Labour Government brought in the groundbreaking Equality Act 2010, which we can all be proud of. As part of that, they introduced statutory discrimination questionnaires. When I was an employment lawyer before becoming a Member of Parliament, I lost track of the number of times that we used statutory discrimination questionnaires to smoke out discrimination in the workplace in relation to age, disability, sex, race, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment, religion or belief, and marriage and civil partnership.

I bumped into an old colleague who is a trade union lawyer on a train, and he made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires also—[Interruption.] I make no apologies for having a friend who is a trade union lawyer—I think the Conservatives need to get out a bit more. He made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires showed when a claim did not have a good chance of succeeding at an employment tribunal, helped to manage potential claimants’ expectations, and thus led to an unmeritorious claim either not being pursued or being settled. Such questionnaires helped to smoke out discrimination in workplaces, helping not just the individual employee, but tackling discrimination against workers more widely in that workplace. The truth is that in 2025, given some of the rhetoric from politicians in this country and around the world, it is as important as ever to have mechanisms in place to tackle discrimination in workplaces across the country.

That was part of the last Labour Government’s pioneering Equality Act. Shamefully, the Conservative Government abolished statutory Equality Act questionnaires in 2014 as part of their attack on workers’ rights. In their consultation, 83% of respondents said it was wrong to remove this important mechanism for workers to unmask and tackle discrimination—83%—yet the Conservative party when in government, aided and abetted by some of their erstwhile friends, ploughed ahead in any event.

I tabled new clause 6 because this is an important opportunity for our new Labour Government to right the wrong done by that Conservative-led Government and reinstate a very important advance made in the last Labour Government’s Equality Act. I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister’s response. If he will not accept this amendment to the Bill, I invite him to come forward with a proposal to reintroduce statutory discrimination questionnaires as soon as possible. They made a real difference. They helped to stop some claims going to tribunal that should not have gone to tribunal, but, more importantly, they empowered workers to smoke out discrimination in their workplaces not only for their benefit, but for the benefit of their colleagues in that workplace and for the benefit of wider society. We need that now in 2025, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

A great many very important employment-related issues are being discussed, but I rise in support of new clause 16. As it stands, self-employed people are not entitled to statutory adoption pay, which creates a substantial economic barrier for prospective adopters. Without this support, the selfless act of adoption is being made harder. New clause 16 would fix that.

A constituent of mine, Kirsty, is a self-employed mother who discovered this significant gap in the financial support system while exploring the possibility of adoption. Kirsty and her husband have a son, Charlie, who is a bright-eyed four-year-old with an unshakeable love of trains. He often talked about how much he wanted a little sibling to be his assistant train driver, and after a year of trying to conceive a second child, Kirsty and her family decided that opening their hearts and their home to a child through adoption was the best option. However, one of Kirsty’s close friends—also self-employed and in the process of adopting—informed her that she was not entitled to the same financial support through statutory adoption pay, throwing her plans into doubt.

Unlike biological parents, who qualify for maternity allowance, or employed adopters, who are eligible for statutory adoption pay, self-employed adopters such as Kirsty fall into a financial support void. While statutory guidance allows local authorities to make discretionary means-tested payments equivalent to these allowances for the self-employed, such support is not guaranteed, and local authorities have no legal duty to provide it. In fact, a freedom of information request by the charity Home for Good has revealed that 34% of local authorities lack any policy for providing this financial support. Even worse, 90% of self-employed adopters, when they were surveyed by the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence back in 2022, reported that their social worker never advised them about these discretionary payments and the possibility of receiving them.

Adoption provides children with the opportunity to thrive in a permanent, loving home, often completing a family, as I have had the great pleasure of seeing for myself in my role as a proud adopted auntie. I am confident in my belief that Members across the House will agree that self-employed people are no less suited to adopt than anyone else. Despite the increase in the number of children in care, the number of adoptions in the UK has halved since its peak in 2015, and this is completely unsustainable. The enormous and growing pressures that face our foster care system will only worsen if the number of adoptions continues to decrease.

As of December 2024, there are 4.39 million self-employed people across the UK. If we began removing the financial barriers and empowering those who are self-employed through guaranteed financial support for adoption, we could begin to reverse the worrying trends in the number of adoptions. That would allow willing adopters such as Kirsty and her husband to be financially able to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

My constituent Kirsty is self-employed and is looking to adopt a child, but she does not qualify for adoption leave or adoption pay and, because she is not having her child biologically, she does not qualify for maternity allowance. Would the Government support changing that, whether through the Employment Rights Bill or otherwise, so that brilliant future parents are not put off from adopting because they cannot afford it?

[Justin Madders]

That is an interesting question. There is a great interplay with rights for self-employed people. We are committing to a review on that in due course, together with a wider look at the parental leave system. We will get back to the hon. Lady on that.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) very much for leading this important debate; I agree with a great deal of what he said. I also thank the many petitioners who raised the issue. As the MP for Hazel Grove, I was not surprised to see that my constituency has one of the highest numbers of signatures. That highlights the strength of feeling among my neighbours.

Fireworks are among the most common topics that my constituents get in touch with me about; that was the case before I was elected in July, when I was a local councillor, and has been since. I also care about the issue because I am the owner of a mischievous rescue dog, Bonnie, who is absolutely terrified of fireworks—both the lights and, particularly, the noise—so the period between the end of October and the new year is always particularly upsetting for her.

We all vaguely know when to expect the beginning of the firework season, but these days fireworks do not seem to stop. Many displays seem to occur outside the typical season, and it is the same for kids enjoying themselves on the estate behind my house. Across the autumn and beyond, there is little I can do to prevent the enormous distress that Bonnie goes through each year. Every time she hears the opening whizzes or bangs, she throws herself around the room or across the garden, barking furiously and absolutely terrified. There is only so long that we can keep her inside with the blinds closed, with drum and bass blasting out to block out the noise. The call of nature calls her outside from time to time, and then she is back to being terrified again. I am sure that experience will resonate with the tens of millions of people across the UK who have animals in their homes.

The impact of fireworks is felt not only by pets and their owners but by all the wildlife across the UK, as well as the many people who have conditions such as PTSD or sensitivity to unexpected noises. We should not have to expect or accept regular and continuous fireworks displays for many weeks of every year. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley rightly pointed out the difficulties in enforcing the existing regulations.

I am a Liberal, and I do not think we should ban things just because I find them annoying, but I do think that when my actions harm someone else and my freedoms bump into someone else’s, we should look at whether we have the balance right. In the majority of states and territories in Australia, it is illegal for members of the public to possess and use fireworks. In the few regions that permit public use, they are limited to a small number of very specific holidays. In other states, they are carried out only by trained and licensed pyrotechnicians or those they have approved and instructed.

We must balance the cultural significance and recreational value of fireworks displays on special holidays with the safety and welfare of people, pets and wildlife. If we adopt Australian-style legislation, local authorities would be able to manage their own fireworks calendars and prevent the continuous barrage of fireworks that we regularly face in the last few months of every year.

The petitions are a mandate from our constituents to act. We need to do more to protect our friends, families, pets and wildlife from the harmful effects of fireworks. I urge the Government to take action to reduce the detrimental impact of fireworks across our communities and to adopt similar legislation to that which we see elsewhere. On behalf of my many constituents who signed the two petitions, and particularly on behalf of my mischievous and pyrophobic rescue dog Bonnie, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these issues today.

Stellantis Luton

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Let me be clear: we worked constructively on the ZEV mandate that the previous Conservative Government put forward. I believe in incentives towards the transition. I am not arguing against that—I reacted to the sheer brass neck of those on the Opposition Front Bench, who somehow did not even recognise that it was their policy that we were willing to change, and presented the argument as if it was the other way round. I will be robust in saying that the facts are as they are when those on the Opposition Front Bench are not willing to accept them.

We want this transition to work. This is not about the destination or even the thresholds; this is about the flexibilities, how the policy operates, and what that means for market conditions in the United Kingdom. That is an entirely reasonable and proper response to what we found walking through the door as a new Government, and I see no reason why people cannot pragmatically get on board and support that.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

One thing stopping some of my constituents from transitioning to electric vehicles is a lack of access to charging points. As a constituency neighbour, the Secretary of State will know that some of the housing stock in my patch lends itself more easily to personalised charging points than other parts. What more can the Government do to ensure that everyone can access charging points to make the transition to EVs?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I agree that that is one concern that consumers have. The principal concern for consumers on EV take-up is the cost of the vehicle. The hon. Member will know from our constituencies that in some places, it is difficult to envisage the kind of infrastructure that people take for granted in areas that have more capacity to have it built into properties and driveways. There are about 70,000 public EV chargers in the United Kingdom, and there is not always equity across different parts of the country. A lot of people are surprised to learn that we have more public chargers than Norway, for instance, which is very much the leader in electric vehicle roll-out. There was money in the Budget to expand the roll-out of charge points and build on the 70,000 already in place, but the hon. Member is right to say that that is a key concern. We must consider not just the overall number of charging points, but the equity of those around the country, and I promise that the Department for Transport is interested in that.

Future of the Post Office

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I can assure my hon. Friend that I will happily come back to visit his constituency when the banking hub there has a permanent home. I would be delighted to.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Post offices offer more than the sum of their parts, and their loss is felt keenly when branches close, as two have done recently in my constituency, on High Lane and on the Fiveways Parade in Hazel Grove. In both cases, the postmasters felt no longer able to continue in the role, at least in part for commercial reasons. Will the Government take this opportunity to look at strengthening the role of post offices, so that they offer even more local services, and at opening up new funding opportunities to keep these vital services in our communities?

[Gareth Thomas]

The situation the hon. Lady describes is exactly why I welcome the fact that the new management of the Post Office is putting the issue of sub-postmaster pay front and centre in its thinking. If we do not do something to shift sub-postmaster pay upwards, we will see more sub-postmasters making the sorts of decisions that she describes. We must do something urgently to address this. The Post Office management and chair are rightly homing in on that question as fundamental to the future of the Post Office. As I have underlined, I think there is more that the Post Office could do on banking; that view is certainly shared by the Post Office senior management team, and we are working directly with them to see what more can be done.