Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Lisa Smart Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats believe that people should be paid fairly to do a job, and that it should not be only the wealthy who can afford to be a Minister.

Ministers will face enormous demands on their time, for there is much to be done, and the Government should prioritise finding talent across both Houses to fill these positions. We recognise the importance of having a well-rounded and efficient Government, but expanding the ministerial payroll is only justifiable if it comes with transparency, accountability and a genuine commitment to public service.

When the previous Conservative Government—or maybe it was the one before that, or the one before that —were in power, we witnessed a merry-go-round of Ministers. We had the shortest serving Prime Minister ever, endless Cabinet reshuffles and a revolving door of Secretaries of State that left Departments directionless and policy in a constant state of flux.

Instead of everyone being famous for five minutes, almost every Conservative MP in the last Parliament was a Minister for 15 minutes. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that Ministers who hold office for only a few days or weeks should not be entitled to handsome severance payouts. Under the chaos of the last Government, we witnessed severance payments to Ministers who had been in post for under a week. That is an insult to the taxpayer, and this Government must ensure that such practices are consigned to history.

In recent months, we have seen that those we should be able to trust in positions of government do not always have our best interests at heart, from Mandelson’s dismissal and the sharing of confidential information to a former Cabinet Office Minister being implicated in efforts to discredit journalists. Those scandals have led to further corrosion in public trust, which we should be doing everything in our power to rebuild. Last year, YouGov found that only 4% of people feel that politicians are doing what is best for the country, while 67% feel that politicians act out of self-interest. Our political system is under enormous strain, and public outrage at the numerous instances of corruption, lawbreaking or just poor judgment is a gift to those at the political extremes. Meek promises to tweak some processes are not enough.

With this legislation, the Government are adding an estimated £600,000 to £850,000 a year to the cost to the taxpayer. If the Government are demanding that amount of taxpayers’ money each year to pay for these additional salaries, they should be able to provide a guarantee that the public are getting full value for that money. The Government should commit that none of the newly salaried Ministers or any Minister drawing a taxpayer-funded salary will be permitted to hold a second or third job. If the Government are expanding the payroll to fit the size of the Government that they need, there is no excuse for those Ministers to be dividing their time with outside employment.

That being said, the work that Ministers do should be recognised. The Government have 120 Ministers, of which two in the House of Commons and nine in the other place are unpaid. Expanding the ministerial payroll must come with greater accountability, not less. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to enshrine the ministerial code in law so that the standards we expect of those in office are not merely guidelines to be ignored at will, but legal obligations with real consequences.

We also call for the ethics adviser to be made truly independent. They should be empowered to initiate their own investigations, determine breaches and publish findings without interference from the very Prime Minister they are supposed to hold to account.

This Bill does not tell us very much new about what responsibilities the additional Ministers will take on. Before we nod through this additional taxpayer expenditure, I would welcome an assurance and a clear explanation from the Minister on what the roles will be and why they are needed. Transparency when signing over this amount of money should be an expectation, not a request.

This Government and their predecessors talk of devolution—something that we Liberal Democrats strongly support. We believe that the best decisions are those made closest to the people they impact, and this Government have taken some steps to devolve power and funding closer to the communities we all represent. They have not necessarily done it in the way that we Lib Dems would have done it, but we acknowledge that they have made some progress.

In his closing remarks, will the Minister comment on how he sees the number of Ministers changing over time? If the number of decisions taken locally or in the regions and the amount of power in those regions increases, does that mean that he expects the number of Ministers needed at a national level to decrease? Liberal Democrats will support measures that make Government work better, but we feel that this Bill expanding the ministerial payroll is a missed opportunity to strengthen ministerial accountability or do anything truly meaningful to rebuild the public trust that has been so badly damaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

The number of Ministers in the current Government is virtually the same as it was in the previous Government. I think actually it is one lower than the previous Government. The intention of this Bill—this speaks to a point raised by a couple of Members—is not at all to increase the number of Ministers or the size of Government; it is simply to rectify the anomaly of unpaid Ministers in the other place. The right hon. Gentleman served in several Governments of this size over the past 10 years, and he asked why this Bill should come forward at this time. One answer to “Why now?” is that the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords proposed it in an amendment. It was put forward by the Conservative side. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that was wrong. That is one of the reasons this has come forward, and it is one of the reasons for addressing the inequality with which we are dealing.

Let me refer to a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). The Bill will allow, but will not require, one additional salary at Secretary of State rank. It is for the Prime Minister to decide whether or not it goes to a Secretary of State; Parliamentary Under-Secretaries can be rewarded as well, as can Ministers of State. The Bill also allows four additional salaries at Minister of State or Secretary of State level, and 11 additional salaries overall. As I have said, those limits are cumulative, which means that the Prime Minister has discretion to make the awards. There is no prior intention; it is about discretion.

Let me turn briefly to what the Bill does not do. As the Paymaster General said, it does not alter the salaries of Ministers, much to the disappointment of the former Deputy Prime Minister. They will remain frozen, as they have been since 2008. The Bill does not necessarily create additional ministerial roles; this is a point that was raised. Indeed, it simply reflects the average number of roles since 2010. It does not alter the maximum number of paid Commons Ministers, which remains at 95—it effectively reserves 25 places for Lords Ministers—and, of course, it does not affect MPs’ pay, which is rightly entirely independent of this House. All that the Bill will do is increase the maximum number of salaried Ministers, so that it is in line with the average number of Ministers over the last few Parliaments. As I have said, the size of the Government remains unchanged, and the Government have no intention of increasing it. The purpose is merely to allow higher numbers to be paid, and to remove that inequity.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) raised the issue of the amount of minimum service for severance pay. The Government have already addressed that by introducing a power requiring a Minister to serve for six months before any severance payment can be made, thus removing some of the absurdities under the last Government, which she rightly pointed to. People were being paid for a day, or in some cases a few hours, in the job. She also raised the matter of second jobs. I remind her that the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to address that, and to ensure that second jobs are permitted only in particular circumstances—for doctors, for instance. The Modernisation Committee is dealing with that issue. I am keen for it to be addressed as quickly as possible, but it will come back to the House.

The hon. Lady mentioned the ethics adviser. Let me emphasise again that at the beginning of this Government, the Prime Minister made changes; there was an increase in the role and the independence of the independent advisers, so that they are truly independent—we have seen that they are, on several occasions—and the ethics adviser can now initiate his own inquiries. That is an important point. The hon. Lady also asked what roles the new salaried Ministers would fulfil. As I have said, that is a matter for the Prime Minister, and we have no intention of changing that.

[Lisa Smart]

The Minister of course will know that the Prime Minister is responsible for the contents of the ministerial code. While the ethics adviser can launch an investigation, the Prime Minister reserves the right to raise concerns about any such investigation, so that the independent adviser does not proceed. Have I understood that correctly?

Member Defections: Automatic By-elections

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am loath to say that I am delighted to have you in the Chair, Sir Roger, because I feel we are all missing out on a good hour’s worth of content with you there rather than here, but it really is a pleasure to serve under you.

Since the 2024 general election, we have seen the start of a slow procession of former Conservative Ministers and Members of Parliament moving to Reform UK. These are people who spent years in government and claimed they were there to make a difference—and they did leave a difference behind them, but that difference was far too many crumbling public services, a cost of living crisis and a legacy of broken promises. Rather than accepting responsibility for their actions, they have crossed the Floor for a new start, making no attempt to rebuild the public trust they broke.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) alluded to a pattern of very large concentrations of signatures making their way on to this petition—one of politicians prioritising their own political future over the parties their constituents voted for. I understand why some voters feel betrayed and that their MPs are not moving to another party from a principled stance. These MPs clearly feel they are fleeing a sinking ship and are hoping that voters are too distracted to notice. But their constituents have noticed, with almost 130,000 people signing the petition that has resulted in this debate, including more than 200 in my Hazel Grove constituency. I understand people’s frustrations, especially as many of the constituencies that had the highest numbers of signatures were those whose MPs had defected. They feel, rightly, that something has been taken from them. For that reason, some feel betrayed.

Most voters will not have read the full manifestos of all the candidates standing for election, but I can see why people would be unhappy, particularly when their MP joins a party that does not align with their views and values or whom they thought they had voted for. We are talking about a party whose former Welsh leader was imprisoned for a bribery conviction related to Russian connections, a party filled with swivel-eyed Trump supporters, a party that platformed a vaccine conspiracy theorist at its most recent party conference—it is hardly surprising that people do not feel their values are reflected in Reform UK.

However, our electoral system means that people vote for an individual to represent their area, not directly for a party. Our system is not set up automatically to call a by-election whenever an MP defects or is removed from a political party, or indeed when a party of government moves firmly away from a manifesto commitment. Nevertheless, the disillusionment that voters are experiencing points to something larger—a fundamental problem with how our democratic system currently works.

The Liberal Democrats believe that our political system needs fundamental change to restore the trust that voters have lost. First, we need to change the way we elect our MPs.

[Robbie Moore]

Before the hon. Member gets on to how we should change the whole system, I am keen to understand the Liberal Democrats’ view on the petition specifically. Should a defection trigger a by-election?

[Lisa Smart]

No. The Liberal Democrat position is that elections should happen on a regular basis. We would re-implement the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, because we think it is healthy for people to know how long they are electing somebody for, rather than leaving the power in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day. I believe very firmly that the ultimate power should sit with voters rather than politicians, and that voters should know how long the term is. They should be able to boot people out at the next election, rather than having a special election that costs money and that may end up with the same result, but may not. We do not agree with the petition. However, we believe very strongly in people’s right to express their views through a petition.

We need to change the system and the way we elect our MPs. Under our current system, a Government can win roughly two thirds of the seats on roughly one third of the votes. Millions of people are represented by someone they did not vote for. Seats bear almost no relation to votes cast, and far too many people feel forced to vote for the person they dislike the least just to stop the candidate they really do not want to be elected. Proportional representation would change that. The Liberal Democrats have been advocating for a change in our electoral system for a long time. We already use proportional systems in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The vast majority of democracies worldwide use them.

[John Lamont]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lisa Smart]

If it is on the subject of PR, I will happily give way.

[John Lamont]

It is. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that we have had that debate in the UK? Part of Nick Clegg and David Cameron’s coalition agreement was a referendum on the alternative vote, and the British people rejected it in very large numbers.

[Lisa Smart]

I could not be more delighted to go into details about different voting systems. The hon. Gentleman will know that AV is a preferential system, not a proportional one. I am talking about proportional representation. AV would have been a better system than first past the post, but a proportionate system would be even better. It has long been in the Liberal Democrat manifesto that that would mean fairer representation and more people having their say.

[Graham Stringer]

I am sure that everybody in this room is familiar with the arguments for and against PR. In moving the motion, the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) gave a very balanced speech. There was only one thing that I thought was unbalanced: the argument that somehow there would be less tactical voting in a PR system. A PR system is actually set up and designed for tactical voting. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) gave an opinion on that.

[Lisa Smart]

Many people, when talking about tactical voting, mean voting to stop somebody: a person has a preferred party or candidate, but lends their vote to somebody else to stop a third party they really do not want getting in. There are many different proportional systems—indeed, we have different systems in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—and I would happily debate many of them, but I think it would test the patience of this Chamber if I were to get further into the weeds about my favourites. I recommend the Liberal Democrats for Electoral Reform panel from the Liberal Democrat spring conference, where a number of us spent the weekend. I very much enjoyed being on that panel, which did get into the weeds. It might not be to everyone’s taste, but I assure hon. Members that it was a packed house with standing room only.

I will move on to the need to change and reform the House of Lords. It is simply indefensible that unelected peers continue to make laws for life in a modern democracy. The Liberal Democrats are committed to replacing it with a chamber that has a proper democratic mandate—one that reflects the country it serves, rather than the Prime Minister of the day. In a general election, the power sits with electors over who their MPs are. If they do not like something that their MP has done, they can choose somebody else at the next general election. Voters have precisely no power to do so with Members of the House of Lords. There are peers currently sitting in the House of Lords who have moved parties, and there is no mechanism to remove them for doing so.

Thirdly, the ministerial code must be enshrined in law. The fact that scandal after scandal has come out of previous Governments, and indeed this one, shows why there should be a set of legally enforceable expectations for Ministers and those in positions of power. Without that in law, we cannot guarantee that they will act with integrity, especially given that former Conservative Ministers are leaving the party rather than allowing themselves to be held to account. Right now, Ministers who act corruptly or behave improperly face, at worst, a quiet resignation and a comfortable future elsewhere. That is not accountability. Enshrining the ministerial code in legislation would mean that there are real consequences for those who abuse the public trust.

The recipient of a number of these defections is Reform UK, but it is not a party of insurgents challenging the establishment. It is more accurately described as a scrapyard for the very people who were the establishment and failed. Rather than accepting the public’s verdict on their failures in government, those politicians are seeking refuge in a party that wants to make us all less safe by dragging the UK out of the European convention on human rights, asking for payment for NHS services and platforming conspiracy theorists. Although by-elections for those who defect may not be mandated, the voters in those seats have the ultimate power—the power of their vote, come the next election—and I hope they will use it at every available opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Absolutely. There is a real challenge here, and I agree with the point that my hon. Friend made earlier. Leaving one political party in the House of Commons and joining a distinct grouping is one thing, but independence is a challenge, as I saw on local level when I was a councillor: some councillors were in the independent group, but there were also independent independents. The independent group had, in many ways, a political agenda, and started to work around that. If we were to bring in legislation, defining true independence could become quite challenging. Members may start to work together around certain political issues, and form a political direction, which would actually make them no different from any other small party in the House of Commons.

I am sympathetic to the point, and the challenges around situations that may lead an individual from being party aligned to going independent are varied, but although I agree with the principle, we are concerned with the practicality. On issues such as this, the Conservative party has always been a broad church, so I am sure my hon. Friend and I can agree to disagree today. I do not think that there is any question of his being called into our Whips Office straight after the debate; it would certainly be very unfair if he were.

That the voters choose an individual to be their sole representative is one of the greatest strengths of our constitution, ensuring a direct link between Members and their constituents. I take issue with the views of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on PR, which would break the link between local people and an individual. It would almost make this entire debate irrelevant. How would we have a by-election if someone defected? Would the entire country vote in the by-election, to make sure that it is truly proportionally representative? That would not work. I have always been a supporter of the first-past-the-post system, which I believe is the best way to get representation of the people in this country. We put this matter to the test in a referendum not that long ago, and people made their views very clear.

[Lisa Smart]

We have not discussed PR sufficiently this afternoon. Does the hon. Member accept that there are different voting systems of a proportionate nature, some of which retain the constituency link?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I absolutely accept that there are many different voting systems that one could employ. Those with a mix between a party list and a constituency list create a two-tier system. What if one of the individuals on the party list were to defect? How would that be resolved? It would create a system even more challenging than the one we already have, which has a direct link between local people and their representative in the House of Commons.

One of my concerns is that making the continuation of that representation conditional on membership of a political party might start to weaken that link, which is a strength of the first-past-the-post system, but there is also the question of how it would be dealt with under the varied systems that we have across the range of PR options. Making representation conditional in that way would reduce Members to delegates of their party rather than individuals chosen to represent all their constituents, regardless of who they voted for—a point that is hugely important to us all. As we have discussed, the threat of a by-election could be used to silence Members who feel compelled by their conscience to go against their party.

As I just underlined, that is where the challenge about how to legally define an independent comes in. I am very sympathetic to the point that those who go independent should not face a by-election, but those who move from one established party to another should. The danger is that introducing mandatory by-elections would encourage Members to favour loyalty to the party over serving the interests of their constituents, particularly if they believed that those two things were in conflict.

Of course, defection is only one means by which a Member can change their party allegiance. While the petition speaks only of defection to another party, there are other methods: resignation, the withdrawal of the Whip, parties’ restructuring and so on are all means by which a Member may choose no longer to represent the party for which they were originally elected. I am sure that no Member believes that every Liberal Democrat should have been forced to stand in a by-election when the Liberals and the Social Democrats merged.

This is not the first time that the House has considered the issue of Members changing political allegiance. Previous Governments and Parliaments have wrestled with how to reconcile the independence of Members with the expectations of modern party politics, and in each instance they concluded that the independence of Parliament and its Members should not be constrained through major constitutional change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

At the start of the debate, I suggested that we might make up for lack of quantity with quality, and I think we have delivered on that promise. I thank colleagues from across the Chamber for their most thoughtful, fascinating and wide-ranging contributions to the debate. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her interesting diversion into the many other ways in which we could help to restore faith in our democracy, such as a fairer voting system and House of Lords reform.

I echo the regret expressed by a number of colleagues that parliamentary procedure precludes the Chair from jumping into the conversation. I am sure that that would have been a most fascinating—

[Lisa Smart]

Hour.

Draft Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 General Committees

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. Steps to improve transparency around public procurement are, of course, welcome. The granting of the federated data platform contract to Palantir and the scandalous covid personal protective equipment contract under the previous Conservative Government have undermined confidence in public procurement in recent years. Members of the public, doctors and even whole NHS trusts are questioning the fairness of some NHS contracts, so steps to improve the transparency of the contracts, along with public procurement more broadly, must be welcomed.

We also welcome steps to modernise public procurement systems and to phase out legacy systems such as Contracts Finder in favour of a modern, unified platform. My reading of the regulations is that a Minister has to consent or be notified before an NHS body cancels a contract on national security grounds. Will the Minister set out what this specific change is trying to deliver and why now is the right time? Is it the Government’s understanding that there are any current contracts that are a national security concern? If so, will the Minister share with us which contracts? Or is this a change that stops trusts cancelling a given contract on the grounds of security?

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

It is not for me to speak on behalf of Peter Mandelson, but evidently he put himself forward for this role, which is how he ended up in the process in the first place. To the question of his appointment, as I have said to the House, the Prime Minister regrets his appointment and apologises for it, and had he known what the House now knows, he would never have appointed him in the first place.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

In his remarks, the Chief Secretary mentions policy and process weaknesses in our political system, and he is right to do so, but surely the real failure is that of the Prime Minister’s judgment. He also talks about the depth of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein not being known, but Mandelson’s character was, and it was known for a long time. There was a long-standing interview exercise when somebody was applying to be a press officer for the Liberal Democrats. They were told: “Peter Mandelson has resigned in disgrace again. Draft the press release.” It is difficult to legislate out poor judgment, but the Chief Secretary has talked about legislating for policy and process weaknesses. When does he plan to bring forward this legislation?

[Darren Jones]

A number of changes can be made without legislation, and I will be able to update the House on that in due course. That will of course be quicker to implement as a consequence of its not requiring statute. Where we specifically need statutory changes, which I think at this stage will predominantly relate to the removal of peerages from those who bring the other place into disrepute, we will bring those forward in the coming months.

Digital ID: Public Consultation

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let us be clear about why we are here. Following collapsing public support, strong opposition from the Liberal Democrats, a petition signed by nearly 3 million people—including over 5,000 of my constituents—and significant unease expressed by Labour MPs, the Government had no choice but to step back from a mandatory scheme. But in the spirit of being a constructive Liberal Opposition, we have some suggestions for the Government if they want this scheme to have any level of public support whatsoever.

First, any digital ID scheme must never be mandatory. People should not be forced to turn over their data simply to go about their daily lives. We cannot and should not turn people into criminals just because someone is unable or unwilling to obtain one. Any scheme must genuinely assure privacy, with very clear legal limits and strong technical protections to prevent misuse or surveillance. Individuals must retain ownership and control of their own data. The data must not be reused, sold or accessed beyond its original purpose.

The Government should also give assurance on the decentralisation of any register. A single point of failure puts the personal details of millions at risk, which is unacceptable. Any scheme must also have a clearly defined purpose set out in law. We could not support a system that extends into different parts of our lives over time, without clear and unequivocal democratic approval.

Robust safeguards are vital. Yes, it is about what this Government want to do, but it is also about what a potential future Government may wish to do with the power such a scheme would present. Can the Chief Secretary confirm that a digital ID scheme will never be mandatory, either for employment or to secure a home in the UK?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues for their engagement with the Government on this issue; we look forward to continuing to work with them on this. The good news is that on each of the principles she sets out, the Government agree wholeheartedly. I hope that means we will get the support of the Liberal Democrats, and we look forward to delivering these great reforms to public services together for the public.

Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 General Committees

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair this evening, Sir Desmond. While the Liberal Democrats welcome the overarching free trade agreement and are in favour of opening up trade in the face of Trump’s trade wars, we believe that the agreement between the UK and India could have gone further in a number of areas, in particular with respect to services.

During a speech in a debate on the free trade agreement, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) argued that its economic benefit is small—only 0.13% of GDP by 2040—compared with the estimated economic impact of Brexit, which some say is 6% to 8% of GDP. As much as some of us might enjoy it, I do not propose to relitigate our leaving the European Union via the First Delegated Legislation Committee this evening, but my hon. Friend made the point that the EU secured better tariff access to India—96.6% compared with the UK’s 92%—which suggests that larger trading blocs have greater negotiating power.

Importantly, my hon. Friend raised concerns that India exports petrochemicals refined from Russian oil to the UK, exploiting a sanctions loophole. The EU has already closed that loophole, but the UK has not yet done so. Could the Minister provide an update on that situation and, if the loophole permitting the export of Russian-derived products remains in place, say when it will be closed?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The creation of the Government post of special representative for trade and investment, and the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor to that post, raises deeply alarming questions about how previous Governments treated powerful men who abuse their positions. Liberal Democrat Members are proud to have secured the release of all relevant files around that appointment. The Government have told us repeatedly that they support such transparency, so will the Minister set out what deadline has been set for the files to be assembled in accordance with the Humble Address, in order that they be released as soon as police investigations allow, and will he confirm the number of civil servants the Government have allocated to that task?

[Darren Jones]

The Humble Address that was put before the House by the Liberal Democrats is being managed by the Department for Business and Trade, as the appointing Department for the previous role of the special representative for trade and investment. The Cabinet Office and the Cabinet Secretary will be working with the Department to bring forward those documents as soon as possible. I am afraid I do not have to hand the number of officials who are working specifically on Humble Addresses, but it is a significantly higher number than it was a few weeks ago.

[Lisa Smart]

Government Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have repeatedly told the House that Lord Mandelson should lose his peerage, yet weeks on, no concrete steps forward can be seen. No legislation has been brought forward, and even in the face of the appalling allegations, Mandelson appears safe from being thrown out for a breach of the Lords code of conduct. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister recognise how preposterous it is that that unelected figure has still not been removed, and how impotent it makes the Government look? Does he recognise that what we need is not just to throw out one disgraced peer, or to tinker by abolishing hereditary peers, but root and branch reform of our entire second Chamber, including finally making it democratic?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member is right that we need to bring forward rules that allow provisions to apply to all and any peers who need to be removed from the other place for particular reasons. That is why the Government have not brought forward a specific piece of legislation in respect of Lord Mandelson, but are in the process of constructing a Bill that will be able to deal with these cases in the round, and I look forward to bringing that Bill to the House shortly.

China: Foreign Interference Arrests

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the statement, even if at this stage he is rather limited in what he can say. He is entirely right to say that we must continue to allow the police to do their job and to do it well. We remain grateful to all those who are working to keep our country safe, both here in the UK and abroad. It is essential we defend our country and our democracy, including through a robust response by counter-terrorist police.

The arrests this morning highlight the continued reach of foreign interference in the UK, whether it involves spying in its raw sense or the pervasive and persuasive influence of foreign money in our politics. The Government could be doing more to put an end to the clout of foreign money in our democracy, and there is an opportunity to limit the influence of foreign money through the Representation of the People Bill, but as Spotlight on Corruption has made clear, the provisions in the Bill as it stands—looking at company revenue rather than profit—can be easily exploited and far too easily gamed to allow foreign money in. This must stop.

The Security Minister mentioned the foreign influence registration scheme in his statement, but he was unable, not for the first time, to mention any plans to add China to the enhanced tier. How many times must we all come to this House to hear a report of further rounds of arrests under counter-terrorism legislation before this Government take this action? Do the Government plan to review their decision to allow the building of the Chinese mega-embassy, and will they go further to stop foreign money being funnelled into our democracy, including through an absolute donation cap and a ban on those who have worked for foreign regimes from making any donations at all?

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me take this opportunity—on behalf, I am sure, of all Members in this House—to thank those whose vital work keeps our country safe. They are the best of us, and our national security is underpinned by their endeavours. The hon. Lady makes several important points. She is right to raise concerns about foreign money in our politics. The Government take these concerns incredibly seriously. That is precisely why we have commissioned Philip Rycroft to conduct an independent review into this issue at pace. She might be aware that we debated these matters in Westminster Hall just a couple of weeks ago, when I encouraged her colleague, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), to make formal representations to Mr Rycroft. I am grateful for her confirmation that they have done so. That is very much appreciated, because this is an important body of work that will provide recommendations to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and myself in the next couple of weeks, in time to inform the Representation of the People Bill. This is a timely piece of work and a good opportunity to ensure that that Bill provides the protections that we—I think, collectively—want it to.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) mentioned FIRS, and I understand why. FIRS is a useful tool, but it is still a new tool and we are working to ensure that it provides the maximum operational capability. We are looking carefully at how we can use it to best effect. She also mentioned the embassy; again, I understand why she did so. She knows the Government’s position with regard to the embassy. Again, I am a bit limited in what I can say about that because of ongoing legal proceedings, but I refer her to the remarks that I have made previously. There is a strong national security case for the embassy. She will have noted the letter that was sent to the Government from the directors general of MI5 and GCHQ, and I am confident that this is the right thing to be doing.

Standards in Public Life

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We must remember that we are having this debate today because of the courage of the women and girls who spoke out against Jeffrey Epstein and those connected to him. Their bravery has forced us to confront uncomfortable truths about power, accountability and the standards we must demand from those in public life.

There are many questions swirling around this place about judgment, and rightly so. While poor judgment cannot be legislated out, a better system can be put in place that leaves as little to chance as possible, but successive Governments have failed to do that. From partygate to ministerial code breaches that went unpunished, we have witnessed a systematic deterioration of standards, and the current system is broken.

The ministerial code lacks legal force. We need structural reform, and I welcome some of the measures that the Minister has mentioned in his remarks today, including the ability to boot out peers whose behaviour falls below the standard we should all expect. The ministerial code must be enshrined in law, with genuine sanctions for breaches. The ministerial code must extend beyond its current parameters to include senior public servants such as ambassadors, and we agree that vetting standards must also be made tougher and should include trade envoys like Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

We must ban those who have served in any capacity for a current foreign Administration from donating to political parties, think-tanks or campaign organisations. We must end government by WhatsApp. All ministerial instant messaging conversations involving Government business must be placed on the departmental record. They should be published quarterly, alongside emails, letters and phone calls, to ensure greater transparency. We should also protect whistleblowers through a new office of the whistleblower, with legal protections and criminal sanctions on Ministers who fail to report wrongdoing.

Just this morning, I met the lively and engaged year 12 students from Hazel Grove high school. When the next election rolls around, they will all be able to vote. They deserve better than this broken system, and we should all be working hard to restore the public’s trust in politics.

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. I think we can all agree that we need not just effective rules but effective enforcement for people who break those rules. These issues have highlighted the fact that there is more work to do, and I look forward, as do the Government, to working on a cross-party basis to make sure that, as she said, we bring justice for victims who are affected by the abuse of power.

Lord Mandelson

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

We are having this debate today solely because of the women and girls who found the courage to come forward and speak about the abuse they had endured over years at the hands of rich and powerful men. Without these women’s bravery in speaking up about their experiences at the hands of a paedophile sex trafficker and his friends, none of these shocking revelations would have come out. We owe these women justice, and we owe it to them to make changes to create a system that works.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is right: victims should be at the heart of this process. The allegations against someone who the Prime Minister and Ministers put full trust in are also absolutely shocking.

Jeffrey Epstein was a sick child predator and a sex offender. He visited Hillsborough castle on at least one occasion. Does the hon. Member agree that this House and the Government should have a full review of his activities while there, and an audit of his visitors during that time? The victims deserve answers.

[Lisa Smart]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of some of the individuals we are talking about today. We will be supporting the Leader of the Opposition’s motion to request the information that is sought. The Liberal Democrats would go further, looking to a public inquiry in order to get to the detail that the victims deserve.

The revelations about Peter Mandelson’s conduct raise profoundly serious questions about judgment, national security and accountability. The leaked emails suggest that while serving as a Cabinet Minister, he shared sensitive Government information, sharing details about the 2008 financial crisis, market-sensitive bail-out measures and potential asset sales. These allegations point to potential misconduct in public office, aimed at helping those involved to enrich themselves. They certainly warrant the police investigation that was announced yesterday, but also reveal catastrophic failures in the systems meant to protect our national interest.

The emails highlight a fundamental lack of accountability that exists within our current system. The Prime Minister has rightly called Peter Mandelson’s conduct a betrayal, and has submitted material to the police and requested draft legislation on removing peerages. These responses are necessary, but it has taken the Government far too long to get to this position. Mandelson was appointed ambassador to the United States by this Government and this Prime Minister even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by the Financial Times and “Channel 4 News”.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

In evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee after Mandelson had been withdrawn from Washington, the Cabinet Secretary said that a summary of the developed vetting and conflict of interest report was given to the Prime Minister prior to Mandelson’s appointment, and the Prime Minister appeared to confirm that at the Dispatch Box earlier. The Government and the Prime Minister have repeatedly said that it was the extent of the relationship that somehow altered the appropriateness of his appointment. What message does my hon. Friend think it sends to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and to the many victims of rape, paedophilia, sexual assault or sex trafficking, that anyone with a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein should be deemed appropriate to be our representative in Washington?

[Lisa Smart]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I am not sure what extent of friendship with a known, convicted sex trafficker is appropriate for somebody who is to be put in our most senior diplomatic position. In 2019, Channel 4’s “Dispatches” interviewed a witness who saw Epstein, while he was in prison for child sex trafficking, take a phone call from Mandelson. Mandelson asked for a favour—to meet the then chief executive officer of J.P. Morgan. All this information was in the public domain.

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Lady’s point is exactly right: this information was in the public domain, often in the US. One of the questions that the Government have not answered is whether the US was asked if there were any concerns. This relationship was public—we knew that it existed—so was the US asked for any information, or about any concerns it had? I have not heard the Government explain that point; has the hon. Lady?

[Lisa Smart]

I am sure that I have been listening as intently as the hon. Gentleman. There are so many questions that it is right for the Government to answer, and we believe that a public inquiry, after any police investigation has concluded, is the way to get to the bottom of them. There are questions swirling around about which advisers said what, when, but the decision to hire Mandelson was ultimately the Prime Minister’s, and he must be held responsible for that.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The Minister said that Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were “unforgivable”. Does my hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister appointing said known paedophile was forgivable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I think my hon. Friend is referring to the appointment of the friend of a known paedophile, rather than the appointment of a paedophile.

[Mike Martin]

Thank you very much.

[Lisa Smart]

That is an important clarification to make. Rightly, there are questions surrounding the judgment displayed by the Prime Minister in appointing Peter Mandelson to the position of UK ambassador to the US. Those questions are wholly valid, as are the questions being asked about current Cabinet Ministers who also chose to maintain friendships with Mandelson—there are rumours of him popping in and out of some offices at will. I must say, I noted the facial expressions of some Government Front Benchers during Prime Minister’s questions earlier.

Of course, many questions were raised about Mandelson before his appointment. Questions were raised about him during the 2009 expenses scandal. He was forced to resign from Cabinet twice for unethical behaviour, and we understand that the security services raised serious concerns about his appointment last year, yet he was still appointed to one of our most sensitive diplomatic positions. This is not a case of one unforeseen problem; it is a pattern of warning signs that were ignored. This Labour Government promised to break with Conservative chaos, but instead we see the same failures—inadequate checks, reactive crisis management, and an inability to prevent obvious problems. You do not restore public trust with heartfelt apologies after things go wrong; you do it by having proper systems that stop scandals before they happen. Labour has failed to maintain public confidence, and it must do better.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Obviously, people here want to get to the bottom of this, in terms of the accountability of the Prime Minister and other elements in No. 10, and of course they want to get to the bottom of what Peter Mandelson has done. However, the public understand that this is not just about a number of rotten apples in the system—it is systemic. It is about those who have wealth, power and access, and how they treat young girls and women, and us, the public. They take us for mugs. Does the hon. Lady believe that this goes wider than just a few bad apples? It is systemic, and that is what needs to be addressed. That is what the public want.

[Lisa Smart]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether he has looked at my notes and read about the systemic changes that we Liberal Democrats would like. I agree with him that this goes far beyond a few bad apples. There are systemic failures in our country that we need to seize this opportunity to address.

Successive Administrations have failed to address fundamental weaknesses in our system of government that further threaten public confidence. I will do as the Father of the House urges and focus on how we make progress. We must make reforms to the ministerial code, as it is clearly not functioning. The code is a set of rules and principles, and acts as guidance for Ministers, rather than having a legal basis, so Ministers who breach it face no legal consequences. When breaches of the ministerial code are investigated, even by independent advisers, the Prime Minister can decide whether to listen or not, so “accountability” becomes almost meaningless. Will the Minister consider using this troubling episode in our national story as a catalyst for much-needed change and enshrine the ministerial code in law?

The Liberal Democrats believe that if we are to go some way towards restoring vital public trust in our democracy, we need to make fundamental reforms to this House and the other place. Members of the Government clearly share that sentiment, as we have heard various Ministers on the airwaves over the past couple of days saying that the Government recognise the urgent need to reform the Lords, and may bring proposals forward at pace. Can the Minister lay out further details of the Government’s plans to legislate, especially given growing concern about public trust in our democratic institutions and the integrity of this Parliament?

The Government hold a substantial majority in this House, and they can push through legislation rapidly, as we saw only last week with the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill. The same process could be used to make urgent changes to the other place. Ministers need to set out the legal mechanisms available for suspending or removing a peer, the timetable for any planned legislation, the progress of cross-party discussions that have been mentioned in the press, and how confidence in the upper Chamber will be restored. If there is no clarification, uncertainty risks further eroding public confidence in Parliament and our democratic institutions.

On the motion and the Government amendment, we Liberal Democrats firmly believe that transparency is vital. The very least that the Government can do is release the information requested, so we will support the motion, but we would go further. We do not even know the full extent of the British establishment’s involvement in Epstein’s appalling crimes, or how many British girls and young women were trafficked by him. We call for a full public inquiry, with the power to compel witnesses, both to get justice for the victims and to protect our national security.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

On the information available, does my hon. Friend share my discomfort about the fact that the situation became clear to us only after this mass release of information by the Department of Justice in the United States? While I understand the Government’s reluctance to release information that may well harm international affairs, that does not seem to be a concern for the US Government.

[Lisa Smart]

The best disinfectant is often daylight. I am strongly in favour of transparency; I welcome it, including about the information that is being requested today.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady’s point about the wider establishment is important. Individuals like Sir Richard Branson clearly offered to help Epstein launder his identity and reputation by suggesting public relations advice on how he might recover from his prosecution. We have gentlemen like Bill Gates, whose wife has bravely spoken out, saying that one of the reasons she left him was his links to Epstein. How do we make sure that such men, who continue to have extreme power, face some sort of justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Lady is entirely right to talk about the very well-known men—and it is men, wealthy, powerful, greedy men—who should be held accountable for their actions. We should all welcome the transparency that is being sought today. We should have in mind the victims and survivors, and the need to prevent young girls and women from becoming victims and survivors of similar crimes. We should do all we can to prevent that, and should take the responsibility that we have seriously.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) mentioned in Prime Minister’s questions, as did the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) at the Dispatch Box in this debate, that the Polish Government think that Epstein might have been spying for Putin. The British public and Epstein’s victims deserve to know whether a UK Cabinet Minister was leaking secrets to not only a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, but a Russian agent.

We Liberal Democrats recognise the vital importance of safeguarding national security, and we genuinely welcome the openness that the Minister displays about looking at using the ISC to get to the bottom of some of this. However, there are already safeguards to protect national security. Those include the National Security Act 2023, which restricts the disclosure of information where that would harm the safety or interests of the UK. By tabling their amendment, which uses international relations as a reason to keep secret the information that they have, the Government are trying to wriggle out of their obligation to tell the truth, and we will not support it.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The transparency point is really important. Peter Mandelson was a Labour politician and this is a Labour Government. It may be that Peter Mandelson was an isolated bad apple, and that no one knew anything about what he was doing until this document release last week, but the public will wonder, and they will question. If a Labour Government cover up things by being anything less than fully transparent, the public will wonder who they are covering up for, and why.

[Lisa Smart]

A series of Administrations have not been as open as they could be, and have made poor choices about the behaviour of some of their Members, which has ended up in scandal and disgrace. I completely agree, if the hon. Lady is making the point that public trust in our institutions and our Government is vital; we must all take that seriously. There is a sorry legacy of recent Governments who behaved less than impeccably in a number of ways. We strongly support using this whole sorry episode as a catalyst to bring about much-needed change.

[Dr Murrison]

The Prime Minister has said that it is all okay, because the Cabinet Secretary will command this review. Does the hon. Lady agree that while the Cabinet Secretary is a person of impeccable repute, he cannot be objective, because he has been involved in this matter? It is almost unfair to put this on him. What mechanism can the hon. Lady devise that will deal with that, other than giving the great bulk of this information, because international relations will cover the great bulk of it, to the ISC?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

The right hon. Gentleman has clearly been reading Liberal Democrat press releases, because we believe that a public inquiry would be a far more effective way of getting to the bottom of this matter. I am delighted that he made that point.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Member is making some excellent points. Does she agree that all the inquiry systems that have been discussed so far are influenced or participated in by people who have been within the golden circle of Peter Mandelson? Do we not need something novel and different, such as an independent, judge-led or judiciary-led inquiry that examines the whole thing in the round, similar perhaps to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war?

[Lisa Smart]

I am always delighted to get agreement from across the political spectrum, and I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman: an independent, judge-led inquiry would be the right way to go.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

On the shortcomings of what the Prime Minister proposed from the Dispatch Box earlier, the Cabinet Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee back in November:

“The only information which was not already in the public domain at the time is a reference to official records which have since been disclosed”.

We have obviously learned this week that was not the case, so the Cabinet Secretary is plainly not the right person to lead this Government investigation. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Lisa Smart]

My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. I believe that an inquiry in public, which could take evidence in camera, when appropriate for reasons of national security, would be the right way forward. I encourage the Minister to consider where we go from here.

Transparency must be prioritised over the potential embarrassment that any of these documents could cause. Surely Government Members must see that. The intentionally broad wording of the Government amendment would permit the Government to keep any correspondence hidden that they think might embarrass them or our allies—that means Trump and his cronies—or that might paint the Prime Minister somehow as weak. That is surely a relevant factor when considering international relations. It must not be allowed to do so, and we will be voting against the pretty shameless Government amendment.

There are rumours that Peter Mandelson is still receiving a salary, or payments from the UK Government, potentially including his ambassador’s salary severance pay and/or a pension from his time as a Minister. I would be grateful if, when winding up the debate, the Minister could confirm whether any of that is the case.

[Alicia Kearns]

Will the hon. Lady give way one more time?

[Lisa Smart]

I will give way one last time.

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 5 December, asking when Peter Mandelson’s pay had stopped, how much the severance pay was, and whether taxpayers have had to foot the bill for it. Although that was well over two months ago, I have received no response. How can we have any confidence that this investigation will be carried out properly when the Cabinet Secretary will not even answer basic questions about how Mandelson was paid and how much it cost us all?

[Lisa Smart]

I strongly agree with the hon. Lady. Transparency is what the public deserve, and it is what we in the House demand.

This whole sorry tale is about more than the failures, greed and corruption of one man, or even whole swathes of rich, powerful men who conspired to abuse their wealth and power over many years. It is about judgment, and also about a system that has long been not fit for purpose, and an establishment that wants to keep things just the way they are because that suits their needs. We should use this shocking situation to bring about the changes that our country needs, that trust in politics demands, and that those brave women who spoke out deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

The vetting procedure, as described by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, seemed so insubstantial. My hon. Friend is right: we have to do much better. I am recruiting a community engagement officer, and it struck me that we exercised more rigour in checking the background of that person, although I accept that I may not have understood the procedure that was described.

It is right that we have focused on Mandelson’s links with Epstein, but if Mandelson had not been mentioned in the data that was released at the weekend, perhaps we would have been speaking about Andrew Windsor and Sarah Ferguson today. They are, perhaps, the winners in that regard.

Earlier, I was guilty of saying that the arguments that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) presented showed that he had misread the room, but he was right in one respect. He was right to say that Mandelson was a traitor—and I hope that he meant not just a traitor to the United Kingdom, but a traitor to the survivors of Epstein’s sexual abuse—and, in fact, survivors of sexual abuse everywhere.

I think that the residents of Edinburgh South West, and everyone else, expect us to work together on this, and to reach consensus, and hopefully we can. I am still not sure whether the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and the Greens are on board, but I think we are moving much closer to one another. [Interruption.] My apologies. It seemed that they wanted to back the original Humble Address, rather than agreeing to the involvement of the ISC in the process; that was my understanding.

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to clarify. In my speech, I said explicitly, from the Lib Dem Front Bench, that I welcomed the Minister’s openness to the ISC being part of this process.

[Dr Arthur]

I am grateful for the correction. Perhaps I was not listening quite as carefully as I should have, so I really do thank the hon. Lady.

I end by thanking our Front Benchers for listening to the arguments of Members from right across the Chamber, for showing a bit of leadership, and for hopefully bringing us together with some consensus.