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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

We expect an EU reset Bill in the coming months to update the arrangements around our relationship with our European neighbours. Following the terrible Brexit deal delivered by the Conservatives and cheered on by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), which trashed our economy and our international standing, a reset is essential, and we welcome it. Does the Minister agree that Parliament should have the ability to fully scrutinise the legislation to ensure that the Government deliver the change that we need and that we can hold Ministers’ feet to the fire as they set up new structures or committees as needed? To that end, will he assure the House that the Bill will contain enough detail to allow meaningful democratic accountability and that the specifics will not be kicked into secondary legislation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Well, on the basis of my exchange with the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I thoroughly look forward to bringing the Bill to the Commons and debating it fully. I can assure the hon. Lady that what we will be debating is why the Government’s approach is good for jobs and how it will bear down on bills for consumers. Members should not just believe what I say, but look at what the supermarkets said about the deal that was struck last year. I will also welcome a debate about how we will reduce trade barriers and costs for businesses. It is the Conservatives who want to put red tape and costs back on businesses. Good luck to them with that argument.

[Lisa Smart]

Yesterday, the Trade Secretary was the latest senior Government figure to break ranks by saying that it would be “crazy” not to look at a customs union with the EU. That position is already supported by the Prime Minister’s economic adviser, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Health Secretary. Since leaving the EU, many businesses including those in my constituency have found it harder to trade with our neighbours, which is having an obvious impact on the economy. The Government have changed their mind on many things since the last election, having said that they definitely were not going to. Does the Minister accept that it would save us all a lot of time, be the single biggest lever that the Government could pull to generate growth, and give those on his own Benches something that they are crying out for if he just agreed to crack on and start negotiations for a bespoke customs union with the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

No, and the situation is not as the hon. Lady has described. The work that the Government are doing in building a closer EU-UK relationship is crucial, and we can do it alongside a trade deal with India and an economic deal with the United States that is saving jobs at Jaguar Land Rover. The Government’s position is in the national interest, and we will continue to pursue it.

Chinese Embassy

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the time his officials took to brief me earlier today.

The Government’s decision to approve plans for the Chinese mega-embassy represents far more than a planning matter. It shows that Ministers have learned very little from the evidence exposed in recent months of Chinese spying efforts to infiltrate British politics and this House. Throughout this stunted process, the Liberal Democrats have consistently called these plans out for what they are: a mistake. The Government know that the decision they have made today will further amplify China’s surveillance efforts here in the UK, endangering the security of our data. Planning conditions are meaningless without proper enforcement. Given the unprecedented security concerns surrounding this site, how will the Government ensure that planning conditions are rigorously monitored and enforced, particularly in regard to the underground cables that the current plans come dangerously close to?

No amount of planning conditions can address the fundamental problem. The embassy does not clean Chinese officials of their human rights abuses. It is shocking that China has placed bounties on the heads of democracy activists from Hong Kong who live in the UK. That type of interference and intimidation in our country is totally unacceptable, so in the light of this decision, will the Government include all Chinese officials, Hong Kong special administrative region officials and Chinese Communist party-linked organisations on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

Beyond the security and diplomatic concerns, there are fundamental questions about our democratic freedoms. The previous Conservative Government attacked our fundamental right to protest, and this Labour Government have continued to erode those freedoms. As a democratic society, we must protect the right to protest peacefully, including near embassies and including for Hongkongers living in the UK. Will the Government continue to guarantee the right to protest, even as this embassy moves ahead?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, not least because she came along in good faith this morning and attended the briefing at our invitation. I hope she found it helpful. I am acutely conscious that there are technical details that the House will understand I am not able to get into, and that is why we took the opportunity to brief the hon. Lady and other right hon. Members this morning. I am afraid that I do not agree with her analysis of our understanding of the threat. I referred earlier to the significant number of measures that we have taken in recent times to protect our national security.

The hon. Lady also asked me about the cables, so let me take this opportunity to update her and the House on that specific point. The allegations that have been much discussed in the media are not new to us or to the security agencies. Our intelligence services have scrutinised the plans, and an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect national security, including putting in place additional resilience measures to protect sensitive data—

Call for General Election

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Dr Huq. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair.

Across the country there is a clear and growing discontent, with many people expressing frustration over the way the country does—and, importantly, does not—work. Waiting times for doctors’ appointments are too long. Everything is so expensive, and more and more people feel like their income does not stretch to the end of the month. The social care reform we were promised will not arrive for at least three years, and new hospital projects will not be completed for decades. My own Stepping Hill hospital did not even make the list, despite its £138 million repairs backlog. Business owners talk of it being harder to take on and train new staff. Teachers report that they are not equipped to deliver the education our most vulnerable children need. And councils cannot stretch their budgets to do what most of us consider the basics—like filling the blooming potholes.

It is no wonder, then, that this widespread dissatisfaction is directed towards the current Government. Although they inherited various steaming piles of disaster from the previous, shambolic Conservative Government, Labour’s recent back-pedalling and flip-flopping is bound to test even their staunchest supporters.

[Josh Newbury]

The hon. Lady rightly refers to the steaming piles of rubbish that this Government were left, but many of us believe that the rot really set in in 2010, when the austerity programme was initiated with her party’s involvement. How many of those steaming piles of rubbish does she lay at her own party’s door?

[Lisa Smart]

No Government is perfect, but I am immensely proud—and will be to my dying day—that some of my friends in a same-sex relationship can get married, when they were not allowed to do so under the previous Labour Government. I am immensely proud—I say this as a school governor for 20 years—that the kids who need the most support get it through the pupil premium. And I am immensely proud, that that showed that a grown-up, consensual coalition Government can work. The hon. Member will know—I am sure he read Alistair Darling’s budgetary plans in the run-up to the 2010 election—that the then Labour Government planned to cut more than either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. So although I did not agree with everything the 2010 to 2015 Government did—no sane person possibly could—I am proud that we delivered what so many people wanted and needed. There is always work for every Government to do.

The million or so members of the public who signed this petition, including 1,987 of my Hazel Grove constituents, are calling for a change via a general election. They are feeling frustrated and disappointed that this Government have failed to deliver the change that they promised at the 2024 election.

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

In my constituency of Epsom and Ewell, more than 1,500 people have signed this petition; I hear regularly on the doorstep how disgruntled and frustrated they are. They are tired of working so hard and barely making ends meet. Although the Conservatives left a complete mess, Labour has simply not delivered either. People are not any feeling better off. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must grow the economy? A great way to do that would be to have a bespoke customs union with Europe.

[Lisa Smart]

I am delighted that I am not going to be the first Liberal Democrat to mention a bespoke customs union with the EU. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend on that point; it is the biggest single lever that the Government could pull to boost growth in our economy.

Recently, we have seen the Government U-turn—rightly, in some cases—including on the family farm tax, following 14 months of calls for change from farmers, the Lib Dems and others. That has been alongside U-turns on winter fuel and benefit reform, to name just two others. I understand why a million people are underwhelmed. The Government have introduced a growth-crushing jobs tax that has stretched their manifesto pledge not to raise income tax on working people. As a result, jobs are being lost, economic growth is flatlining and the Government are not showing a clear enough vision to get us out of this mess.

While the Government now increasingly acknowledge that Brexit has been detrimental to economic growth, they have failed to take sufficiently meaningful action to address that reality. The figures are stark. According to the House of Commons Library, as of 2025 Brexit is costing British tax payers £90 billion annually in lost tax revenue. That is billions of pounds not funding our public services. The Government must move beyond merely attributing blame on Brexit and begin implementing solutions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) mentioned, we Liberal Democrats are urging the Government to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union, which could raise more than £25 billion annually for the Exchequer. A customs union would be the most effective means of dismantling trade barriers and stimulating economic growth. We must be far more ambitious in securing the best possible arrangements for UK relations with the EU—our largest trading partner.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lisa Smart]

I give way to the Liberal Democrat Europe spokesperson.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful.

More than 1,800 of my constituents have signed the petition that has prompted today’s debate. It would be arrogant for me to assume that those people are necessarily indicating their support for an EU customs union, although it would be sensible if they did. But what I hear from them is that they are feeling worse off than they did yesterday and face the prospect that their children will be worse off tomorrow than they are today. They have signed this petition asking for an urgent general election.

The Government have to reconcile this point: unless they can deliver meaningful growth that people can actually feel, there may not be a general election tomorrow but they will be made to pay a high political price the next time one comes. What are they going to do to give the UK the massive dollop of economic growth that this country needs and our constituents need to feel?

[Lisa Smart]

My hon. Friend, as always, speaks powerfully on these issues and I agree with him wholeheartedly, as I often do. This Government are struggling and the official Opposition look increasingly like a mediocre turquoise tribute act. However, we face an even more dangerous threat to our country’s values and our future if the next general election delivers the results that the current polls suggest. There are political forces who, if left to their own devices, would move us closer to a model similar to that promoted by President Trump: one without a universal NHS, where patients face high insurance costs or are denied care altogether; one that relies on expensive fossil fuels and permits widespread fracking while climate change accelerates; and one where the Government can erode basic rights and freedoms by leaving the European convention on human rights.

We must be clear about what this political retirement home for disgraced ex-Ministers represents economically. Its fiscal proposals mirror the disastrous Truss mini-Budget, which its leader praised at the time. He now proposes to replicate it through massive, unfunded spending commitments supported only by vague promises of unrealistic savings. Perhaps even more troubling is the platforming of anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists and dangerous health misinformation. Shamefully, the leader of a UK political party has adopted Trump’s approach of refusing to push back against dangerous misinformation, including false claims regarding paracetamol use during pregnancy that risk leaving expectant mothers suffering unnecessarily. That is dangerous claptrap from those seeking to win the next general election.

The Liberal Democrats advocate a fundamentally different approach to how we should change our country, in ways that the voting public would welcome and that would leave a lasting legacy. We must fix social care if we want to stand any chance of having an NHS that we can continue to be proud of. We must focus on genuinely local community engagement rather than centralised, developer-led planning, to get the homes, including the social homes, that our communities need and our constituents deserve, with zero-carbon homes as standard for all new construction. We must reform our politics and democracy so that the public feel that their voices are heard and that more people get what they voted for.

I welcome the Government’s plans for the removal for life of hereditary peers from being able to make laws, and I will welcome the introduction of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in future general elections. But that all feels a bit too timid, and the moment demands more. One of the most regrettable impacts of the Government’s cancellation of local elections in some parts of England is that it gives succour to those who seek to stoke distrust in our democracy and divide our communities. Trust in our politics is vital, and we all need to take to steps to build it, not destroy it. Changing the way our politics works by capping donations to political parties, restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission to remove political interference in how electoral rules are enforced, and changing the way we elect our MPs are all suggestions I make constructively to the Minister.

Proportional representation ensures that seats broadly match votes, that every voter has a meaningful say, and that Governments represent the majority of the electorate. This Government got roughly one third of the votes in 2024; they were rewarded with roughly two thirds of the seats and almost all of the power. Evidence shows that PR leads to higher voter turnout, more representative Governments and more stable policy making. We already have PR in the UK, just not here in Westminster: it is already used in different forms in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as in the vast majority of democracies worldwide. It is surely reckless to maintain an electoral model that consistently produces such wildly disproportionate groups of MPs and leaves millions of voters feeling ignored.

[Lee Anderson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lisa Smart]

I would be utterly delighted.

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the hon. Lady. She talks about representation and proportionality in the country and in this place. Is she aware that Reform UK got 4.1 million votes in the last election, but got five MPs, and the Lib Dems got 3.6 or 3.7 million votes and got 71 or 72 MPs?

[Lisa Smart]

It was 72.

[Lee Anderson]

They got 72 MPs. Yet the Lib Dems are allowed on every single Select Committee and Bill Committee, but Reform UK is not. Is that fair?

[Lisa Smart]

I would be genuinely delighted to talk about the many and varied ways in which we could change this place that I am sure the hon. Gentleman and I would agree about. There is a chance that we agree, although I am not entirely sure whether we still do, about how we elect people to this place. People elect their MPs to come here and represent them, and that includes fair representation on Select Committees, and that should be proportionate. Given the total of 650 MPs, including five Reform MPs, there is a risk that we would end up with about 100 MPs on each Committee to maintain proportionality. I do not think that that is practicable or practical.

The hon. Gentleman and I would agree in many ways on how we should reform this place and change it for the better. The voting tonight is due to start soon; we are going to be going for many hours until late tonight, as I understand it. I suspect that he and I will feel similarly about that as a way to run a country. [Interruption.] Voting is a good thing, of which there should more, but I think that other democracies in other parts of the world have found a more effective and efficient way of doing it than voting at midnight by walking through a corridor for 15 minutes.

It is reckless to maintain an electoral model that so consistently produces such wildly disproportionate groups of MPs and leaves millions of voters feeling ignored. If those trends are allowed to continue, it is not difficult to see how turnout will fall further, results will become even more distorted and political instability will grow.

We can look at what has happened in actual ballot boxes since the last general election: in 2025, the Liberal Democrats won more councillors than Labour or the Conservatives for the first time, and won more local council by-elections than any other party. We Lib Dems look forward to May’s local elections and are well up for the next general election, whenever it is called. It is shaping up to be a battle to stop Trump’s UK fanboys from doing to our communities what their idol is doing to America.

I am a bit worried about what the future holds for our country, but I choose to be optimistic. The British people are bright, innovative, witty and sarky, and they will not put up with snake oil salesmen peddling conspiracy theories and division for very long. The people will let the Government, whoever they are, know that they are livid with them—not usually by rioting in the streets but by taking the mickey out of them, mercilessly. Long may that continue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Following threats from Donald Trump, earlier this week the Government announced that between £3 billion and £6 billion each year will be diverted from our NHS services into the pockets of pharmaceutical giants. The American Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said the agreement shows Trump’s

“courage and leadership in demanding these reforms”

and that he puts Americans first. That will give no comfort to my Hazel Grove constituents, who rightly value our NHS and want to see it thrive. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that we are more isolated from our European allies following Brexit, making us far too vulnerable to the threat of American tariffs? What will it take for the Government to rethink their red lines and protect the British people from further bullying from the White House, by agreeing a bespoke UK-EU customs union with our European neighbours?

[Darren Jones]

The agreement reached on pharmaceuticals is a win for the United Kingdom. We have an enormously important sector for pharmaceutical research and development and production in the United Kingdom, which exports many of its products to the American market, so to have agreed the tariff arrangements with the United States is a win for UK pharma and the people who work in it. I would just point to the fact that the UK’s relationship with the United States, thanks to our Prime Minister, has been one of the most productive relationships in the world in securing trade and security agreements both for the UK and to support our allies around the world.

[Lisa Smart]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s response. It may well be good for the pharma industry; my question was whether it is good for the NHS. Just four days ago, the Prime Minister said that the Brexit deal “significantly hurt our economy” and that we have to keep moving towards a closer relationship with the EU. I agree with the Prime Minister. A clear and welcome step for jobs and growth would be to create a bespoke customs union with the EU. The Liberal Democrats want to cut unnecessary red tape, support British businesses and deliver sustainable long-term economic growth. I am sure the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does, too. I agree with his earlier comment that what happens in this House matters, so will he at least agree not to block his colleagues on the Government Benches from backing the ten-minute rule Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) will move next Wednesday, which sets a path towards a bespoke EU-UK customs union—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Honestly, you cannot go on and on. In fairness, we have to limit the amount of time. I am sure the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has got at least three of the questions.

Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The seriousness of the threat that Beijing poses to our national security cannot be overstated. Any attempt by China to interfere in our democracy must be rooted out, and the Government should implement the recommendations of the Committee’s report as a matter of urgency. The work that the National Security Adviser and his deputy are doing is vital to keeping our country safe, but the report is damning, and it describes aspects of the situation as “shambolic”. The Minister has previously mentioned his plans for new powers to counter foreign interference, and I would be grateful if he could provide a timeline for their introduction.

Let me once again urge the Minister to place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. If he will not do that today, I wonder whether he might give us a date in the diary—say, a week before the Prime Minister’s visit to Beijing; that may well coincide with the date of an announcement on the planning permission for the mega-embassy—and give the House the clarity that it deserves.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her serious attention to these matters. I hope she will acknowledge that it was only a couple of weeks ago that I presented the House with a significant package of measures designed specifically to counter the threats that we have debating for a number of months, and I hope she will also acknowledge that it was indeed a significant package of measures, but of course we keep these matters under very close review, and I am certain that the Government will want to introduce further measures in due course.

The hon. Lady raises the issue of FIRS. As I have said to the House previously, there were Opposition Members who did not think that we would introduce FIRS on time, but we did so. It is a valuable tool and adds significant value to our capabilities with regard to our national security, but at the same time we have to very carefully deliberate the addition of more countries to the enhanced tier. We keep that under very close review, and I would be very happy to discuss the matter with her further.

China Espionage: Government Security Response

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who obviously has some extra time allocated as well.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister, as always, for advance sight of the statement. The news that the CCP is waging a campaign to infiltrate our Parliament is deeply offensive to our sovereignty, though perhaps it is not surprising to those who have been paying attention to the recent collapsed espionage case and the uncovering of interference at a UK university. The attempts to corrupt our democracy and Government must be rooted out.

We therefore welcome the counter-political interference and espionage action plan as a first step. It is absolutely right that the Government implement those measures to challenge Beijing’s espionage capabilities in the UK and the transnational repression it exports to our shores. New measures to disrupt proxy organisations, new penalties for election interference and the removal of potentially compromised surveillance equipment have our full backing. However, in the face of persistent, flagrant transgressions by the CCP, the plan by itself is not sufficient.

Beijing has tried to bully our Government, most recently on permission for the proposed new Chinese embassy at Tower Bridge, warning of consequences if the Government do not approve the plans. Beijing has oppressed and intimidated British nationals. We cannot afford to shy away from this challenge and leave key, pressing issues unresolved. I note the Minister’s comments about the Chinese mega-embassy. May I put on record my party’s repeated call to urge the Government to block the plan, to show that attempts to intimidate will be firmly rebuked? I further note the Minister’s comments about FIRS. Will he update the House on his current thinking about when he might come back with a decision to add China to the scheme’s enhanced tier?

The Minister said that the forthcoming elections Bill will include measures

“to safeguard against covert political funding…tougher risk assessment rules for donor recipients and enhanced enforcement powers for the Electoral Commission.”

This is a good opportunity. Will the Minister confirm that that will include donations via cryptocurrency and the associated transparency concerns? Will he also confirm that there will be new risk assessment rules and enforcement powers for donations funnelled through third-party organisations such as think-tanks?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her broad welcoming of the plan. She makes a number of points, including several about which she has consistently raised concerns in the Chamber and with me outside it. Let me say to her and to other Members that, with regard to the embassy and any other area of policy, nobody will intimidate members of this Government to do anything other than what is in our country’s national interests.

I understand why certain hon. Members want to refer to the embassy as a “super-embassy” or by other descriptive terms. The judgment will have to be made by the Secretary of State, but I, along with other ministerial colleagues, have been crystal clear that national security is and will remain a core priority throughout this process. There have been various comments and points made by people inside and outside this House on the national security implications of the embassy that are not correct. It is a quasi-judicial matter and I am limited in what I can say, but I reiterate the assurance about the importance of the national security elements underpinning any decision.

On the elections Bill, the hon. Lady made some important and valid points. She will understand that that piece of legislation sits with another Government Department. I am sure the Department will have heard her points, but if it has not, I will represent those points on her behalf.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I am happy to look into what my hon. Friend says in more detail. He knows that our post-16 education and skills White Paper sets out our vision and plan for universities, including record investment from my Department into research and development, and protecting the strategic priorities grant for science, technology, engineering and maths subjects. There is more that we can do, and I am happy to discuss it with him further.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

T5. Starting Point in Woodley is a social enterprise that works to tackle digital exclusion. It tells me that the lack of access to a device is a barrier for too many of my constituents. What plans do the Government have to enable the refurbishment of Government and civil service devices to make it easier for my constituents to get online?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The recent cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover is reported to have cost the UK £1.9 billion, making it the most expensive in British history. It follows similar crippling incidents for companies such as M&S and the Co-op. Individual companies are taking their own security decisions, but in our increasingly interdependent world, the impact of those decisions can be felt at national and international levels. Will the Minister update the House on the progress being made in that area under the Government’s resilience action plan, and when does he expect the introduction of the cyber-security and resilience Bill, which was mentioned in last year’s King’s Speech, so that we can assure the British public that such attacks are being treated as a pressing matter of national security?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that matter, which is of real concern for the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and myself. Protecting national security, including by defending against cyber-attacks, is absolutely our first duty, and she is absolutely right to highlight concerns about the attack on Jaguar Land Rover. We take this incredibly seriously. Indeed, my first visit as a Cabinet Office Minister was to the National Cyber Security Centre. I can tell her that the Home Office is progressing a new package of legislative measures to protect UK businesses from ransomware attacks, which, as she knows, are the most harmful cyber- crime facing the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I think the Government are right to identify economic growth as a key priority. I also agree with the Chancellor, who this week identified Brexit as one of the reasons that they are finding growth tough to find. Brexit red tape is a millstone around the neck of our economy; it has added 2 billion pieces of extra business paperwork, piled on costs and stifled innovation. Businesses in my constituency tell me they have stopped selling to our nearest neighbours in the world’s largest trading bloc altogether. Does the Minister agree that if the Government are serious about growing our economy, they should unleash trade by joining a bespoke customs union with the European Union?

[Darren Jones]

May I welcome the hon. Lady to her new spokesperson role? We recognise the impact that Brexit has had on the UK economy, which is why we have entered into a new trade deal in our first year in government with the European Union. A very key part of that is the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement for food and drink trade, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) is working on with European counterparts at the moment. Once that is implemented, we look forward to seeing trade improve, growth increasing and prices coming down on the shelves in supermarkets across the United Kingdom.

Official Secrets Act

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

As always, I am very grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

For years, the Chinese Communist party has worked to undermine the democratic institutions and values that underpin our society. This House is all too aware of the warnings, not least from the Intelligence and Security Committee’s excoriating report on China. That report made it clear that the previous Government lacked a coherent strategy for dealing with the threat posed by the Chinese state and that insufficient resources had been committed to meet that challenge. We expect to see better from this Government.

We are faced with a case in which two men, one of them a parliamentary researcher with close links to senior MPs, were accused of serious offences under the Official Secrets Act, only for the Crown Prosecution Service to drop those charges due to insufficient evidence. In this context, the decision is deeply worrying. It raises serious questions about the UK’s capacity to detect and prosecute espionage linked to hostile states, particularly China. So what specific issues with the evidence led the CPS to conclude that the threshold for prosecution was no longer met?

More broadly, what does this outcome say about our preparedness to respond to threats from foreign intelligence services operating on our soil, and even within the corridors of this Parliament? The Government must make protecting our democracy a national security priority. That means implementing the recommendations of the ISC’s China report in full, and ensuring that we are not left exposed to foreign interference simply because our systems are not equipped to respond.

Finally, the Minister again today committed to introduce legislation for a proscription mechanism for state and state-linked bodies as soon as parliamentary time allows. Could he update us on the timeline for bringing this forward and what its scope will be?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I aways am, for the very sensible and reasonable way in which she has made her comments. She raises a number of important observations, many of which I agree with. I do have to say to her what I said to the shadow Home Secretary, which is that it would be completely inappropriate for me to speculate about the reasons why the CPS sought to make this decision. I completely understand why right hon. and hon. Members would ask me about it, but I hope they also understand that I am not able to talk about why the CPS has decided to make this decision. That is very much a matter for it, not for the Government.

On the other points the hon. Member raised, let me give her an assurance that the Government do everything we possibly can to ensure that the UK is a hard target to guard against those malign forces, wherever they may come from, that seek to infiltrate or interfere with our democratic processes. We will ensure that our security and intelligence services and agencies and law enforcement have the necessary tools and resources they need to do the difficult job of guarding against the threats we face. Obviously, as she understands very well, there is also a legislative framework for that, and that is why, I understand, she asked the question about Jonathan Hall KC and the recommendations that she has made recently. As she knows, we have made an absolute commitment that we will legislate as soon as we can, and I give her an assurance that that work continues at pace.