Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The women and girls who spoke out against Jeffrey Epstein and those connected to him did so at enormous personal cost. We must never lose sight of the fact that their bravery is the reason we are having this conversation at all.

The Prime Minister promised honesty, integrity and accountability. Instead, we have a tawdry saga of a political ally waved through despite serious security concerns, a senior civil servant forced out, and a Government who have descended into recrimination and infighting rather than dealing with the very serious issues the country faces. Parliament asked for transparency, and the public deserves answers. Every day this drags on, trust in our institutions erodes further.

Even though Lord Mandelson has stepped away from the House of Lords, will the Government bring in formal legislation to revoke his peerage? Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether the Government plan to bring in further legislation for much-needed reform of the other place? The deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), asked in business questions on Thursday about potential further redactions made on grounds other than national security or international relations. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that there have been no redactions in what he said will be sent to the Committee by the end of today?

It has been reported that the Prime Minister is set to whip Labour MPs to oppose his referral to the Privileges Committee. Even Boris Johnson did not block his MPs from voting for scrutiny. Labour MPs must surely be given a free vote and not be forced into feeling like accomplices to a cover up. Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether Labour MPs will be whipped on tomorrow’s vote or not?

[Darren Jones]

It is not for the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to speak about whipping arrangements at the Dispatch Box. I will leave that to the Chief Whip and the usual channels. The hon. Lady asked me two questions about reform to the other place, in particular the removal of peerages. I can confirm that legislation will be introduced shortly to bring forward the proposals that I have talked about at the Dispatch Box. She asked me further questions about redactions policy; I refer to my previous answer on that question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, when asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the Prime Minister failed to deny that he knew that his team were lobbying for a head of mission role for Matthew Doyle, and that they were doing so with his authority. Under the ministerial code, he has clear duties of transparency to this House. For No. 10 to ask the Foreign Office to find a plum diplomatic job for another Labour mate who was friends with a convicted sex offender, let alone to then keep it secret from the Foreign Secretary, is completely shocking. The Prime Minister has shown another catastrophic lack of judgment. Will the Minister ensure that an inquiry is launched by the Cabinet Secretary to determine who did the lobbying and why, and what the Prime Minister knew and when?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister has spent very many hours at the Dispatch Box this week being held to account and answering questions on a whole range of issues. In respect of the particulars of the hon. Lady’s question, I refer her to the Prime Minister’s words of only yesterday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Earlier this year, the NATO Secretary-General said:

“We are not at war, but we are not at peace either.”

Trump’s reckless war in Iran has shown how vulnerable our country is to external shocks, while Putin’s imperial ambitions pose a once-in-a-generation threat to our security and our way of life. The UK is not resilient or prepared enough for future shocks and threats. We have seen press reports this week describing the risk of shortages of certain foods and medicines, brought about by Trump’s idiotic actions in Iran. What specific steps are the Government taking to address those potential shortages, and how does the Minister plan to communicate with the public to ensure that our constituents are not left without information or support, should the availability of the medicine they need fall victim to Trump’s foolishness?

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with the comments from the Secretary-General of NATO that the hon. Lady cited. From previous conversations that we have had, I think she understands the seriousness we attach to those issues. The Cabinet Office co-ordinates a whole-of-Government response and we work closely on those issues with partners, including in the Ministry of Defence. She is right about the need to communicate those issues to the public, and we are looking at how we can do that most effectively.

Government Procurement Strategy

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

We need to do far more to back British small businesses through public procurement, both to boost growth and to ensure our national security. Public procurement amounts to hundreds of billions of pounds a year. The Procurement Act was meant to ensure that more of that money reached British small businesses, but in practice many report that it has made things worse. Payment rules are being flouted by middlemen who face no consequences, suppliers who complain are threatened with losing future work and bad debts are mounting. Public money is disappearing into a vacuum and there is a security risk. There are businesses that are asking, “What is the point of legislation that rogue traders can ignore with complete impunity, while loyal British SMEs are being pushed out of the market they built?” Does the Minister agree that the target for Government spending with small businesses should be far higher than the current level? Will he explain when the payment reporting transparency will implemented?

[Chris Ward]

I basically agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of the procurement system and how it does not do what it should do. As I say, £400 billion of taxpayer money is being spent. We need to ensure, as far as we can, that every pound that is spent supports British industry, supports jobs and delivers fairness, and it must also support SMEs. The Procurement Act made progress towards helping SMEs, but it does not go far enough. It is not the job of this Government to defend the status quo; it is the job of this Government to change it, so we will do that. I will come back to her on the specific point about payment thresholds.

Antisemitic Attacks

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right that we all have an absolute responsibility to call out racism and bigotry, wherever we experience it. He is also right that a range of malign forces is seeking to sow division and disharmony across our country and in our communities. I give him an absolute assurance that there is an extensive programme of activity across Government Departments to ensure that we have the requisite tools and resources to counter the misinformation and disinformation from those who would seek to divide us.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Our Jewish community has contributed to our national story for centuries, and we are right to be proud that our country welcomes citizens to our shores who fled persecution elsewhere, including my nan, who came here in the late 1930s, fleeing the Nazis. Much of the discussion this afternoon has understandably been about those from overseas who seek to stoke division, hatred and antisemitism in the UK. I welcome the work by the Government, including the Rycroft review, and the amendments coming to the Representation of the People Bill about funding those who seek to divide us. But there are those in this House who are funded by known British antisemites. Can the Minister tell us more about what he is doing with colleagues across Government to tackle the people who are funding those who seek to divide us?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member is right that we should be—and I think are—very proud of our collective Jewish heritage. I pay tribute to her nan. I hope the hon. Member would acknowledge that the Rycroft review is an important step forward in tackling some of the issues that she raised. I hope she understands how seriously we take the commitments that we have made. As the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has described, we will bring forward amendments as soon as we can.

Security Vetting

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is why I have asked for a review of the entire process: so that it can be looked at from start to finish, including the question of whether there should be any circumstances in which the recommendation of UKSV could not be followed.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am going to try again, because a number of right hon. and hon. Members have asked this question, and I am not quite sure I have heard an answer from the Prime Minister. Why did he choose to ignore the advice from the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, to seek security vetting before confirming Peter Mandelson as his pick?

[The Prime Minister]

I understood the procedure to be that the appointment was made subject to the security vetting. [Interruption.] That is what I was told. The question the hon. Lady raises is the question I raised in September, which is why I asked Sir Chris Wormald to look at the process, and in particular at the advice in the letter from Simon Case, to answer the question of whether the process was followed, and he—[Interruption.] Well, he gave me the answer that he thought right, having concluded that process.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I especially welcome in his remarks the recognition of people’s individual experiences and the commitment to compensating them fairly in a way that minimises the administrative burden placed upon those who have been harmed.

The infected blood scandal is one of the greatest failures in our national health service, which was unacknowledged for far too long. Over 30,000 people were infected across the country and faced the devastating consequences of that systematic failure. Yet there are people who continue to feel that the scheme has not gone far enough, including one of my constituents, from Marple, who feels the scheme should investigate more potential conditions.

Thousands of victims and their families have waited decades for the justice they deserve. Sir Brian Langstaff was straightforward in his findings: victims have been ignored and frozen out of the process they fought for decades to secure, while payments have proceeded at an infuriatingly glacial pace. The Liberal Democrats have long stood with the victims. The Government are right to seek to answer the needs of those infected and affected by setting out a clear timeline for how compensation can be delivered to them. My colleagues and I will continue to hold this Government to account until every eligible person receives the justice they are owed.

Sir Brian Langstaff rightly highlighted how victims have not been listened to by successive Ministers, and we welcome the new feedback mechanism that the Minister has set out today. Will he expand a little on his remarks and confirm that that will be a formal advisory body of victims to IBCA, as recommended by the Langstaff inquiry?

After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the Government should ensure full transparency over the progress of the scheme and open ongoing communication with all those affected. Enshrining a statutory duty of candour is a long-overdue reform championed by those infected and affected by the scandal, and the continued delays to passing the Hillsborough law are shameful. Victims and campaigners should not be made to wait any longer, so will the Minister say when the Government will get that vital piece of legislation moving again and finally get the Hillsborough law on the statute book?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, in respect of the feedback mechanism, I wanted it to be not simply somewhere that would receive correspondence, but a proper mechanism to sift the various queries coming in. Some might be administrative things to do with the scheme that might be dealt with relatively quickly and some might be more serious things that need to be elevated either to IBCA’s board or to the Cabinet Office.

Secondly, with regard to IBCA and the voice of victims, I have been on more than one occasion to IBCA’s offices in Newcastle. It already has what are known as the user consultants, who provide the voice of the community on the premises and who have been encouraged by Sir Robert Francis to do that. I think they make a very important contribution. Thirdly, on transparency, I could not agree more. That is why, on the technical expert group for example, I take the view of publishing everything. I think we have to continue to do that. Fourthly, on the issue of the Hillsborough law, work is ongoing. I have been very involved in that in recent months and, certainly, we are committed to delivering it.

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.

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.

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?