Lisa Smart
MP for Hazel Grove · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“Those warnings have now come to fruition as thousands of retired civil servants have experienced delays or complete failures in pension payments since Capita took over.”
“That, hopefully, will provide further useful clarity for those who may thus far have been confused about what they do and do not have to declare.”
“What the Minister has announced today will close loopholes, but too many will remain. Will she consider exploring the benefits of a cap on donations from UK donors, and year-round spending caps by political parties and candidates? That is the way in which loopholes are truly closed.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The failure of Capita to meet the 30 June deadline is deeply disappointing, but, sadly, not surprising.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Just over five months ago, I stood here and asked the Secretary of State to strengthen the Representation of the People Bill by ensuring that post-tax profits, not overall revenue, were used when assessing the eligibility of company donations.”
“Although there are currently some restrictions in place, they do not go far enough—for example, MPs are strictly banned from acting as parliamentary strategists, advisers or consultants, That clearly recognises that having a second job can contradict our role as MPs, but it is not a full solution.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Lisa Smart, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“What the Minister has announced today will close loopholes, but too many will remain. Will she consider exploring the benefits of a cap on donations from UK donors, and year-round spending caps by political parties and candidates? That is the way in which loopholes are truly closed. Finally, can the Minister gives us some insights into how this important work will be handled across the multiple ministerial Departments and agencies? It involves the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Cabinet Office. The Minister is very able, but she is the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy. Does she agree that a more streamlined portfolio is what our democracy deserves?”
“That, hopefully, will provide further useful clarity for those who may thus far have been confused about what they do and do not have to declare. We welcome steps towards cracking down on any foreign interference in our democracy, but we still have some way to go, and we urge the Minister to consider banning anyone who has served in a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups, as well as banning donations from those convicted of political violence; that would include those funding the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. People who hold British values in contempt and act as a mouthpiece for those who want to undermine our democratic institutions should have no place in our democracy. We need a much more transparent system to ensure that the British people have faith in politicians.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Just over five months ago, I stood here and asked the Secretary of State to strengthen the Representation of the People Bill by ensuring that post-tax profits, not overall revenue, were used when assessing the eligibility of company donations. He rejected that plea, as did the Minister in Committee, but I am delighted that this Minister has now agreed to accept that. It was a recommendation from Philip Rycroft and from those working in the democracy sector, and it is a welcome change. We Liberal Democrats champion a fair and free society, so we also welcome the announcement that candidates will have to declare gifts of over £2,320 in the year prior to their election.”
“Will he commit today to ordering Capita to prioritise all bereavement cases as a matter of particular urgency, and will he guarantee that this specific backlog will be zero by a certain date?”
“Those warnings have now come to fruition as thousands of retired civil servants have experienced delays or complete failures in pension payments since Capita took over. How will the Government restore confidence for the 1 million-plus current and former civil servants who simply want reassurance that their pensions will be administered competently? What assessment has been made of the systemic failures in the administration of this scheme, and what lessons have been learned for future contracts of this kind? How can the Minister ensure that this failure is given sufficient weight should Capita have the brass neck to bid for any future Government contracts in this are or wholly unrelated ones? The Minister has rightly called the thousands of unresolved bereavement cases harrowing. These grieving families are being denied closure.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The failure of Capita to meet the 30 June deadline is deeply disappointing, but, sadly, not surprising. Behind it sit 1.7 million current and former civil servants who simply want peace of mind that the pension they have earned through decades of public service will be handled competently, fairly and with dignity. Capita’s repeated failures are causing distress and uncertainty for people who deserve better, including several of my constituents, such as Sue from Romiley, Tracy from Offerton and Christopher from Marple. The Public Accounts Committee did indeed warn that Capita risked not being ready to take over full administration back in December, and it raised serious concerns about weak contract management and poor oversight.”
“When I was preparing this speech, I realised that if I added together the hours that he has declared as having worked elsewhere, he has spent more than 140 days on various other jobs since he was first elected. That might be understandable if, like many other Members, he had spent the time when he is not here on constituency work, or on fighting for those who elected him. However, there were reports in the Daily Mirror earlier this year flagging up how many of his constituents felt that he was not around enough. He has spent hundreds of hours presenting on GB News and taking speaking fees for cryptocurrency platforms such as Blockworks.”
“The people who voted us here did not do so just so we can use Parliament as a launchpad into a media career, a consultancy or corporate boardroom; voters send us here to work for them. Yet in this Parliament we have seen some Members treat their responsibilities to their constituents as, at best, a part-time concern. Other Members have already given the detail of some of the work undertaken by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I have indeed let the hon. Member know in advance, Mr Weston, that I planned to mention him and his grifting. The hon. Member for Clacton has been here for 300 sitting days since those of us in the 2024 intake were elected.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western, and I really congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this important and very timely debate, which he opened very well. Being a Member of Parliament for my constituents in Hazel Grove is an enormous privilege, but it goes beyond that; it is a full-time job, with knobs on. I must declare that early in my time here, I was also an elected councillor, representing the wonderful people of Bredbury Green and Romiley. That was classed as a second job under our current rules, so I declared the allowance that I received for the couple of months before I stood down as a councillor, and the details can be seen in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.”
“Those who sit in this House of Commons must remember that we are representatives for our areas and our constituents. This is not a part-time role, and that is the standard that this House should expect of everyone who sits in it.”
“Although there are currently some restrictions in place, they do not go far enough—for example, MPs are strictly banned from acting as parliamentary strategists, advisers or consultants, That clearly recognises that having a second job can contradict our role as MPs, but it is not a full solution. The Liberal Democrats have long supported broader reform to the rules for MPs’ conduct. We should not end up in a situation where MPs are marking their own homework. I welcome the aims of the Modernisation Committee, but it was established almost two years ago. Indeed, I made my maiden speech in a debate on the motion that established it, yet the Government have so far failed to deliver the modernisation that is sorely needed, including in relation to second jobs. I welcome any update from the Minister on when we might expect some progress.”
“Most recently, Neil from Hazel Grove wrote to me about reports of a £5 million gift to an MP from a foreign-based billionaire. My constituents elected me to do things such as fighting for Stepping Hill Hospital to get its £138 million repair bill sorted, pressing for better rail services, and holding this Government—any Government—to account. That is what every MP should be doing for the people from their patch. We saw scandal after scandal under the last Conservative Government, from the resignation of Owen Paterson to partygate. Public trust in politics has been corroded, and as a country we are still paying the price for that failure.”
“We should be honest about that difference, because members of the public already are. The Lib Dems do not feel that there is a strong enough argument for a blanket ban on MPs taking second jobs; we do not believe that that would be the right answer. It would force NHS doctors, care nurses and legal aid barristers to surrender their professional registrations to serve in Parliament—that would be a concerning and counterproductive unintended consequence. We do not want a Parliament made up exclusively of career politicians. However, the people of Hazel Grove did not elect me to pop in here occasionally while moonlighting for a string of corporate sponsors. Many of my constituents rightly expect high standards and some of them have raised concerns about the conduct of politicians.”
“It is also worth noting the number of times that various Members who have already been mentioned today have spoken in this place in their role as an MP. For the hon. Member for Clacton, it is fewer than 50 times in two years, including points of order and supplementary questions—considerably fewer than any other party leader. As others have already mentioned today, some MPs have a second job related to a previous career. Within these walls, there are people with vastly different career backgrounds, from veterinarians to police officers. There is a vast difference between being an MP who maintains a medical licence, continues to practise at the Bar or keeps up their professional registration in nursing or social work, and being an MP who treats this Chamber as little more than a platform for personal enrichment.”
“Given the international nature of social media companies’ revenue streams, the role that Elon Musk has attempted to play in US politics and the views that he has increasingly expressed about UK politics, we should ensure that there are limitations in place to prevent potential income from social media platforms from unduly influencing politicians. We know the way that the algorithms that these platforms use push content that evokes more feeling, because it drives engagement. Therefore, the more divisive and hate-filled the content, the more some of the algorithms allow it to be seen. I have tabled some amendments to the Representation of the People Bill that would address that issue and I would really welcome Government support for them.”
“I welcome your advice and guidance, Chair. I will move on to talk about those Members who receive payments for posting on social media. Members of the UK Parliament should not receive payments from platforms such as X. I also note the entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe)—I have also advised him that I will mention him in this debate. The details of his most recent donation show that he has received over £70,000 from X since his election to this place.”
“I am delighted, as I always am, that Stockport is getting rightful attention in this place. Does the hon. Member agree that it is genuinely disappointing that although the Government talked about giving extra money to local councils, and have overall, Stockport has been short-changed? He will know, because it is in his constituency, that Stockport is the least well-off part of Greater Manchester, yet because we missed out on extra funding by 0.1%, services will have to be cut. That was a decision of this Labour Government.”
“I strongly agree with the Minister’s point about local leaders being best placed to make decisions. However, does she agree that when £3 of every £4 of Stockport council’s revenue spending goes on social care for children or adults, the number of choices that the council can make is far too limited?”
“Even though most believe that antisemitism has no place in the UK, there is evidence that for far too many Jewish students, the university campuses where they should feel free to learn and build friendships have instead become places of fear. The “Time for Change” report from the National Union of Students shows that almost a quarter of Jewish students have witnessed behaviour that targets them for their religion or ethnicity.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this debate and setting us up very strongly with his excellent opening remarks. Antisemitism has no place in our society. That should be a simple statement, and it should be agreed by all in this House. The Liberal Democrats have continued to be clear that we must be committed to tackling hatred in all its forms. My constituents care about this issue and they raise it with me. They are worried about the rise of antisemitism in our country. I am grateful to my constituent Caroline from Marple, who came to my advice surgery just this Saturday to share her thoughts about the worrying rise she sees across our country.”
“He spoke about how the country could use education to build on our history and foundations, and about how we should push for a hatred of hatred—I warmly welcome that. Universities exist so that students from every background can come together without fear. Right now, that promise is being broken for too many Jewish students. The Liberal Democrats will keep using our voice in this House to speak out against antisemitism in every form. I ask the Government and the Minister to match their words with action and a timeline, to offer Jewish students not just warm assurances but the safety, protection and respect that they are owed.”
“The “Time for Change” report sets out a sensible path and enforceable standards for universities to investigate and punish hate crime, with mandatory reporting to the Office for Students and real sanctions for those who fall short; proper co-ordination between universities, the police and the Government; and sector-wide best practice on Jewish inclusion, including antisemitism awareness training. Other colleagues have mentioned the excellent work of the Antisemitism Policy Trust. I have been lucky enough to benefit from some of its training, which was very strong. We should also welcome initiatives that celebrate Jewish life, not merely defend it. I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who reminded us of the story of the Windermere children.”
“From September, the Office for Students will operate a new complaints scheme that will allow university staff, external speakers and non-student members to make free-speech complaints. The OfS will then investigate claims, and has the power to issue fines. The scheme should not be a mechanism for the back-door legitimisation of hate. More than that, we believe that the Government should bring forward an urgent comprehensive action plan to tackle antisemitism at its root and ensure adequate high-visibility police protection for synagogues, schools and Jewish community centres nationwide.”
“No one should use concerns, whether about foreign interference or otherwise, to stir up hate or to smear and stigmatise the Jewish community on university campuses or elsewhere. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for reminding us of our role in positions of political leadership. Some of our colleagues would do well to remember that their inflammatory statements have an impact. Under the previous Government, the Liberal Democrats did not support the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. We did not believe that it was evidence- based or proportionate, and many universities and student groups, including Jewish student groups, warned that it risked compelling universities to give a platform to speakers with known extremist views.”
“Criticising the actions of any Government, including the Government of Israel, is legitimate and must remain so, but there is a world of difference between vigorous debate and the harassment, intimidation and abuse documented in the report that I mentioned. It is possible, of course—I will say it again—to fairly and rightly criticise the actions of the Government of Israel, but let us be clear: the dangerous antisemitic trope that suggests that British Jewish people are somehow puppets for a foreign state, or that there is a secret conspiracy to exercise undue control over the Government, must be actively called out. We should robustly and unequivocally reject any such antisemitic conspiracy theories.”
“Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) powerfully reminded us of why we should care about what is happening on university campuses. We have seen, throughout history, what this looks like. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the experience on German university campuses. My grandmother, who was Jewish, came here from Germany in the 1930s at the age of 18—not as a student, but as a domestic worker—because of the climate in which fear and hatred were being sown. As the hon. Member rightly said, it often starts on university campuses. The Liberal Democrats will always defend free speech. Universities should be home to rigorous and well-informed debate, because the freedom to question and explore difficult ideas sits at the heart of academic life.”
“The report I mentioned earlier showed that one in five students would be reluctant to, or would never, house-share with a Jewish student—others have mentioned that. In the report, Jewish students described physical and verbal abuse, social exclusion and antisemitic attitudes that have become disturbingly ordinary on the very campuses that are meant to welcome them. Additionally, almost half of students have heard slogans or chants glorifying Hamas, Hezbollah or other proscribed groups. I am grateful to the colleagues who have brought the voices of students into Westminster Hall. The hon. Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the experience of Jewish students on campus, while the hon.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that incident. He will not be surprised to hear that I strongly agree that it is wholly unacceptable and entirely abhorrent. It is a well-trodden path that those who seek to divide us and sow hatred in our community use graffiti, which is a cowardly way to convey a message of hatred and divisiveness. When I was in Bournemouth last year, I felt honoured to be invited to visit the synagogue and its rabbi who had been the subject of an antisemitic graffiti attack on his home. The impact that had on him and the whole community was profound, and I am grateful that he took the time to explain it to me. I can only imagine the fear that must have been felt by those who were targeted. The hon. Member is entirely right that it is wholly unacceptable.”
“Given the scale of potential foreign interference, we believe that the Government should go one step further and launch an investigation into US interference in our democracy, including financial support by this White House for those in the UK who—and I quote—share their values. I urge the Minister to further consider how we can best ensure that the Department’s budget is used effectively to limit the reach of foreign interference in our political system, because our democratic security is our national security.”
“The elections strategy paper published last summer and the Representation of the People Bill are both welcome steps, but there is an Elon Musk-shaped hole running right through the middle of them. They contain nothing to stop social media platforms paying elected representatives to post increasingly divisive and incendiary content, and nothing to shut the back door through which foreign money reaches our politics. Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments to the Representation of the People Bill to fix exactly that. Our amendments would ban payments to MPs by X and other platforms and bar people who have served foreign Administrations from donating to political parties, campaign groups and think-tanks, and we would implement the Rycroft review’s recommendation of banning foreign-funded online political ads altogether.”
“British politics is being targeted by powerful interests beyond our shores who would happily see our democracy weakened, and the loopholes that let them in remain far too open. Opaque, foreign and dark money can still find its way into our political parties, our campaigns and our online conversations, and the Government have not yet done enough to prevent that money from entering our democracy. They commissioned the Rycroft review into political finance, but to date, they have committed to just two of its 17 recommendations. We Liberal Democrats ask that the Minister give serious consideration to the other 15 and commit to all of them in full very soon.”
“Had it been put in place, that strategy would clearly have set out how the Government would assess, manage and mitigate risks to the security and resilience of critical network and information systems arising from foreign interference and reliance on foreign technology. Additionally, our strategy would place a focus on strengthening Government procurement practices, which would ensure that the Government lay out how they intend to reduce strategic dependencies on foreign-owned service providers and commit to prioritise domestic tech. We would ensure that critical national functions are powered by technology that only the UK Government or UK companies could control. Perhaps the sharpest threat to our democracy is the money flowing into it from outside.”
“Could the Minister tell the House how much of that uplift is new investment in our resilience, and what changes are happening to that spending as it comes under the Cabinet Office? We cannot have national resilience if the public can no longer trust the integrity of our democracy. The National Cyber Security Centre dealt with more than 200 attacks on our critical national infrastructure in the past year alone, and around three quarters of those attacks were traced to hostile states, primarily China, Russia and Iran. They reach into hospitals, our energy supply, and the public services that many across the country depend on. That is why the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill that would have required the Government to publish a digital sovereignty strategy.”
“This point has already been raised by other Members, but when the Minister responds shortly, I would be grateful if she could update the House on the Government’s plans to increase the awareness of the British people—including my own Hazel Grove constituents —about the role we must all play to keep our country safe and to prepare should the worst happen. After looking at the estimates, I have one specific question for the Minister. As I understand it, the security spending under the “Keeping the country safe” subheading is rising largely because the integrated security fund has been moved across to the Cabinet Office, not because Ministers have found new money to meet new dangers.”
“It is therefore no surprise that the Government say that national security is their first responsibility. They are right to do so. I am lucky enough to be a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme this year. I have been fortunate enough to meet some of the remarkable people who serve in our military, from the most junior to the most senior, and the key message I have taken from those interactions is that, as a society, we are not scared enough and we are certainly not prepared enough. When talking about preparation, the thoughts of many will instantly go to physical safety and defence spending. I understand why, but there needs to be a whole-of-society approach that goes beyond our armed forces to include national security, resilience, civic preparedness, food security, economic security, cyber-security, energy security and so on.”
“Born ready, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier this year, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said that “we are not at war, but we are certainly not at peace either.” Just over the two years since this Government took office, there have been many reports of instances of foreign espionage and interference. Earlier this year, it was reported that Chinese spies use LinkedIn and other recruitment platforms to target UK officials and military staff. A tracker was successfully placed on the Prime Minister’s car, and—as has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and for West Dorset (Edward Morello)—there have been attacks on the Prime Minister’s home and car. Also, people with links to a sitting MP were arrested on suspicion of assisting a foreign intelligence agency.”
“I am here because my constituent Helen, from Romiley, came to see me at my advice surgery on Saturday. I was waiting to raise this point until the Minister was close to ending her speech, because I want to understand what is being done and what more the Government can do to give information to people who think they may be DES daughters. Helen’s mum certainly took something during her pregnancy, but it is difficult to interpret the GP’s handwriting on the records that Helen has received. What can the Minister tell Helen and people like her who think their health conditions suggest that they are DES daughters, but who do not yet have the evidence to show that they are?”
“This week marked 10 years since the EU referendum vote, and the world has changed since then, with an unreliable Trump in the White House and Putin bombing schools in Ukraine. Labour’s red lines are holding Britain back. They are hurting the British people and playing into the hands of those who seek to divide us. It was made clear to me in Brussels last month that the ball is in the UK’s court and that there is real openness to Liberal Democrat plans for a sensible, pragmatic and deliverable plan for closer working. Will the Paymaster General commit to urging the new Prime Minister to drop Labour’s red lines and back Lib Dem plans for a new UK-EU growth and defence partnership to make the UK safer, stronger and richer?”
“We will soon have our seventh Prime Minister in 10 years. My commiserations go to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who I see has bowed out of the race gracefully—I am sure he has many irons in the fire. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is known to be committed to proportional representation. What plans does the Cabinet Office have to enable any new Prime Minister to move quickly on making our voting system fit for purpose—if he does not change his mind? Has that come up in access talks?”
“Some of my youngest constituents have been in touch with me to say that they are really worried about being split up from their friends in their class. They go to Woodley primary school, which faces stretched budgets and a lowering birth rate, so the school is moving to mixed-age classes. Could we have a statement from the Department for Education about Government support for schools moving to mixed-age classes, so that I can raise the concerns of my youngest constituents, who are really worried about what is coming for them in September?”
“What protection exists for manufacturers who have signed contracts in good faith between March and today? Thirdly, the WTO process will begin in the autumn. Will the Minister confirm that any permanent tariff increases resulting from that process will not permanently lock in higher tariffs on specialist steels that cannot be sourced domestically?”
“Downstream steel-using industries employ 300,000 people, including some of my Hazel Grove constituents. A blanket approach risks weakening a far larger manufacturing jobs base while doing little to protect British steel. I am pleased that the Government have listened to our concerns and to those of industry. The quota increase and product code removals are positive steps, so I have just three questions. First, categories 14 and 27 cover specialist steels required by aerospace, defence, Formula 1 and precision engineering, which cannot be sourced domestically in the required grades and volumes. Do those categories fall within the 11 product codes that have been removed from the arrangements? Secondly, the transitional arrangements only protect contracts signed before 14 March.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Steel matters. It matters for our national security, our defence and our critical infrastructure, and it sustains jobs right across the United Kingdom. British Steel supports thousands of jobs and over a billion pounds of economic activity through its own operations and supply chain. It also underpins hundreds of thousands more jobs and several billion pounds of activity across the industries that depend on it. It has been battered by Trump’s trade war and by years of unfair practices from China. Steel is an industry worth defending, and Liberal Democrats support that goal, but we have been vocal about our concerns regarding the impact of the Government’s proposed tariffs on downstream manufacturers.”
“I really welcome the Minister’s statement today and the introduction of this draft legislation, and I look forward to writing to constituents who have been in touch with me to express their disappointment that conversion practices are still legal. In particular, I will mention Isabelle from Offerton, who is the most recent constituent to write to me about this matter. The Minister mentioned in her opening remarks the carve-out for health professionals and how to mitigate the risk that somebody, under the guise of being a health professional, might set up a mental health charity in an attempt to circumvent the aims of the Bill. Will she say a little more about that?”
“When a pattern repeats again and again, it stops being about individual issues, personalities or failures and starts reflecting the system that produces them. First past the post manufactures large majorities out of modest vote shares, and those majorities are built on such shallow foundations that they can collapse as quickly as they were built. Instability is not a glitch in our multi-party system; it is a feature of it. There are various forms of PR. I will not try your patience, Mr Turner, by ranking them in order of my preference—I will save that for the Lib Dem conference—but, suffice to say, the Liberal Democrats support the single transferrable vote. It keeps a strong direct link between Members and the place they represent. Constituents have local MPs to turn to, but they would have a real hand in choosing them.”
“We are told that PR means weaker coalitions, constant instability or Members who answer to a party list rather than the people they serve. To those who have those concerns, I point to the weakness, instability and chaos, frankly, that we have seen over the past decade. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made his case, as he often does; he had a very good go at making arguments that I disagree with, but I am sorry to say that he failed to convince me on this occasion. Seven Prime Ministers in 10 years is not what a well-functioning system looks like. Our current system is failing, and we have such a great opportunity to push forwards and make positive reforms. Some may look at each change of Prime Minister as a story about one person, one party or one bad week in Westminster, but that just does not cut it.”
“Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) reminded us that PR is not a panacea—he is absolutely right to do so—but it is a fundamental step in the right direction towards a fairer, better system. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) reminded us how PR shapes how we campaign and what we choose to do and not do with our resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover)—while doing an impression of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle—gave us examples from overseas and of parties working together in local government. He also reminded us that sorting out the voting system would better enable us to sort out our country. I know that objections are made to reform.”
“My fellow vice-chair, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), reminded us that PR is fair. We are in a multi-party political system and first past the post, which was set up for two parties, is no longer fit for purpose. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) talked in detail about his experience on the city council, and how PR in Scotland works. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), said that despite being elected on a minority of votes, he represents well his whole community. That is an urgent issue, to ensure that people have trust in our system. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) talked about how the voting system shapes the way we campaign, focusing on a core number of marginal seats and a group of voters in them. My hon.”
“Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the deputy leader of the Labour party, has said that she has always supported electoral reform. From a different side of the political spectrum, the Conservative London Assembly member Emma Best has said her party should start thinking seriously about proportional representation. She speaks compellingly, making a strong Conservative argument for PR. When voices across the political spectrum are saying the same, the Government should listen. I am proud to sit as vice-chair for the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which is the largest APPG and shows clear cross-party support for replacing first past the post with a proportional system. It is good to see several members of the APPG here today. We have heard from a number of them, so I will reflect on some of their comments.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this vital debate. Like many colleagues, we have both been vocal, proud advocates for political reform. This debate builds on the important work of my hon. Friend in the previous session, when she won a vote on the Second Reading of her Bill to bring PR to elections for national and local government in England. That was a clear sign that the demand for reform exists across the House and continues to grow. In her excellent opening remarks, my hon. Friend mentioned the newly re-elected right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) whom I have told I would mention. He is not alone in his support for proportional representation. The right hon.”