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 2 of 13.
“We need to fix our politics so that we can fix our country. An amended Representation of the People Bill could be the vehicle to deliver it and to give this country a voting system worthy of the people it serves. I hope the Minister will tell us today that the Government are ready to take that chance.”
“We could also introduce more nuance into a debate than can be delivered via the medium of bar chart. Consider the previous general election: the Labour party won about two thirds of the seats in the House on roughly one third of the vote. A system that can hand near-total control of the Commons to a party that two in three voters did not vote for cannot honestly claim to speak for the country. The Liberal Democrats have argued for fair votes for decades, because a democracy in which every vote counts is a better democracy. I do not want to spend my time today just listing what is broken, because the more important point is that we have in front of us a genuine opportunity to put it right. The appetite for reform is no longer confined to the Liberal Democrat Benches; it is growing across the House and across the country.”
“I am not personally a fan of a referendum. They can be quite divisive and they return one of two answers, so I would not support one. The Liberal Democrats have had a fairer voting system in our manifesto since the foundation of our party. I believe that the current Government, whose party the hon. Member is a member of, have put forward some other suggestions that were not in their manifesto in 2024, so it is possible for situations to change. It is possible for the world to move on, and for people of good will to work together for the betterment of our country. Single transferrable votes for the House and for local councillors in England would mean that communities would not be written off because they were a safe seat, and nobody would feel that their vote was wasted.”
“Seven Prime Ministers in a decade might suggest that it is more than just the wrong people getting the keys to No. 10. Our problems are just a little more structural than that. British people deserve fairness, transparency and a democracy that they can believe in. Politics affects us all, and the Government should do all they can to protect democracy for all our communities. That includes pushing back robustly against antisemitism wherever it is, including in the House.”
“While we welcome much of what is in the Representation of the People Bill and feel that it is a step in the right direction, it is but a step forwards—we need a leap. The Bill is an opportunity to make genuine, transformational change to the strength and transparency of our democracy. It is an opportunity to close the loopholes that allow foreign billionaires and oligarchs to buy political access in this country. We Liberal Democrats will push hard for those changes as the Bill progresses through Parliament. Our democracy should not be for sale to hostile states, foreign oligarchs or any outside interest that places its own agenda above the interests of the people who we in this place are elected to serve. Our solution must be not to play geopolitical whack-a-mole but to fortify structurally our democracy.”
“The Liberal Democrats have long believed that protecting our democracy must be treated as a national security priority. The first and best way to safeguard that democracy is by ensuring transparency. We have long campaigned for reform of political finance and for protecting our democracy from any undue or opaque foreign influence. We have called for real change, including a cap on political donations—no matter where they are from—and a publicly searchable database of all online political advertising. Tweaking around the edges will not do. We also need a strengthened Electoral Commission with genuine enforcement powers, including higher fines for breaches of political finance law.”
“Our democracy is under pressure from a structural failure that has been building for years. We have allowed money, opacity and foreign influence to creep into British politics, and successive Governments have been far too slow to act. The most recent Conservative Government bear a particular responsibility. They were relaxed about Russian money flooding into the UK, they weakened the independence of the Electoral Commission and they presided over a culture of cronyism and sleaze that corroded public trust. That is not ancient history; it is the recent record, and it matters when we ask why too many people feel that British politics is no longer conducted in their interests. More than 118,000 people signed this petition, including 154 people in my Hazel Grove constituency.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. It is critical that we do not let fair concerns about weaknesses and loopholes in our political system spill over or give any credence to ancient, dangerous and poisonous antisemitic conspiracy theories. Of course, it is possible to fairly and rightly criticise the actions of the Government of Israel, but let us be very clear: the dangerous antisemitic trope 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. I robustly and unequivocally reject any such antisemitic conspiracy theories. No one should use concerns about foreign interference to stir hate or to smear and stigmatise the Jewish community.”
“Will the Government therefore make time for an urgent debate on the corridor care crisis and the state of the NHS estate to ensure that patients, including those in my Hazel Grove constituency, are no longer treated in corridors, or left waiting in them for hours for the treatment they deserve?”
“Behind every one of those numbers is an NHS trust or a hospital starved of resources and capital funds, and a social care system in crisis that leaves hospitals full of people who cannot leave, despite being desperate to do so, because the care package they need is not available. Meanwhile, A&E waiting rooms are heaving with patients waiting to be seen. Nowhere is the crumbling estate behind this crisis clearer than at Stepping Hill hospital in my patch, with its growing £134 million repair backlog. There have been collapsing ceilings, leaking roofs that forced the temporary closure of the intensive care unit, and times when just four of the 14 lifts were working, meaning that anyone using a wheelchair was unable to visit a higher-floor ward and that patients were carried up and down stairs in scoops.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be here for business questions once again, subbing for my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). Last week the NHS published the first ever official figures on corridor care, which ripped off the plaster and revealed a scandal that many of us have seen at first hand. In one month, patients across the country were treated in corridors at least 69,000 times, and that is with major trusts such as Birmingham failing to share their figures. The practice has become dangerously normalised across our NHS. We on the Lib Dem Benches believe that amounts to serious and continual negligence, and Ministers should be held to account before a corridor care tribunal of patients, bereaved families and frontline NHS staff.”
“After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the Government must deliver on the start they have made to ensure full transparency on the progress of the scheme and open, ongoing and effective communication with all those affected. I close my remarks by paying tribute to the victims and their families, and particularly the doughty campaigners who have worked for decades for the compensation and justice they deserve.”
“Angus understands that there are many claims and supports the prioritisation of infected claimants, but he cannot understand why he has been told not to expect payment until 2030. Angus told my hon. Friend that he “feels let down and ignored by the Government”, and he will not be alone. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent in urging the Government to end the record of failure of successive Governments, and finally answer the needs of victims. We committed, along with others, in our 2019 manifesto to act on the inquiry’s recommendations, “ensuring a just settlement for victims and their families”, and we have voted in favour of legislation when it has been brought to this House. We encourage the Government to be as effective and visible as possible in the way they deliver the promised compensation scheme for the all-too-many victims.”
“It was testament to her strength of character. Last year’s damning report on compensation showed that not enough lessons had been learned, and survivors such as Catherine continue to be left out in the cold. The impact of course extends to those who have lost family members to contaminated blood, such as Angus Lacey-Stewart, who contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Angus’s dad and granddad both died due to health conditions caused by infected blood. Angus lost his dad prematurely, but he also told my hon. Friend how his dad’s infection at the age of 14 changed his dad’s life and robbed Angus of the relationship he might have wanted with his father, who suffered from poor mental and physical health.”
“In so many instances we see the breakdown of trust between the people we represent and our politics, so delivering compensation at pace, and delivering the Hillsborough law, would be a statement of intent to change our political culture. It is one of the vital building blocks that can start to repair this House’s fractured relationship with the public—an essential step to recover trust. That is more vital today than at any other point in my lifetime. Many Members have spoken of their constituents who have been impacted by this scandal. My constituent Catherine from Marple Bridge is one of so many who provided testimony to the compensation authority. She is a daughter handling the estate of her father, who was infected, and she is affected. Catherine’s thorough, detailed testimony was calm, thoughtful and delivered with remarkable clarity.”
“It would extend the duty of candour to all public officials, and it was a manifesto commitment from this Government. It is also a promise that has been repeated by the Prime Minister and several other Ministers since. Despite repeated talk of an “unwavering commitment”, this vital reform has still not been delivered, and we do not know when it will be. I would welcome any update that the Paymaster General could give on the progress that we might expect and when we might expect it. With this scandal, as with too many others, the inability to deliver both timely compensation and complementary legislation extends people’s fears of a culture of cover-up.”
“At that rate, far too many victims will not receive their compensation by the 2029 deadline. The pace must increase—a point that has been well made in this debate by the hon. Members for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), as well as others. The Liberal Democrats welcome the improvements to the scheme that the Government set out earlier this year. These changes will hopefully deliver some of the justice that victims have been calling for, but there is clearly a strength of feeling that the scheme still does not go far enough, and the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst laid out some of the well-founded concerns in opening the debate. The failure to deliver the Hillsborough law has been raised by many Members from across the House, and they are right to do so.”
“The trials involved children with blood clotting disorders, when families had often not consented to their taking part, and the majority of the children who were experimented on are now dead. It is not just about those who were infected, of course; the number of those affected by the scandal is far higher. Although we welcome the steps that the Government have taken in progressing the compensation scheme, it is clear that the job is not yet done. The changes that the Government have brought in will mean more compensation for those who have been impacted by the infected blood scandal. Payments will be sent out to victims as part of the wider £11 billion-plus allocated by the Government in the 2024 Budget to compensate victims, but in the last two months to June, just 217 people have received compensation payments.”
“The infected blood scandal, and the 30,000 or so people who were infected with HIV, hepatitis or both, have been discussed in this House many times, but the numbers—the sheer scale of the scandal—are still hard to comprehend. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) laid out the background compellingly at the start of this debate, and I congratulate him on securing it. Other Members have spoken of perhaps the most horrifying element of the scandal: children were subjected to unsafe and unethical clinical testing in the 1970s and ’80s. This testing—this experimentation—continued for more than 15 years. It involved hundreds of people and infected most with hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HIV.”
“My constituent John, who is from Bredbury, has been in touch because like so many others his local dentist is going private and for many families in my constituency, private dentistry simply is not an affordable option. Research by the British Dental Association found that 96% of practices are not accepting new NHS patients and the golden hello, worth £20,000 over three years, is not adequately compensating for a contract that loses them money every day. The scheme just is not working. It has recruited two dentists—two!—in the whole of Greater Manchester, neither of whom is in my constituency. What more can the Minister do to ensure that my constituents get the dentists they need, where they need them?”
“The Government have announced a removal of peerages Bill, which I welcome as a step in the right direction, albeit another tiny and timid step that fails to rise sufficiently to the moment. There remains an untaken opportunity to deliver long overdue reform of the other place. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I stand ready to play our part, and we urge the Government to show the same resolve.”
“However, removing those peers from being legislators for life is not enough and cannot be called truly meaningful Lords reform. Having a Chamber that remained unelected, still shaped by prime ministerial patronage and capable of blocking the will of this House, felt wholly unsatisfactory in the last century, never mind this one. I agree strongly with the hon. Members for Stroud (Dr Opher) and for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), but the speech of the afternoon was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). She gave a belter of a speech about the importance of trust in politics and the role we all have to play in maintaining that for our constituents.”
“The Liberal Democrats would welcome an evaluation of the constitutional relationship between the two Houses, and of whether a Chamber that is not elected should be able to override one that is. The Liberal Democrats have argued for decades that the House of Lords needs to be replaced with a fully elected second Chamber with a proper democratic mandate, elected by proportional representation, so that every region, nation and community has a genuine voice. I welcome some of the new travellers on the path to that cause who have outed themselves this afternoon. Those who make the law should be accountable to those who must live by it. We on the Lib Dem Benches welcome the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, which removed the remaining hereditary peers. Although it is pretty timid and tightly written, it was long overdue.”
“From the Peter Mandelson scandal to the reports in The Guardian of 15 peers having claimed over £500,000 in expenses while not speaking in a single Lords debate, it is clear that we should be implementing meaningful reforms. As Tom Brake, a former Member of this House and now the director of Unlock Democracy, was quoted by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) as saying, the case for reform of the other place has been strengthened by this debate. The Modernisation Committee was established to examine how this House uses its time and how our procedures can better serve democracy. Directly relevant to this debate, it has already opened inquiries into how Backbench Business Committee and Petitions Committee debates are conducted.”
“Hundreds of my constituents, on both sides of the assisted dying debate, wrote to me, and I am grateful to each of them for the time they took to do that. Their participation, whether by signing parliamentary petitions or writing to their MP, matters. It highlights that so many people are paying attention. I particularly welcome the petitioners in the Public Gallery this evening. The fact that so many people signed the petition, many of them from constituencies whose MPs hold very different views on the legislation that prompted it, shows that this is not only about one Bill; it is about something bigger. When a Bill is prevented from passing through Parliament by the House of Lords, it is not just scrutiny. The lack of progress for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill highlighted once again the many issues with the other place.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. We have heard compelling and passionate arguments from across the Chamber about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and its progress—or lack of progress—through Parliament. This is a really important topic. It generates strong feelings and absolute clarity of thought from some, but it really should require nuance and understanding from us all. We should be able to agree that the other place has a vital role to play in the scrutiny of legislation, but also that when elected MPs vote for a Bill and the public back it, it should be able to become law. The petition we are debating was signed by more than 114,000 people across the country, including 214 of my constituents in Hazel Grove.”
“I think the Minister speaks for the whole House in thanking the Metropolitan police for policing riots and protests that go beyond the realms of what is legally appropriate or acceptable, and that should happen to everybody, whatever the subject of their protest. Does the Minister agree that the rules on donations to fund these rallies—one of the organisers of the rallies, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who has thanked his donors, is a prominent member of a political party—should apply to the organisers as much as they do to anybody involved in politics, and that those donations should be declared with the transparency expected by this House and my constituents? Does the Minister agree that anybody receiving money from domestic or foreign sources should declare it?”
“Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has publicly thanked the donors who funded the recent Unite the Kingdom marches, which needed a significant police presence. We have heard mention several times this afternoon of equality before the law, so does the Home Secretary agree that the laws regarding the reporting of donations, both from the UK and from overseas, apply to members of all political parties equally?”
“Those flows matter not just to the industries that depend on them, but to every driver who would otherwise be sharing a road with the lorries that would replace them.”
“What struck me was how tangible the benefits were. I was joined by Huw Merriman from the Rail Freight Group and Chris Swan, among others, from the great team at the Tarmac facility. A single train delivery to that site can provide enough materials to build up to 30 new homes and, in doing so, removes around 60 HGV movements from the A6 and the surrounding residential streets. That is 60 fewer lorries on roads that my constituents use every day to get to work, school or the shops. The north-west is one of the busiest regions in the country for rail freight. Aggregates move daily from Peak district quarries through my constituency and beyond. Container trains run on the west coast main line bound for Scotland, Trafford Park and Seaforth in Merseyside.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the role of rail freight in the transport network. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. Compared with many other aspects of the transport network, rail freight rarely gets the attention I feel it deserves, yet it can help us to achieve so much of what so many of us say we want for our communities, our economy and our planet. From cleaner air and less congested roads to building new homes and a more resilient economy, rail freight is not a niche industry concern but a national infrastructure priority. The Tarmac site at Bredbury in my Hazel Grove constituency receives daily freight trains carrying construction materials from the Peak district, North Yorkshire and south Wales. I was lucky enough to be invited to visit last year and don my hi-vis.”
“The hon. Gentleman has, in his customary way, championed the needs of his constituents and the whole of Northern Ireland. I agree that rail freight is a very good thing of which there should be more. I am very keen to hear what the Minister has to say.”
“I agree on the importance of rail freight infrastructure. It really matters that the lines are in place and able to be used. I will talk about capacity and the importance of having dedicated rail paths for freight. I do not know the line the hon. Lady mentions, but perhaps I can visit her beautiful part of the world on my summer holidays.”
“It also means less congestion on already overstretched routes, resulting in cleaner air in the towns and villages that lorries would otherwise have passed through. Rail freight can deliver real benefits to real communities, and we are still not using it nearly enough. According to independent research by Deloitte, rail freight currently contributes £2.5 billion in economic and social value to the country each year. Yet, according to the Rail Freight Group, the UK moves only about 7% of its freight by rail, which is less than half of the European average of 19%.”
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the positive impact that good rail freight infrastructure can have on passengers. We should not look at the two as separate entities; they work together and use some of the same infrastructure. More rail freight means fewer wagons on the road, so it is better for all passengers, whether in cars, wagons or on the railway. As has been shown, this goes beyond my local area. Rail freight prevents 7 million HGV journeys every year across our nation, according to the Rail Freight Group. That means less wear on our roads, because HGVs cause disproportionately more damage to road surfaces than any other vehicle. The cost of that falls on all of us as taxpayers.”
“I am grateful for the hon. and learned Member’s insight based on his local understanding, and I strongly agree. For the Government to look at the whole of our rail infrastructure, not just that sitting on these islands, would be good for our economy, our environment and how we relate to our European neighbours and partners. We are moving more goods than ever across the country but the share going by rail is barely shifting, and we are falling further behind our European neighbours.”
“I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The way he lays out the scale of the impact of rail freight on his constituency and the neighbouring area shows its importance. I will come on to a couple of suggestions for the Government that I hope will address some of his point. Rail freight provides clear environmental benefits compared with the alternatives. Even when diesel-hauled, a freight train produces around 76% lower carbon emissions per tonne-kilometre than a lorry on the road. That figure improves dramatically with electrification, as electrically hauled freight cuts emissions further still, while also consuming far less track capacity because electric locomotives accelerate significantly better than diesel ones.”
“My hon. Friend gives yet another tourist advert for the beautiful area he represents. He is right that long-term thinking about investing in our infrastructure for our environment, our communities and our economy is good and sensible. That work with Kernow Connect sounds interesting and worth further exploration. As we continue to push towards net zero, as we must, that gap matters enormously. Moving freight off the roads and on to rail should be a core part of our decarbonisation programme, but we face several barriers to improving our rail freight network, and I am keen to hear from the Minister about the Government’s plans to address them.”
“Rail freight is already quietly doing a great amount of work every day in communities across the country. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how the Government intend to match that ambition with action.”
“As currently drafted, the Bill could dilute the regulatory oversight of network capacity allocation in ways that could entrench the prioritisation of GBR’s own passenger services over private sector freight operators. The Government should be setting ambitious freight growth targets within GBR’s remit and outline plans on how to achieve them. That is why I urge the Minister to ensure the creation and protection of strategic freight corridors. There are also opportunities for improvement in my constituency. Enabling infrastructure works at Ashburys and Ardwick via Northern Powerhouse Rail would enable the much-needed tram train services to Marple. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of how the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme can support freight and passenger ambitions in the north-west.”
“We want planning law to be changed so that new developments provide freight access to manufacturing and distribution facilities, building the infrastructure for a modal shift in the economy rather than trying to retrofit it later. For that strategy to work effectively, we also need a network that can accommodate rail freight. Freight operators need guaranteed access to train paths. They need capacity on the network to be actively planned and protected, not squeezed out incrementally as passenger demand grows. The Railways Bill creates Great British Railways, providing it with a duty to reserve capacity for its own services. Without explicit protections for freight, there is a real risk that freight corridors will be eroded over time.”
“Rail freight supports our supply chain resilience, as it reduces road damage by replacing HGVs that cause disproportionately more wear on road surfaces than any other vehicle, but it also reduces congestion and supports key industries such as house building, which receives key supply chain components through rail freight. The materials needed to deliver the homes this country needs can move by rail at scale in a way that road haulage simply cannot replicate without adding to the gridlock on roads running through my constituency like the A6, Bents Lane or Stockport Road. The Lib Dems are committed to a national freight strategy.”
“In relative terms, even though the costs are not that high, agreement from the Treasury would be needed, and as far as I understand has not yet been obtained. It makes no sense for diesel trains to run on electrified railways because of power supply constraints. The third barrier is signalling. Modern digital in-cab signalling, also known as the European train control system, makes far better use of existing infrastructure by creating uniformity in how trains brake and accelerate. It is planned as part of the TransPennine route upgrade, but there is no clear roll-out plan more widely. Would the Minister confirm whether there are any additional plans to use that form of signalling in other parts of the train network?”
“The Netherlands recognised that problem and built the Betuweroute, a dedicated freight-only railway completed this century, running directly from the ports of Rotterdam into Germany and relieving pressure on the existing network. We have no equivalent. The second barrier is electrification. Nearly all rail freight in the UK is diesel-hauled. That is partly because our electrification coverage is derisory but also because electricity costs have perversely led some freight operators to switch back from electric to diesel traction. The west coast main line north of Warrington has inadequate power supplies for the current level of traffic. That is another reason why a lot of freight, and indeed the new London-to-Stirling Lumo open-access passenger service, is diesel rather than electric.”
“I am glad the hon. Gentleman raises the question of those working in the rail freight industry. It is vital to all of us that those employed in the industry have safe and sanitary working conditions. We should applaud the work they do to keep the industry going. In the UK, we have consistently prioritised passenger services, and freight is often squeezed around and between them. The fundamental problem is the speed differential. A freight train typically runs at 60 to 75 mph, a limit set in the 1960s and barely reviewed since, while inter-city passenger trains run at 100 to 125 mph. That gap consumes enormous amounts of capacity.”
“Senior Cabinet Ministers asked Mandelson for advice on a range of issues, despite many of those issues falling outside the scope of his role. Issues of how we run this country stretch far beyond this scandal. The ministerial code, which should strongly inform the conduct of those who hold the highest offices in the land, continues to exist as guidance rather than the law. Ministers who breach it face no legal consequences. The Prime Minister can choose whether to act on the findings of independent advisers, which means that accountability is optional, and it is far from clear what consequences follow when rules are broken. Will the Government use this moment to bring forward legislation to enshrine the ministerial code in law?”
“Does the Chief Secretary agree that Government by WhatsApp must come to an end? Documents released today display concerning evidence that Peter Mandelson lobbied Ministers on behalf of his clients. That would appear to be a serious breach of the code of conduct for the other place, yet an initial reading of the files seems to suggest that many Ministers were pliant and responded warmly to him. Will the Minister confirm whether any Ministers reported their concerns about this seemingly egregious lobbying? The Government have outlined their plans for the removal of peerages Bill. At first glance, it is a narrow and woefully unambitious Bill that completely fails to rise to the moment. Will the Minister outline what it will take for the Government to make meaningful reforms to the second Chamber?”
“Given the Minister’s repeated assurances that there was no pressure from Government relating to vetting, what does he think that line refers to? We now know that Cabinet Ministers were privately praising and flattering Mandelson from before his appointment all the way until after his dismissal. Senior Ministers showed a staggering lack of judgment. Will the Chief Secretary explain why so much business relating to one of the most controversial public appointments in recent years appears to have been conducted over WhatsApp? It was private, informal and outside the official record. Government by WhatsApp, which the Lib Dems have continually called for an end to, must end, because informal messaging outside official channels creates accountability gaps that should trouble us all.”
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I thank members of the ISC and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for their work on this matter. I acknowledge again the women and girls who found the courage to come forward about the abuse that they endured at the hands of rich and powerful men. As we continue to discuss this matter, we must remember that those women are owed justice. When Peter Mandelson was appointed, UK Security Vetting advice was overridden. The then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office suggested that he was subject to constant pressure, and there is a line in today’s files suggesting that senior people expressed interest that the vetting process go smoothly.”
“Given that documents on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s trade envoy role are also due to be laid before this House shortly, will the Minister confirm that he will personally ensure that those are produced without redaction, too?”