Lisa Smart

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

The complete record

1,025 held · 610 searchable for Lisa Smart. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 10.

This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.

1. “Real-time disclosure of donations in a publicly searchable database of all online political ads and spending are commitments we have held for years. New clause 15 is entirely consistent with that agenda. There have been other amendments and proposals from other Members that have touched on some of those issues, which we also support. New clause 16 would require the treasurer of each registered political party to prepare an annual statement setting out the steps taken to mitigate risks relating to donations originating from a foreign nation, to be delivered to the Electoral Commission alongside the party’s statement of accounts. We have heard a great deal throughout this Committee about the importance of transparency, and we agree. This new clause makes transparency operational.”

   House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

2. “I would have thought those are politically appointed, rather than on a civil service basis. However, there are people who are not political appointments who would not fall within new clause 2, so they could continue to operate both as an envoy or an ambassador in that informal business ambassadorial role and continue to donate. I do not think that is covered under new clause 2 as it is currently written. Returning to new clause 3, the principle that our democratic institutions must command public confidence, and that those who seek to undermine them should face serious consequences, is one that we hold firmly. On new clause 15, voters have a right to know who is financing the people seeking their vote. That is a basic condition of democratic accountability.”

   House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

3. “We should all be against political violence. People who propose and promote political violence should not be permitted to donate to political parties in the UK. I am thinking about people who have various convictions in the UK for promoting political violence and about people who own tech platforms but are based on the west coast of the United States and have spoken at rallies that promote political violence. We should not be welcoming their interference in our politics and new clause 3 seeks to stop them from doing so. On new clause 2, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talked about people who have been politically appointed to be an adviser for a foreign Administration, whether in a business ambassadorial or trade envoy role, and I see his point.”

   House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

4. “I listened closely to what the Minister said, and I understand the thrust of her view that existing rules would cover the conduct that we are seeking to avoid. Will the Minister think of the specific case of Elon Musk, the owner of X? He spoke at a rally via video link and incited violence. He has also talked, at separate times, about donating to a UK political party. UK companies are part of his group; there would be a way for him to channel funding through a UK company. Will the Minister let me know what I am missing that would stop Elon Musk doing that?”

   House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

5. “That guidance could include measures regarding the donor’s identity and location, the original source of funds and maximum limits on the amount of crypto that may be donated. It is also worth mentioning that, as we have seen in the press in the last couple of weeks, a leader of a UK political party has been promoting the use of cryptoassets and has gained financially from doing so. We should all spend a moment to reflect on why somebody would want to do that, particularly when cryptoassets are not risk-free. Promoting their use, and the use of gold bars as an investment tool, should be beyond what is acceptable for an elected Member of this House. I encourage anybody, particularly people who purport to lead a political party in this country, to really think about the impact of their actions, particularly when it is for financial gain.”

   House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

6. “We see no democratic imperative to permit the use of crypto in political finance until adequate safeguards are in place.” Crypto also poses wider upstream risks to the integrity of political finance, with the Committee report going on to say that “donors can convert ‘dirty’ foreign crypto funds into ‘clean’ UK fiat and then donate it without arousing much suspicion. A ‘last mile’ ban on crypto donations is therefore not a panacea. Specialist capabilities to address upstream risks are underpowered and require further work.” New clause 12 therefore calls for an immediate moratorium on crypto donations until the Electoral Commission produces statutory guidance, which should be made using the affirmative procedure to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to review its adequacy before it is accepted.”

   House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

7. “Member for Warwick and Leamington, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy examined the merits and risks of allowing crypto donations, noting that benefits include the potential for greater transparency in some cases, and for regulations to gradually institutionalise alternative forms of payments. However, the Committee concluded: “Crypto donations pose an unnecessary and unacceptably high risk to the integrity of the political finance system and public trust in it. We accept that future regulations may institutionalise the use of alternative payment systems for use in donations. At present, however, the opportunity to evade rules is too high, the adequacy of mitigations too low, and the resource cost of attempting to implement acceptable oversight is disproportionate.”

   House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

8. “The difficulty in tracing the ultimate ownership of cryptoassets, the proliferation of different kinds of cryptoassets and the advent of AI-assisted technologies that can break cryptoassets into small amounts, below any threshold at which donations may have to be declared, create serious risks for political finance transparency. There is also a real risk of cryptoassets being used as a vehicle to channel foreign money into the UK political system, and neither the Electoral Commission nor political parties currently have the capability and expertise to manage that risk adequately. New clause 20 would require parties to declare the cryptoasset donations that they have received in the past. Given the clear issues with crypto donations, the public should surely expect transparency on them. On new clause 12, tabled by the hon.”

   House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

9. “Future Government amendments will be tabled at a later, as of yet unspecified date. I believe that the Minister is working with officials on the issue, but this Committee is where we can talk about the Bill on a cross-party basis. The Rycroft review recommended that a moratorium be placed on political donations made in cryptoassets. The Government responded to the review on the date of its publication, but, although other amendments to the Bill have been tabled, there has not yet been a clear indication of how quickly that recommendation will be integrated into it. The Liberal Democrats look forward to getting some further detail, dates and quick action, but we also want the measures introduced in this Bill to be effective in the long term. Cryptoassets are extremely difficult to trace.”

   House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

10. “I am happy to be speaking in support of new clause 4, and in favour of new clauses 12 and 20. New clause 20, which is in my name, would require parties to declare cryptoasset donations that they have received in the past. I agree with pretty much everything that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, and I note my earlier comments about the sticky wicket on which the Minister is being asked to play. The Government’s statement on the publication of the Rycroft review was a rare moment in which they nailed both the timing and politics of an issue, and it was absolutely right to ban crypto from that day to stop any further gaming of the system. However, I completely agree with the hon. Member that this Committee is the place to have a conversation about what that will look like.”

    House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

11. “As the hon. Gentleman is mentioning other parties and as I represent one of those other parties, it is only appropriate that I stand up and agree with him wholeheartedly. Everybody in the Chamber and beyond wants us to get this issue right. It is not a party political point. As the hon. Gentleman is, I and we are ready to work cross-party to get it right. If that means us doing some extra work between the various stages of the Bill, I would be completely content to be part of that.”

    House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

12. “I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for her comments. We have seen this over the last couple of elections in ’19 and ’24, and we are going to see it again in local and national elections: our regulatory framework is not keeping pace. As far as I am aware, there is no electoral framework—I would love to hear from the Minister on this—for anyone to systematically map the risks posed by deepfakes and associated online issues. Voters deserve to make free, informed choices, not tainted by some of the things that are seen online. I hope that the Government will take this forward.”

    House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

13. “Next week sees the funeral of my constituent Bob Humphrey-Taylor. Bob was a pillar of our community, and the driving force behind so many projects across Mellor and Marple, especially those with links to our industrial heritage. He was often dressed as the 18th-century industrialist Samuel Oldknow, and he was the owner of the most remarkable moustache I have ever seen out in the wild. He was a champion of our campaign to seek world heritage site status for our canals, our famous lock flight, and England’s highest aqueduct. May we have a debate in Government time, setting us up for the next round of world heritage site applications? That would be a fitting legacy for Bob and all those who have done so much in my community to celebrate our industrial heritage.”

    House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

14. “For example, a UK donor might receive £11,179 from a Russian source in connection with a planned donation but would, apparently, not need to declare that when making a £11,179 donation. The JCNSS noted the general principle that donations below £500 are largely outside the reporting scope of PPERA and would not need to be reported or recorded. A £500 threshold might therefore prove a more robust basis to guide the level at which money received in connection with a donation needs to be declared. The new clause would require any donation above £500 to be accompanied by a declaration on its source, and whether related gifts have been received. Transparency and consistency are both good things, of which there should be more.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

15. “The subsequent linked new clauses change the provisions of section 54A to address its shortcomings. Regarding new clause 48, the JCNSS heard evidence that law enforcement often faces prohibitively high thresholds for taking action on suspicions of wrongdoing, and that part of the problem is linked to the wording of the legislation, which requires law enforcement to prove that actors “knowingly” broke the rules. New clause 48 would lower the threshold and use wording in line with that of anti-money laundering regulations, whereby persons are liable if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are facilitating impermissible donations. Regarding new clause 49, the JCNSS questioned why it would be appropriate to have such a high threshold—£11,180—for making a declaration. It perceived a gap that could be exploited.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

16. “We Liberal Democrats welcome clauses 56 and 57, but the JCNSS did a huge amount of work looking at money and interference in our politics, and it has made some recommendations, which are manifested in the new clauses. The JCNSS welcomed the Government’s commitment to commence section 54A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That section was inserted in 2009 but never commenced. It covers requirements for donors to make a declaration about their donation, but the Committee found that the provisions need more work to adequately address concerns about donors acting as conduits for foreign money. New clause 47 would require the Government to commence section 54A of the 2000 Act within three months of the Bill being passed.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

17. “It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. This discussion about part 4 feels slightly odd because we are having part of the conversation but will have a further conversation on Report, for all the good and understandable reasons that we have talked about, after the publication of the review by Sir Philip Rycroft. Many people truly welcome Sir Philip’s work and some of us were fortunate enough to take part in it, but we are discussing the measures under consideration while fully aware that we expect further movement from the Government. I will speak to the new clauses tabled in the name of the Chair of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western).”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

18. “Also, the low sentences reportedly limit the type of investigatory tools that law enforcement may use in an investigation. I am content to speak to the new clauses on behalf of the Member who tabled them, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

19. “I welcome the shadow Minister’s intervention, and I think that we should talk far more than we do about domestic money in politics, as well as foreign money in politics. Power is concentrated in far too few hands. The price of elections is going up and up, and that is not good for democracy. I would welcome that discussion. New clause 49 is in the name of the Chair of the JCNSS, so I am speaking to it on his behalf. We are talking about £500 during the course of a calendar year, so £50 a month breaches the threshold. I think there is a conversation to be had. As I say, this new clause is not in my name. On new clause 50, the Committee heard evidence that the current 12-month prison sentence was not an adequate deterrent.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

20. “She has not been dealt an easy hand, but I would appreciate hearing about her planned timetable for issuing further amendments. I am sure that the Minister agrees about the scale and immediacy of the threat that some of the amendments seek to address, including foreign interference in our elections and democracy. Urgency on those actions is needed. It is important to get these measures in place as soon as possible, but they really should be the right measures. I would welcome hearing from the Minister about when she plans to bring forward further information, and I am sure that we all look forward to scrutinising that in due course.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

21. “The Government have a ready vehicle for it in front of them, so the Committee would welcome an explanation of why that is. Can the Minister set out a planned timetable of future actions, including a firm commitment on when a cryptocurrency amendment will appear? The shadow Minister talked fairly about how this process is running in parallel, making it quite difficult to understand what is ahead of us. The Government are working on a response to the Rycroft review in full, and there are measures in the Bill that they will be keen to ensure are implemented in time for the next general election, including votes at 16 and automatic voter registration. Those will take time to implement, so I understand that the Minister is playing a reasonably sticky wicket, trying to go at pace but in a thorough and considered manner.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

22. “We Liberal Democrats support greater scrutiny of the sources of political money. We will not oppose any of these amendments, whether from the Government or His Majesty’s Opposition, but we want to raise some issues because we believe that they could have gone further. The amendments were tabled, as has been mentioned, following the publication of the Rycroft review, but revisions around cryptocurrency donations are not included in them. In a welcome statement to the House, the Secretary of State talked specifically about banning crypto donations, but there is no mention of that in the Bill. The Government accepted Sir Philip’s recommendation on the day that it was published, so why is there nothing about that in this group of amendments?”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

23. “I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 60, page 72, line 36, at end insert— “(c) the person has nominated a director or partner who is to be personally responsible for ensuring the donation is made in accordance with the requirements of this Part.” This amendment provides that for donors from corporate bodies to be permissible they must nominate a director or partner who is responsible for compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

24. “The Committee concluded that this unlimited limit is the wrong policy choice and a major issue with the Bill’s drafting. It seeks to fix that loophole with the amendments.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

25. “The National Crime Agency said that the use of many investigatory tools is curtailed by the fact that sentences are only 12 months. On amendments 36 and 37, the JCNSS report highlighted a potential Bill loophole relating to corporate donation limits. The Committee supported the Government’s proposal of limiting donations in line with the amount of revenue generated in the UK, but the report highlighted assessments from the Electoral Commission that the upper limit appears to apply to the individual recipients of donations, rather than to the individual company. That suggests that a company could donate its upper limit to a political party and then donate the upper limit hundreds of times over to individual MPs and regulated entities—for example, candidates.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

26. “Amendment 34 would ensure that corporate donors must nominate a director or partner who would be responsible for complying with the legal requirements. Otherwise, the JCNSS fears that there is a risk of inadequate deterrence if accountability can be attributed to a complex corporate structure. The amendment would help to enable the Electoral Commission and law enforcement to hold specific individuals to account for wrongdoing. Amendment 35 is a linked amendment, and specifies that the responsible director or partner would be criminally liable for breaching political finance rules. To ensure appropriate deterrence, it would raise the penalties from 12 months to three years in prison. Those higher sentences would also enable law enforcement to make use of more extensive investigatory powers when examining potential wrongdoing.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

27. “Before I speak to the amendments, I should say that I welcome clause 60, but I do not support new clauses 13, 32 or 52. The overall thrust of these provisions is that the UK is one of the only countries that still allows donations by companies, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she and her colleagues gave any consideration to putting a stop to that altogether. Amendments 34 to 37 are, again, in the name of the Chair of the JCNSS, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. The Committee’s report identified a need for tighter rules on corporate donations. That includes ensuring that proportionate civil and criminal sanctions can be targeted at those who deliberately engage in wrongdoing.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

28. “We have had a good discussion of the amendments that I spoke to on behalf of the Chair of the JCNSS, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. I do not feel a desire in the room to move to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 61 Forfeiture of certain donations to registered parties etc Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

29. “This is the time for us to protect our election integrity in the digital age, and I hope that the Government accept new clause 18 and take the opportunity before it is too late.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

30. “Existing systems can be used to show voters completely fabricated content; some recent examples of AI-generated content that is damaging in different ways have already been mentioned. Transparency is the foundation of democratic legitimacy, and new clause 18 seeks to protect that foundation. On deepfakes, we are deeply concerned about the increase in AI-generated material that is produced to harm individuals and our broader democracy. We should be ensuring that there is transparency and accountability within political campaigning, and we need to limit the level of mis and disinformation that could be spread through AI-generated material. Requiring that political campaign material be properly labelled when it includes AI material feels like a sensible and moderate step.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

31. “I would like to test the mood of the Committee by pushing new clause 18 to a Division. We need to see action on these issues ahead of the next general election, and it feels like this piece of legislation is the opportunity to do that. We have talked repeatedly in this Committee about trust in our electoral processes being already very fragile—too fragile. We have seen years of scandal—of varying sorts—tarnish our political structures. Confidence in our politics and democratic processes is vital, and we should be doing everything that we can to bolster that confidence, which is too low. We should not be allowing new systems to be adopted in these structures and used to undermine our politics.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

32. “I will not repeat what has just been said, but a number of the new clauses overlap slightly, in trying to fill in the gaps that quite a few of us feel are present in the Bill as drafted. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire and I are pleased to be co-vice chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which is the leading organisation within Parliament campaigning for reforming the electoral system—of which there is no mention in the Bill. We spent some time today discussing some measures around getting dark money out of politics, and we hope that the Government move further on that. We look forward to the Minister introducing the Government’s response to the Rycroft review, and also to stopping mis and disinformation in our politics.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

33. “I support clauses 63 and 64, and I warmly welcome the comments from my colleague, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, on new clauses 10, 24, 25, 27 and 28, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central. A number of us who have been concerned with the issues that we are talking about today and which the Bill seeks to address were very pleased to see some of the measures that the Government put in the first draft of the Bill. But we were disappointed by what was not there: the lack of discussion of regulated periods, generative AI deepfakes, and mis and disinformation felt like a missed opportunity. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State spoke of the need to ensure that regulation keeps up with digital reality, and this legislation feels like the opportunity to address some of those issues.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

34. “Does he agree that spending limits for local candidates should probably go up a little but spending limits for national parties should come down significantly because, after all, people put a cross in a box next to an individual’s name, not just a political party?”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

35. “I am genuinely intrigued in several ways by the shadow Minister’s contribution. He talks about a level playing field. Most of us would always agree with a level playing field, in pretty much all circumstances. Does he think that the national spending limits for the larger political parties should be brought down significantly? He expressed real concern about smaller parties, whether localist parties or groups of independents, that do not have a national political machine with a multimillion-pound budget at a general election. If I understand correctly what the shadow Minister says, he would not see that as a level playing field.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

36. “The Speaker’s Commission earlier called for electoral law review, including addressing the disinformation that can fuel abuse and intimidation, and a number of people involved in the democracy sector and the implementation of the enforcement of electoral law would welcome looking at a review of all the many Representation of the People Acts that have taken place over time, so that we can look at where they complement one another and where, on occasion, they do less than that. The last point to make is that if platforms can micro-target voters in real time, surely the regulator must be able to obtain basic information in real time. On that note, I commend new clauses 46 and 53 to the Committee.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

37. “The Committee on Standards in Public Life’s 2021 review recommended extending the commission’s powers to compel document information and explanation outside an investigation. Election-related harms are increasingly amplified online. The Electoral Commission evidence to the Speaker’s Conference explicitly links disinformation and platform algorithms to harassment and intimidation, and it describes concrete candidate harms, including deterrence and avoidance.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

38. “The Rycroft review, which has been mentioned many times today, states that the Electoral Commission, unlike the other regulators, cannot demand information outside a formal investigation, meaning that it cannot work in real time to head off offences. The review recommends extending powers so that the commission can require information from relevant bodies and persons. By comparison, the Charity Commission has the option of a regulatory inquiry, which gives information-obtaining powers without the necessity of enacting a lengthy statutory inquiry. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy report, describing the Catch-22, recommends powers for the Electoral Commission to compel information, deployable in appropriate cases outside formal investigations.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

39. “However, the report emphasised that the Electoral Commission can impose fines only if it can prove an offence has occurred in the first place. The fact that it often cannot do so is precisely the problem and underpins the need for stronger information-gathering powers. New clause 46 would increase the commission’s powers to require financial institutions to provide it with information in relation to the permissibility of donations. New clause 53 is complementary to new clause 46. It would enable the Electoral Commission to require information before launching a formal investigation. When I met the commission’s chief executive with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, who tabled the new clause, we talked about exactly that issue.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

40. “Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), has drawn attention to Electoral Commission comments about a Catch-22 in its powers to investigate suspicious transactions: “Despite our statutory duty to monitor and take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance…we currently have no ability to obtain any information from financial institutions that we can use to monitor and independently verify provenance or the permissibility of funds, unless we open a full investigation. This is a weakness: to open such an investigation needs clear evidence—but we can’t always obtain that in the first place.” The Government said that they would keep the Electoral Commission’s powers under review, and noted that they were increasing planning powers per offence to provide a greater deterrent.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

41. “I should start by reminding the Committee that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, so I have been a part of some of the discussions the Minister mentioned. I also met the chief exec of the Electoral Commission to talk about what is in the Bill, what the Electoral Commission welcomed and worked with officials on, and what it would have liked to have seen more on. That was a useful and productive meeting. The commission made some public comments, and I cannot remember the exact wording used, but it was underwhelmed at some elements, I think. I am particularly keen to speak to new clause 46 and new clause 53, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. New clause 46, in the name of the hon.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

42. “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?”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

43. “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.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

44. “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.”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

45. “T4. Lib Dem-run Stockport is the MJ’s council of the year. It spends £3 in every £4 on adults and children, and it includes the most deprived part of Greater Manchester, yet the Government’s funding settlement leaves the borough receiving £52 million less each year than the average across equivalent authorities. That has been made significantly worse this year. What advice would the Minister give to my constituents when they see the council having to make cuts to vital local services?”

    House of Commons13 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

46. “It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I find it slightly confusing that the spokesperson for His Majesty’s Opposition, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, does not see that there should be a higher bar for somebody to stand for election and represent their community than to vote in an election.”

    House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

47. “Those bars should be proportionate, and we feel that the Government’s proposal is entirely proportionate, so we support it.”

    House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

48. “I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s confirmation of his assertion. Currently, there are higher barriers for voting than there are for standing in an election. That situation baffles me. We should be welcoming as many people as possible to vote if are entitled to. I am reasonably confident that we will discuss this matter more as the day progresses. The Liberal Democrats welcome these clauses, because it is wholly sensible that there should be proof, particularly around home address. In our experience of elections, many of us will have seen looser or tighter interpretations of where somebody is living when standing for election. It is very welcome that proof must be provided in this way; there should be bars that candidates need to jump over to stand in an election.”

    House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

49. “The proposal is supported by the Jo Cox Foundation, which was set up after the absolutely horrific murder of a Member of Parliament. The foundation knows of what it speaks, and recommended in its evidence to the Committee that we look at this. I encourage the Committee to support the new clause, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford for tabling it.”

    House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

50. “Political parties can support their candidates, but not all candidates represent a political party, so there is inconsistency in that regard. Some parties are newer than others, and do not have the experience necessarily of some of the spikier sides of election campaigning. New clause 56 would place a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance. It would require returning officers to provide it to their candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted. I take the point about the level of bureaucracy it could introduce, but if it is one set of guidance for all candidates standing in local elections, I do not believe that is an excessive amount of bureaucracy. Providing it would ensure that all candidates in elections have access to consistent and quality guidance.”

    House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →