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 6 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. “Member for Hamble Valley was entirely right to talk about Operation Bridger, while Operation Ford works with candidates for local elections. Those are both really big steps forward in recent years towards helping candidates know what support is out there, and helping police forces know what their duties and responsibilities are and what good looks like. There is real inconsistency between police forces about how they treat the activity that none of us wants to see in elections, including hostility and abuse both online and offline. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford tabled the new clause to introduce consistency. The Electoral Commission is a national body, and it can make the point to police forces and others about what their roles and responsibilities are.”

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

   Check this claim →

2. “The Liberal Democrats welcome clause 45, but I will speak particularly in favour of new clause 56, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, regarding the duty of the Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford was a member of the Speaker’s Conference, which looked at the safety of candidates in elections. It did a huge amount of very detailed work and came up with some really strong recommendations. We should all be grateful to those who served on it. New clause 56 is quite a straightforward proposal. We sadly live in times where candidates—those standing both in national elections and in local elections—too often face abuse and hostility. The hon.”

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

   Check this claim →

3. “The hon. Gentleman was entirely right to make the point about the advertisements that have been around. Does he accept that, according to the Electoral Commission’s report, 4% of people who did not vote said that the knowledge of the requirement to show ID—because of that advertising—meant that they did not turn up at the polling station?”

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

   Check this claim →

4. “It will not surprise anybody that I am not in favour of amendment 30 and will speak in favour of new clause 19. Before I get into that, I will speak briefly in favour of clause 47 and Government amendments 10 and 11. If we have voter ID, it should be as wide and as accessible as possible, so I will not speak against those provisions.”

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

   Check this claim →

5. “We have talked already about how these measures disproportionately affect some communities over others. Hope Not Hate reported that 6.5% of ethnic minority voters were turned away from a polling booth at least once, compared with 2.5% of white voters. Evidence from the Electoral Commission shows that those in the C2 and DE social grades were significantly more affected, with 8% of lower-income non-voters saying that they did not vote because they lacked the required ID, compared with 3% of higher-income voters. We should not be stopping people who are entitled to vote for want of the correct photo ID. This is a solution in search of a problem—and for that reason, I commend new clause 19 to the Committee.”

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

   Check this claim →

6. “Meanwhile, the University of Manchester found that almost 2 million people did not have the right ID to vote in 2024. These people are not just a statistic; they are individual citizens who were not able to exercise their democratic right. I remember knocking on doors at the last election and speaking to somebody who was livid that she could not exercise her right to vote. She had recently been divorced, and she had changed her name as a result. That meant that a lot of her ID was in her old name and so she was unable to cast her vote, which she felt very strongly about. She talked to me about the women—the suffragettes and suffragists—who had died to ensure that we had a right to vote. I remember that conversation on polling day very clearly.”

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

   Check this claim →

7. “Restricting bank card voter ID only to cards issued after a formal credit check would significantly narrow eligibility, and we do not support that. We believe that voter ID requirements should be scrapped because they are a deeply unfair policy. If bank cards, which include only a name to provide verified information, are seen as acceptable forms of ID, would it not make sense to extend the provision and allow any form of personal ID to be shown at the polling booth? Partial improvements are not enough when the underlying principle and policy remain deeply flawed. I have mentioned some of the evidence presented to us by the Electoral Commission. Further evidence from the organisation showed that the number of voters turned away was 50,000 at the last election, with 34,000 of those people returning to exercise their right to vote.”

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

   Check this claim →

8. “New clause 19 would abolish the legal requirement to show photo ID when voting in person in Great Britain. Liberal Democrats were not in favour of it when it was introduced, and we remain not in favour of it today. I have heard it described repeatedly as a solution in search of a problem. Before the introduction of voter ID legislation between 2019 and 2023, out of tens of millions of votes cast, only 10 people were convicted for personation during a UK election, and yet the scheme saw 16,000 voters turned away, according to evidence from the Electoral Reform Society. This is not a crisis that required the legislation that was brought in. The Government are now trying to extend that, and it is certainly not a crisis that justifies the Conservative amendment before us. We believe it would make things worse rather than better.”

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

   Check this claim →

9. “Bank cards are among the most common everyday items, but amendment 30 seeks to restrict that widened category, creating a barrier to entry that mimics a credit score-based franchise. Many legitimate voters, particularly younger people, including the 16 and 17-year-olds who are to be enfranchised, and lower socioeconomic groups, use basic banking services that do not require formal credit searches. We heard in the oral evidence sessions last week from Peter Stanyon, of the Association of Electoral Administrators, who pointed out that the measure would add unnecessary complexity for polling staff, some of whom are volunteers. It would require them to understand the nuances of credit check markers on cards, which would be an impossible administrative burden.”

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

   Check this claim →

10. “The point I am making is about bank cards in particular. I want it to be as easy as possible for people to vote, and the Electoral Commission’s evidence was that the barriers put up by requiring photographic ID particularly impacted certain demographic groups, including young people, who often face additional barriers in terms of understanding how the world works. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have talked about how they have a number of bank cards and understand the system. That is great, but they are from a demographic group for whom the modern world is built, and it is not the same for everybody. If a person rents, often changes address or does not speak English as a first language, the world is harder to navigate, but everyone who is eligible to vote should be able to vote.”

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

    Check this claim →

11. “My constituent Nawaz has been in touch with me with real concerns about the financial impact that roadworks are having on his small business. He may be entitled to compensation if the roadworks are caused by gas or water companies, but not if they are works by telecoms or electricity companies. The impact on local businesses and constituents is the same whether roadworks are for cables or for pipes, so could the Department look at that discrepancy?”

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

    Check this claim →

12. “Will he also address why calls from the Liberal Democrats for Donald Trump’s Administration, and their explicit policy of interference in our democracy, to be included in this review were ignored? Will he order a stand-alone probe into that?”

    House of Commons25 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

13. “On overseas donations, a cap is welcome, but does the Secretary of State accept that if this reform is made without wider changes, a malign actor could get around it simply by donating via a UK company? We strongly support the moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency, but much more is needed to really seize this opportunity to clean up our politics. We should ban anyone who has served a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups A significant opportunity remains for those who have been political appointees in hostile Governments to funnel donations into the UK. We should also ban politicians from receiving payment for participating in the propaganda of foreign adversaries, on broadcasters like Russia Today and Iran’s PressTV.”

    House of Commons25 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

14. “I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I was grateful to meet Philip Rycroft as part of this important and urgent work. The threat that we face is not new. Back in 2020, the Intelligence and Security Committee said that Russian influence in the UK is the “new normal” and that the Government then were not doing enough. Since then, we have seen Reform’s former leader in Wales being convicted for accepting pro-Russian bribes. We have said before that the Representation of the People Bill is not nearly ambitious enough, so I very much look forward to working as part of the Bill Committee to incorporate the recommendations. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the Government intend to accept just the two recommendations that he has focused on in his statement, or all of them?”

    House of Commons25 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

15. “Inconsistency in voting ages is not a new problem requiring a review, as the voting age already differs across different types of elections, whether local, devolved or national. Voting at 16 applies already in Scotland and Wales for devolved elections; I have not spotted a particular constitutional crisis brought about by that. The amendment implies a problem that does not exist, and the Liberal Democrats will not support it.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

16. “In the 2010 policy paper “Free to be Young”, which was voted on by the party conference, we decided that “when you are old enough to get married or join the armed forces, you are old enough to vote”. We also affirmed that the Liberal Democrats, “would empower young people with full political rights at 16”, and we reaffirmed this most recently in our 2024 manifesto. We will not support amendment 33, tabled by the official Opposition. We feel that it is an attempt to delay and obstruct votes at 16, which is a long-standing Lib Dem policy. We believe it is a delaying mechanism and not a genuine policy question. We feel that the age of majority argument is a red herring, as 16 and 17-year-olds already exercise significant legal rights and responsibilities.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

17. “It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. The Liberal Democrats support the general direction of the Bill and want to help the Government to get it right and, where we feel it falls short, be more ambitious. We remain particularly disappointed that the Bill contains no steps towards electoral reform and feel that it fails to take the opportunity that the moment presents. However, we will conduct ourselves in a constructive manner throughout this Committee. The Liberal Democrats strongly support extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Young people can work and care for family members and are profoundly affected by policy decisions. In every single manifesto since 2001, the Liberal Democrats have supported votes at 16.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

18. “Member for North Herefordshire could explain that, it would be extremely helpful. As things stand, without understanding why four years has been chosen, we will not support new clause 9. We believe that the rules that apply to the franchise should impact 16 and 17-year-olds in exactly the same way that they impact those who are 18 and above, so we will support clause 2.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

19. “The Liberal Democrats believe that voting is a fundamental democratic right, not a privilege to be earned on release. We champion the right to vote, and we are opposed to this disenfranchisement. We also believe that every unnecessary restriction on the franchise weakens democratic legitimacy. Prisoners serving short sentences will, in most cases, be released within the lifetime of a Parliament, so they have a direct stake in the laws passed by the MPs they help to elect. Denying that stake feels arbitrary. We are also committed to the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, and we believe that other laws we pass here should sit comfortably alongside them. On new clause 9, we feel that the proposed threshold is arbitrary, and we are unclear why four years has been chosen as the cut-off. If the hon.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

20. “But if we are to create a new franchise, it is right to think about whether those who are newly franchised are able to exercise it. That is why new clause 44 is reasonable—it follows that principle. Clauses 15 and 16 are welcome, and we recognise the necessity of targeting relevant young people, but it is yet to be determined which part of the system will take the lead on preparing young people for participation—schools, local authorities or national bodies. The new clause asks the Government to set out in much more detail how that responsibility will be approached.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

21. “Some schools and local authorities may do civic education really well and others may not. Young people across the country should not have significantly different levels of preparation for participation, depending on where they happen to live or study. I would include those who are in the care of a local authority very strongly in that. National enfranchisement reform deserves a national implementation plan. In the modern world, media literacy is very important alongside basic democratic literacy. The Bill already recognises that practical support matters. Clauses 15 and 16 are important because they make clear that simply extending a legal right is not in itself enough. Placing duties on public bodies to raise awareness of voting rights and to assist certain young people with registration is a welcome step, and we support that principle.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

22. “Not only does the Bill make provisions for votes at 16 and 17, but it allows for pre-registration on the electoral roll from age 14. We rightly support that, but if we are asking teenagers to enter the democratic system at that age, we must consider how we support these young people to be properly informed and prepared. New clause 44 is modest. It does not delay enfranchisement or obstruct the Bill. It simply asks the Secretary of State to report within 12 months on how the extension of the franchise will be supported in practice. Civic education should never mean telling young people what to think. We want our young people to understand institutions and elections and to have media and democratic literacy. We need a joined-up strategy because we do not want a postcode lottery for civic education.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

23. “It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. The Liberal Democrats support clauses 15 and 16. I will speak to new clause 44, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. Her explanatory statement is clear that it “requires the Government to report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, through promoting awareness or making changes required to strengthen civic education”. Both the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner made some good points about ensuring there is not the postcode lottery that we are in danger of. I look forward to their support for this new clause. As I said earlier, the Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of votes at 16 but enfranchisement must be meaningful.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

24. “I very much welcome the Minister’s comments about how we need a whole-of-society approach to ensuring that young people are equipped to exercise their right to vote. She talked about devolved Administrations, schools and others. There are non-governmental organisations and charities working on that approach: Shout Out UK and My Life My Say are two really good examples. The Minister is right that this is an ongoing process, but the extension of the franchise will be a one-off. There will be a single point in time when the franchise is extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. The new clause, which would provide for a report after 12 months, has been tabled to ensure that the necessary work is done to look at what has happened and what needs to happen to make sure that our young people are properly equipped and empowered to use their vote.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

25. “The review mentioned in it does not have a timetable, and the piloting framework in clauses 20 to 25 will already test the implementation of AVR. We do not support amendments 26 and 27; we support clauses 17 to 19.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

26. “We heard from Professor Toby James from the University of East Anglia and the Electoral Integrity Project. He raised concerns that the open register means that people placed on the electoral roll may not be aware that their data can be sold to third parties. People who never sought registration to begin with may be especially unaware of that. Those are concerns we should all hold dear. Amendment 26 seems to frame accuracy and inclusion as a trade-off. We do not agree. Triple verification would create administrative friction and disproportionately block the groups with the lowest registration levels, such as young people and private renters. We believe other safeguards are in place. The amendment is a blocker, so we do not support it. Amendment 27 would delay the implementation of automatic voter registration.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

27. “The Liberal Democrats always have concerns about privacy and civil liberties, and we want to ensure that any roll-out of AVR keeps control of the data with the individual. I agree with and support the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley about people being able to opt out. One of the measures in this part of the Bill is around data-sharing powers, allowing electoral registration officers to use existing Government records to register or update voters without requiring an application. Some of the evidence we saw from Unlock Democracy recommends clear opt-out communications and privacy safeguards. People may not fully understand that they are being registered unless they are proactively informed, so we support those recommendations.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

28. “International research by the Electoral Integrity Project found that the UK is ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe for the extent to which elections empower citizens. Research from Manchester University shows that the UK has one of the hardest registration systems for voters of any liberal democracy. In democracies around the world, AVR is the norm, and has been proven to lead to more accurate—not less—electoral registers. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire quoted the Electoral Commission, and she was entirely right to do so. The commission said in its report: “From the evidence available, nearly all of these additions to the register appear accurate”. We should listen to the experts on this matter.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

29. “The Liberal Democrats are in favour of automatic voter registration; it is a long-standing commitment of ours. As such, we support clauses 17 to 19, and we oppose amendments 26 and 27. Some Opposition Members said they feel that the current system is doing okay and expressed satisfaction with it. I disagree. It is not okay that 65% of private renters are registered to vote compared with 95% of homeowners, according to Generation Rent. It is also not okay that young people or members of the global majority are far less likely to be registered—someone being black or brown should not mean they are less likely to be registered. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats support AVR.”

    House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

30. “In many cases around the world, we think they have a hard deal in actually being able to vote. We would like to see further work to help them. Finally, if the Committee does not mind, I will just ride my hobby horse. This will be the 27th Representation of the People Act, and some consolidation and simplification of electoral law is necessary, not least for electoral administrators, parties and candidates. We would very much like to see a broad-ranging, cross-party and Government commitment to do some consolidation over the next few years.”

    House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

31. “We know that that is one of the areas the public have least faith in: somewhere between 14% and 17% of the public think the political finance system works for them. The second area is automatic registration, where it is less about the change in the Bill and more about implementing it before the next general election. Most countries have systems like this, and they work well. We know the data sources quite well. We recently evaluated four pilots in Welsh local authorities, and showed that they were very successful at boosting not only the completeness of the register but, crucially, the accuracy. There is not a tension between completeness and accuracy when you are using good data sources. We can now do that. Another area to flag is overseas voters, which I think your previous witnesses mentioned.”

    House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

32. “Vijay Rangarajan: There are a couple of areas where we would like to see further work. I have already mentioned company donations—that is crucial. To be clear, our polling shows that while trust in politics in general is quite low, trust in the electoral system is very high, as two of your previous witnesses said. That is important. We would like the “know your donor” provisions to be strengthened. At the moment, to pass them, a political party accepting a donation would need to produce a risk assessment, but it would be good if that had to be public, sent to us or used in such a way that others could judge whether there was a reasonable risk of a party accepting impermissible donations.”

    House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

33. “Q I should declare that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. You have already answered one of my questions, which was about profit being a better measure than turnover for companies donating, so I will not ask you about that. The Electoral Commission’s press release in response to the publication of the Bill said—I cannot remember the exact phrasing—that the Bill was welcome but that it did not go quite far enough, and that the commission would like to see more measures to tackle issues with where we are in our democracy. Trust in politics is at a very low level, and trust in our democracy is an important element in our democracy remaining legitimate and in our having the trust and faith of the electorate. What more would you like to see the Bill do to rebuild trust in politics?”

    House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

34. “We might also see Parliaments that really do not reflect how voters have voted, and that could do a huge amount of damage to trust in democracy, which is already on a life support machine.”

    House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

35. “Dr Garland: It comes down to the fact that first past the post, as a voting system, is designed for a two-party system. We have moved hugely towards a multi-party system, particularly in the last two years. In that circumstance, when you have many parties in contention, you end up with representatives elected on less than 30% of the vote. Whether you see that as acceptable or not, that is not what a majoritarian system is supposed to do, and it makes it incredibly confusing for voters. If we think to the next general election, people will find it very difficult to know how to make their vote effect the outcome that they want. When you are in a multi-party system, but you are using a two-party voting system, you end up with very chaotic and unpredictable results. That is very bad for voters.”

    House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

36. “Q For the record, Dr Garland and I used to be fellow trustees on a charity for a number of years. [ Interruption. ] No, I do not know every witness, but it is not far off. In page 7 of your written evidence, Dr Garland, you talk about new clause 1, tabled in my name, on the voting system. That is something that affects a number of people, in the context of the changing landscape that you just laid out. We had the most disproportionate election ever in 2024, with a party that got a third of the votes getting two thirds of the seats and pretty much 100% of the power. Will you say a little more and expand on the comments you made about why a voting system change would better reflect the situation in which we find ourselves in 2026 and beyond?”

    House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

37. “I am working with the Public Bill Office on an amendment that extends the regulated period. Given the narrow scope of the Bill, that is a way of thinking about that.”

    House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

38. “My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making a compelling case for the people of Cheadle to get the railway station they deserve. He mentioned Nathaniel Yates, who is a phenomenal campaigner in our region for accessibility at railway stations, and I visited Bredbury station and Romiley station with him. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that when we eventually do get Cheadle station, it should be accessible, so that everybody can access it and people get the rail service they deserve.”

    House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

39. “T5. My constituent Simon came to see me about his concerns following his family’s journey through family court arrangement proceedings. He mentioned a Both Parents Matter statistic that has stayed with me: 40% of separated fathers experience suicidal thoughts. What more can the Government do to support parents, and everybody, who goes through family court proceedings?”

    House of Commons17 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

40. “If the number of decisions taken locally or in the regions and the amount of power in those regions increases, does that mean that he expects the number of Ministers needed at a national level to decrease? Liberal Democrats will support measures that make Government work better, but we feel that this Bill expanding the ministerial payroll is a missed opportunity to strengthen ministerial accountability or do anything truly meaningful to rebuild the public trust that has been so badly damaged.”

    House of Commons17 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

41. “Before we nod through this additional taxpayer expenditure, I would welcome an assurance and a clear explanation from the Minister on what the roles will be and why they are needed. Transparency when signing over this amount of money should be an expectation, not a request. This Government and their predecessors talk of devolution—something that we Liberal Democrats strongly support. We believe that the best decisions are those made closest to the people they impact, and this Government have taken some steps to devolve power and funding closer to the communities we all represent. They have not necessarily done it in the way that we Lib Dems would have done it, but we acknowledge that they have made some progress. In his closing remarks, will the Minister comment on how he sees the number of Ministers changing over time?”

    House of Commons17 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

42. “The Government have 120 Ministers, of which two in the House of Commons and nine in the other place are unpaid. Expanding the ministerial payroll must come with greater accountability, not less. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to enshrine the ministerial code in law so that the standards we expect of those in office are not merely guidelines to be ignored at will, but legal obligations with real consequences. We also call for the ethics adviser to be made truly independent. They should be empowered to initiate their own investigations, determine breaches and publish findings without interference from the very Prime Minister they are supposed to hold to account. This Bill does not tell us very much new about what responsibilities the additional Ministers will take on.”

    House of Commons17 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

43. “With this legislation, the Government are adding an estimated £600,000 to £850,000 a year to the cost to the taxpayer. If the Government are demanding that amount of taxpayers’ money each year to pay for these additional salaries, they should be able to provide a guarantee that the public are getting full value for that money. The Government should commit that none of the newly salaried Ministers or any Minister drawing a taxpayer-funded salary will be permitted to hold a second or third job. If the Government are expanding the payroll to fit the size of the Government that they need, there is no excuse for those Ministers to be dividing their time with outside employment. That being said, the work that Ministers do should be recognised.”

    House of Commons17 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

44. “In recent months, we have seen that those we should be able to trust in positions of government do not always have our best interests at heart, from Mandelson’s dismissal and the sharing of confidential information to a former Cabinet Office Minister being implicated in efforts to discredit journalists. Those scandals have led to further corrosion in public trust, which we should be doing everything in our power to rebuild. Last year, YouGov found that only 4% of people feel that politicians are doing what is best for the country, while 67% feel that politicians act out of self-interest. Our political system is under enormous strain, and public outrage at the numerous instances of corruption, lawbreaking or just poor judgment is a gift to those at the political extremes. Meek promises to tweak some processes are not enough.”

    House of Commons17 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

45. “We had the shortest serving Prime Minister ever, endless Cabinet reshuffles and a revolving door of Secretaries of State that left Departments directionless and policy in a constant state of flux. Instead of everyone being famous for five minutes, almost every Conservative MP in the last Parliament was a Minister for 15 minutes. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that Ministers who hold office for only a few days or weeks should not be entitled to handsome severance payouts. Under the chaos of the last Government, we witnessed severance payments to Ministers who had been in post for under a week. That is an insult to the taxpayer, and this Government must ensure that such practices are consigned to history.”

    House of Commons17 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

46. “The Liberal Democrats believe that people should be paid fairly to do a job, and that it should not be only the wealthy who can afford to be a Minister. Ministers will face enormous demands on their time, for there is much to be done, and the Government should prioritise finding talent across both Houses to fill these positions. We recognise the importance of having a well-rounded and efficient Government, but expanding the ministerial payroll is only justifiable if it comes with transparency, accountability and a genuine commitment to public service. When the previous Conservative Government—or maybe it was the one before that, or the one before that —were in power, we witnessed a merry-go-round of Ministers.”

    House of Commons17 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

47. “The Minister of course will know that the Prime Minister is responsible for the contents of the ministerial code. While the ethics adviser can launch an investigation, the Prime Minister reserves the right to raise concerns about any such investigation, so that the independent adviser does not proceed. Have I understood that correctly?”

    House of Commons17 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

48. “Our system is not set up automatically to call a by-election whenever an MP defects or is removed from a political party, or indeed when a party of government moves firmly away from a manifesto commitment. Nevertheless, the disillusionment that voters are experiencing points to something larger—a fundamental problem with how our democratic system currently works. The Liberal Democrats believe that our political system needs fundamental change to restore the trust that voters have lost. First, we need to change the way we elect our MPs.”

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

    Check this claim →

49. “They feel, rightly, that something has been taken from them. For that reason, some feel betrayed. Most voters will not have read the full manifestos of all the candidates standing for election, but I can see why people would be unhappy, particularly when their MP joins a party that does not align with their views and values or whom they thought they had voted for. We are talking about a party whose former Welsh leader was imprisoned for a bribery conviction related to Russian connections, a party filled with swivel-eyed Trump supporters, a party that platformed a vaccine conspiracy theorist at its most recent party conference—it is hardly surprising that people do not feel their values are reflected in Reform UK. However, our electoral system means that people vote for an individual to represent their area, not directly for a party.”

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

    Check this claim →

50. “Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) alluded to a pattern of very large concentrations of signatures making their way on to this petition—one of politicians prioritising their own political future over the parties their constituents voted for. I understand why some voters feel betrayed and that their MPs are not moving to another party from a principled stance. These MPs clearly feel they are fleeing a sinking ship and are hoping that voters are too distracted to notice. But their constituents have noticed, with almost 130,000 people signing the petition that has resulted in this debate, including more than 200 in my Hazel Grove constituency. I understand people’s frustrations, especially as many of the constituencies that had the highest numbers of signatures were those whose MPs had defected.”

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

    Check this claim →