Lisa Smart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Lobbying: Ethics and Integrity Commission Report · Hansard source

  More

  The Ethics and Integrity Commission’s report rightly argues that our transparency rules are stuck in the past. Influence is being exerted in ways that just did not exist a few years ago. There are Members of this House earning more than their salary as an MP for posts on X—a platform that actively incentivises divisive content. Indeed, the Register of Members’ Financial Interests shows that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has declared earnings of over £108,000 since his election to this place. Does the Minister agree that our current laws on what constitutes lobbying are too narrow, and that when an MP is financially rewarded by an algorithm for their political output, it crosses the line into financial influence? Will he update lobbying and ethics rules to tackle that loophole?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Lobbying: Ethics and Integrity Commission Report · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, Channel 4 showed senior figures from Reform UK discussing how money from an American donor could reach the party through his UK-based son. Do the Government agree that covert overseas finance represents a clear and present threat to our national security? Do they accept that measures in the Representation of the People Bill do not go far enough when it comes to stopping foreign money being funnelled into our democracy and that the best way to reduce the options for those who seek to exert undue influence through big money is to put a cap on all political donations?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Summer Health and Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I must confess that I am a little frustrated, because I think this is the third time that the ventilation system at Stepping Hill hospital has been announced by a Minister—and it is not new money. There is a £138 million repairs backlog, so may I invite the Secretary of State to join me on a tour to see the remarkable work done by some of the remarkable people working at Stepping Hill, as well as the state of repair of buildings that in many cases are older than the NHS itself?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Online Safety · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is right to push the tech companies to live up to their responsibilities to keep children safe. One of the many horrifying things when considering online safety is the number of abuse perpetrators who themselves are children. We have had a case in my local area where a young girl—I obviously will not name her—had covert images taken of her, which were run through a nudifying app. Those images were then circulated by a fellow pupil. Can the Secretary of State say more about what she is doing with colleagues in the Department for Education and elsewhere to support schools and families as they work to prevent children from becoming victims or perpetrators?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s views about prominence. How does he see his view sitting alongside reducing the voting age to 16 by the end of this Parliament, almost certainly in time for the next general election? Young people do not get much of their information from linear broadcast channels. They get a lot of it from places such as YouTube. How does he reconcile his views on prominence? In my opinion, it is a necessary but not sufficient way to get good, trusted media to young people to equip them to vote.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rewiring the State · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the First Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and warmly welcome her to her place. The Liberal Democrats strongly agree that the political system is overly centralised. We believe that the best decisions are taken closest to the people they affect, but renewing communities must also mean giving councils the powers and resources that they need to revitalise our high streets, support independent businesses and improve local public services. After years of severe financial pressure, devolution cannot simply mean transferring responsibilities from Whitehall without the funding necessary to deliver them. The First Secretary mentioned national resilience. That is about whether the lights stay on, whether the shelves stay stocked, and whether a family in Hazel Grove can get through a week or more of serious destruction without losing their livelihood. The covid inquiry was blunt: it found that we were ill prepared for an emergency, never mind a pandemic. Those failures cost lives, and people deserve to know that lessons have been acted on, rather than filed away. There is certainly progress to welcome. We have the resilience action plan, the UK Resilience Academy, and Exercise Pegasus, which was the largest pandemic exercise this country has ever run. Those are steps that my party has long called for, but announcements are not preparedness. I would welcome hearing from the First Secretary what plans she has to improve public awareness and understanding of what the whole of society needs to do to be ready. We are in an increasingly uncertain world, so will the Government think again on digital sovereignty, so that the critical systems that our constituents rely on are not dependent on suppliers that this country cannot control? I strongly agree with the First Secretary that this country has a broken political system. Later this afternoon, we will debate the Representation of the People Bill, which is meant to fix that. It takes some steps in the right direction, but fails to rise to the moment. Does she agree that there is still so much more to do, starting with halting the scourge of big money that is poisoning our democracy by capping political donations and bringing in a fairer voting system? We need to fix our politics so that we can get on with fixing the country. I have heard her talk previously in this House about moving fast and fixing things. I urge her to crack on.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for confirming that the Government are putting forward a piece of legislation written in such a way that it prohibits proportional representation and fairer votes from being discussed on the Floor of the House. We need to fix our politics so that we can get on with fixing the things we need to fix in our country, so we will support the Bill as a step forward. However, a step is not the final destination. Until this House finds the courage to give people a Parliament that actually reflects how they vote, we will not have restored trust in our democracy. We will keep making that case, and we will support this Bill as the beginning, but certainly not the end, of this work.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is welcome that the Government have asked the Electoral Commission to look at spending limits. I love a task-and-finish group almost as much as I love a taskforce or a sub-committee, but will the Minister put a little more meat on the bones, and say what she is doing on donation caps, specifically on timing, and on whether things will be in place ahead of the next general election? I would not want a Member to press for a separate Division on an amendment because there was not enough meat on the bone.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a privilege to be part of this process and to listen to the impassioned contributions from Members across the House, from Second Reading through to Committee and Report. The contents of this legislation have been a long time coming, and owe a great deal to the hard work of the people who have campaigned tirelessly for improvements to our system and to clean up our politics, and of course, to those who do the work on the ground. Our returning officers and those who deliver democracy, often on shoestring budgets, so that we can sit here, rarely get the praise they deserve. We should be strengthening what they do and how they do it, and we owe them the resources to do what is needed. The Liberal Democrats will support the Bill tonight, and we will do so because it extends the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds—a measure that we have argued for over many years, and which I will be delighted to vote for this evening. We will also support the Bill because, without it, corrupt practices will only entrench further. The “know your donor” regime is not perfect, but it is a step that we welcome, and we will not obstruct it. We do not stand in the way of progress. The Bill will make it easier for people to register, safer for people to stand and harder for the wrong money to stay in our politics. Those are good things and will have a long-lasting effect. I look forward to the discussions with Ministers that were promised on further work that they are doing on donation and spending limits, which they outlined earlier. The true test of whether the people really are represented fairly will be whether votes count when they are cast. That argument has not been resolved yet, and I do not think it is an argument that will fade away any time soon. For tonight, though, I am content that this is a better Bill than the one that arrived, and that is down to the scrutiny and grit that this House has been supported to deliver. I look forward to seeing how our noble friends in the other place can make it even stronger. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by putting on record my thanks to the Minister, who I very much welcome to her place. In particular, I thank her predecessor, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who has shown with her comments today the grace and thoughtfulness with which she conducted herself throughout the whole process. We did not agree on everything in the Bill Committee—indeed, all members of the Bill Committee did not agree—but we conducted our discussions with good grace and occasionally a hint of humour. I am grateful for the work that the other members of the Bill Committee put in, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), who led for us on all matters to do with candidate safety and candidates, given her hugely relevant experience as a member of the Speaker’s Conference. It would be remiss of me not to share the gratitude of the House for Philip Rycroft’s efforts in conducting his review, the recommendations from which have given this legislation more teeth than it started out with. I do not think it will surprise anyone, however, that we Liberal Democrats think much more could and should be done. The political freedoms and assurances we have relied upon for decades are increasingly vulnerable to insidious, hostile actors. We saw an entirely unnecessary by-election over the summer. It was a waste of taxpayers’ money and was brought about by a resignation whose circumstances are under investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Our rules should not permit a Member under investigation to trigger a by-election and then walk straight back in here at the public’s expense, and that is precisely what new clause 79 in my name would prevent. However, I do not believe it was selectable, so I will move on. That saga was yet another example of how big money is infiltrating our politics, with millions of pounds paid to politicians, uncapped donations and direct payments for inflammatory social media posts. It is totally disfiguring our politics. We have to tackle big money wherever it comes from, and that is a major omission from the Bill. New clause 88 would require the Secretary of State, within three months of Royal Assent, to publish proposals for a royal commission to consider a cap on political donations and the level at which that cap should be set, and whether existing limits on campaign expenditure and the period over which they bite are still fit for purpose. It would require those proposals to cover terms of reference, membership and funding, and the commission would have to report within 12 months. It is a straightforward request. It does not demand or impose limits without buy-in. It does not ask any Member to sign up to a particular figure. It takes a conversation that has been going on for the better part of 20 years or more, and gives it a proper remit, a proper deadline and a proper independent home. I want to be fair to the Government, because over the summer things have moved in a positive direction. I welcome the Prime Minister’s words about the defending democracy taskforce yesterday, but we need to hear more detail about how it will function, particularly around money coming into political parties in and around our politics, how its recommendations will come into force and, importantly, when they will come into force. The threat is real, the threat is now, and urgent action is vital. We have tabled further amendments on money in politics. New clauses 9 and 10 would introduce barriers on who can donate, preventing donations from those who are or have been members of, or political advisers to, foreign Administrations and those convicted of promoting or inciting political violence. New clauses 11 and 12 would require candidates and parties to declare and mitigate the risk of foreign-linked donations. Taken together, they are a natural extension of the “know your donor” scheme, which this Bill enhances. We should know exactly who funds us, and the public have that right, too. Money is not the only way in which influence is bought. We now live in a world where a handful of people own the platforms and write the algorithms that decide what millions of our constituents see about politics every day. When the owner of a social media platform can openly discuss handing tens of millions of pounds to a British political party, the danger is in plain sight, and the Bill does not meet the moment. The Government chose to reject sensible amendments on deepfakes, AI-generated content and the clear labelling of digital campaign material. Those were not wrecking amendments; they were an offer of cross-party work on a threat that is moving faster than we are legislating. I ask the Government even now to commit to the real-time disclosure of donations and a publicly searchable database of every pound spent on online political advertising, so that voters can see who is trying to influence them and with whose money. That will be more important as we extend the franchise. The Lib Dems warmly welcome the introduction of votes at 16. Indeed, we have campaigned on it for decades, but we are concerned that the current voter registration system does not work well for young people. If we want votes at 16 to be a success, we need the voter registration improvements that the Bill enables to be implemented in time for the next general election. I would welcome hearing some reassurance from the Minister, when she is winding up, that they will be in place for the next general election. My final point is the one that, I feel, matters the most. This Bill tidies the rules of the game, but it leaves the game itself untouched. There is no silver bullet for fixing our politics—it requires will, consensus and graft—but one thing that is shared by dozens and dozens of Members across the House is the understanding of the need for fairer votes. We cannot have a conversation about representing the people without addressing the elephant in the room: we have a voting system that handed one party two thirds of the seats in this House on barely a third of the vote. Millions of people cast ballots that changed nothing and elected no one, and then they are told to have faith in the result. I therefore tabled new clause 8 to bring in proportional representation for elections across the United Kingdom. It details the way in which a fairer voting system could be implemented, and it is disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity the Bill presents to rise to the occasion. First past the post is unfair and unrepresentative, and lets Governments take voters for granted. No amount of tightening around the edges fixes a system that was out of date a century ago. Despite identifying the crisis of confidence in our political system in their 2024 manifesto, this Government have yet to back even modest steps towards making our voting system fairer, such as a national commission on electoral reform, as detailed in new clause—

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State sees a certain irony in attempting to legislate for linguistic purity in a language that, for over a millennium, has borrowed vocabulary ad hoc from other languages, such as Italian, Latin and French, and in a Bill that talks about elections, referendums, vetoes and manifestos. There is perhaps more than a little hint of irony in what she is proposing.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I will willingly give way on whether 2016 was before 2018.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate and on the vim and vigour with which he introduced it. Ten years on, we can now see the devastating impact that the referendum had on this country—not just on our economy, but on the integrity of our democracy and political debate. Since June 2016, we have had seven Prime Ministers in a decade. We have had a Parliament that could not resolve the question in front of it, a Government who prorogued this House unlawfully to get round it and a public who have watched the whole spectacle and drawn the obvious conclusion that our political system is broken. The Conservatives put a question to the country that they had not thought through. They lost control of the answer and then spent years arguing among themselves about what it meant while the rest of the country paid for it. Into that vacuum walked the people who benefit from it. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has built an entire career on a promise he never had to deliver and now takes no responsibility for. He and others like him told the public that leaving would let us take back control of our borders. Since then, over 200,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats. Before the referendum, there were no small boat crossings. They created the conditions, and they now travel to Dover to be photographed pointing at the result.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  My point is that there were no small boat crossings before the 2016 referendum. I think the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me on that. British GDP is between 6% and 8% smaller than it would otherwise have been. Investment has been reduced by between 12% and 18%. Employment and productivity are each down by 3% to 4%. Estimates from the House of Commons Library, those well-known doughty remain campaigners, put the cost to the Exchequer somewhere in the region of £90 billion a year in tax revenue that is simply not there. Every Minister who stands at the Dispatch Box and says that money is not available is describing a hole that has been enlarged as a result of Brexit. That is £90 billion a year that could be used for projects across the country to support our constituents. It could be used to fund renovations to my Stepping Hill hospital, the rail services my constituents wait for every morning or cleaning up our waterways so that sewage stops being pumped into the Goyt or the Mersey. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) mentioned the nearly 2 billion extra pieces of paperwork that now sit on British firms—enough to wrap around the world 15 times. Tighter border restrictions with our European neighbours devastated our hauliers, with more than double the number of insolvencies seen between 2021 and 2025 than in the previous five years. In our food and farming sector, exports to the EU have fallen by 22% since 2018, which is close to £4 billion in lost trade. The question for the House is, “What do we do now?” Ministers know that the relationship with Europe is the biggest lever available to them. Their response so far has been to make small adjustments around the edges of a bad deal. They have ruled out the single market and a customs union, drawing red lines around two things that would make a material difference. On fisheries, the Government have made things worse. The EU came asking for a five-year extension to the arrangements in the 2020 trade and co-operation agreement, and this Government agreed to 12 years. That is a loss worth around £6 billion over the period at today’s prices, down not only to the previous Government but to this Labour Government. Being timid is a political choice, and it has political consequences. When mainstream parties refuse to name the cause of a problem, the field is left to those who offer easy answers and no substantive solutions. The Lib Dems are offering something different. We want a growth and defence partnership with Europe. That would mean joining the single market and a UK-EU customs union, so that our businesses can trade again without drowning in red tape. It would mean a proper UK-EU defence pact. We currently sit outside EU decision making and outside funding streams such as the European Defence Fund and the Security Action for Europe loan programme, at the precise moment when Vladimir Putin is testing this continent’s resolve and the White House is reneging on international commitments. We want a new European security council, British participation in SAFE and a European rearmament bank to support collective rearmament. Our security does not stop at Dover, and it never has. We are also calling for the UK to join the EU’s migration and asylum pact, so that we can return people who arrive by small boat to the first EU country they entered, and so that we can see the biometric data that tells us whether someone has already been refused asylum elsewhere. That is how we actually take back control of our borders, rather than shouting about it on a beach. Finally, we should fix the politics that produced this. A system that hands total power to a party with a minority of the vote and then dares it to govern for everyone will keep generating exactly this kind of instability. The Liberal Democrats want proportional representation through the single transferable vote at local and general elections. We want a second Chamber with a democratic mandate. We want the big money taken out of politics. We want the Electoral Commission protected from ministerial direction and serious measures against foreign interference in our elections and referendums. From the cost of living to our broken public services, the result of the 2016 EU referendum stands in the way of making things better, and we have to fix it. Ten years on, it is clear that it has negatively impacted the UK, and I would be really grateful if the Minister could tell us today just what it would take for this Government to move their red lines.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant · Hansard source

  More

  The sovereign grant does not provide personal income for the King, the Queen or any member of the royal family. It funds the work of the institution, and the largest part of it funds buildings. Between 2025 and 2026, £67.5 million went on property maintenance alone, including the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme and the installation of more energy-efficient heating. These are heritage sites carrying a maintenance backlog that has built up over decades, and the purpose of the reservicing work is to stop a serious risk of fire and flood. We should, of course, take the action that is needed to protect these national heritage assets. The grant is also funding green infrastructure across the estate and better cyber-security, which, in the current international climate, is not an optional extra for any national institution. However, we should treat the increase as temporary in nature, and it is right that the sovereign grant will be readjusted once those projects have been completed. The Government have already committed to legislating for exactly that when the reservicing works finish. That brings me to a key issue: transparency. The taxpayer is funding this grant. Taxpayers are entitled to see where their money goes, and as the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) has already mentioned, Parliament is entitled to hold the Government and the Treasury to account for it. Some of that framework already exists, and it works. Under the Sovereign Grant Act, the royal household’s accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before this House, and the royal household sits within the National Audit Office’s value-for-money remit. But that is not the whole picture. We have an institution spending more than £130 million of public money a year, and its published accounts are the beginning and end of what the public can ask for. If one of my Hazel Grove constituents wants to know how a figure in the report came to be, there is no route for them to find out. May I encourage the Minister to let us know whether he has any plans to review the reporting requirements attached to the grant, so that Parliament and the public get spending detail at a level that allows genuine scrutiny? It is right that taxpayers will have questions about where and, importantly, whom this money goes to. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor holds no title, no office and no public role; as far as the state is concerned, he is a private citizen. As such, not a penny of this grant should reach him. Neither should any other taxpayer funding, and that has to include what happens at the end of his life. Frequently, members of the royal family have received publicly funded funerals, having either ceremonial funerals or state funerals. For context, the Queen Mother’s ceremonial funeral in 2002 cost more than £5.4 million, of which £4.3 million was spent on policing. Can the Minister confirm that no public money from the sovereign grant or any departmental budget will fund a ceremonial funeral, a lying-in-state or state honours of any kind for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  I was encouraged to hear the Prime Minister talk about his support for political reform and, indeed, looking at the voting system, but can I push him to be a tiny bit more specific? He could bring in a change to the voting system ahead of the next general election if he wanted to—we would strongly back him—but if he does not want to do that, will he at least commit to kicking off a national commission on electoral reform?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Civil Service Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The failure of Capita to meet the 30 June deadline is deeply disappointing, but, sadly, not surprising. Behind it sit 1.7 million current and former civil servants who simply want peace of mind that the pension they have earned through decades of public service will be handled competently, fairly and with dignity. Capita’s repeated failures are causing distress and uncertainty for people who deserve better, including several of my constituents, such as Sue from Romiley, Tracy from Offerton and Christopher from Marple. The Public Accounts Committee did indeed warn that Capita risked not being ready to take over full administration back in December, and it raised serious concerns about weak contract management and poor oversight. Those warnings have now come to fruition as thousands of retired civil servants have experienced delays or complete failures in pension payments since Capita took over. How will the Government restore confidence for the 1 million-plus current and former civil servants who simply want reassurance that their pensions will be administered competently? What assessment has been made of the systemic failures in the administration of this scheme, and what lessons have been learned for future contracts of this kind? How can the Minister ensure that this failure is given sufficient weight should Capita have the brass neck to bid for any future Government contracts in this are or wholly unrelated ones? The Minister has rightly called the thousands of unresolved bereavement cases harrowing. These grieving families are being denied closure. Will he commit today to ordering Capita to prioritise all bereavement cases as a matter of particular urgency, and will he guarantee that this specific backlog will be zero by a certain date?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Foreign Interference in UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Just over five months ago, I stood here and asked the Secretary of State to strengthen the Representation of the People Bill by ensuring that post-tax profits, not overall revenue, were used when assessing the eligibility of company donations. He rejected that plea, as did the Minister in Committee, but I am delighted that this Minister has now agreed to accept that. It was a recommendation from Philip Rycroft and from those working in the democracy sector, and it is a welcome change. We Liberal Democrats champion a fair and free society, so we also welcome the announcement that candidates will have to declare gifts of over £2,320 in the year prior to their election. That, hopefully, will provide further useful clarity for those who may thus far have been confused about what they do and do not have to declare. We welcome steps towards cracking down on any foreign interference in our democracy, but we still have some way to go, and we urge the Minister to consider banning anyone who has served in a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups, as well as banning donations from those convicted of political violence; that would include those funding the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. People who hold British values in contempt and act as a mouthpiece for those who want to undermine our democratic institutions should have no place in our democracy. We need a much more transparent system to ensure that the British people have faith in politicians. What the Minister has announced today will close loopholes, but too many will remain. Will she consider exploring the benefits of a cap on donations from UK donors, and year-round spending caps by political parties and candidates? That is the way in which loopholes are truly closed. Finally, can the Minister gives us some insights into how this important work will be handled across the multiple ministerial Departments and agencies? It involves the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Cabinet Office. The Minister is very able, but she is the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy. Does she agree that a more streamlined portfolio is what our democracy deserves?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Regeneration in Reddish · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Regeneration in Reddish · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Regeneration in Reddish · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly agree with the Minister’s point about local leaders being best placed to make decisions. However, does she agree that when £3 of every £4 of Stockport council’s revenue spending goes on social care for children or adults, the number of choices that the council can make is far too limited?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Regeneration in Reddish · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted, as I always am, that Stockport is getting rightful attention in this place. Does the hon. Member agree that it is genuinely disappointing that although the Government talked about giving extra money to local councils, and have overall, Stockport has been short-changed? He will know, because it is in his constituency, that Stockport is the least well-off part of Greater Manchester, yet because we missed out on extra funding by 0.1%, services will have to be cut. That was a decision of this Labour Government.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western, and I really congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this important and very timely debate, which he opened very well. Being a Member of Parliament for my constituents in Hazel Grove is an enormous privilege, but it goes beyond that; it is a full-time job, with knobs on. I must declare that early in my time here, I was also an elected councillor, representing the wonderful people of Bredbury Green and Romiley. That was classed as a second job under our current rules, so I declared the allowance that I received for the couple of months before I stood down as a councillor, and the details can be seen in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The people who voted us here did not do so just so we can use Parliament as a launchpad into a media career, a consultancy or corporate boardroom; voters send us here to work for them. Yet in this Parliament we have seen some Members treat their responsibilities to their constituents as, at best, a part-time concern. Other Members have already given the detail of some of the work undertaken by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I have indeed let the hon. Member know in advance, Mr Weston, that I planned to mention him and his grifting. The hon. Member for Clacton has been here for 300 sitting days since those of us in the 2024 intake were elected. When I was preparing this speech, I realised that if I added together the hours that he has declared as having worked elsewhere, he has spent more than 140 days on various other jobs since he was first elected. That might be understandable if, like many other Members, he had spent the time when he is not here on constituency work, or on fighting for those who elected him. However, there were reports in the Daily Mirror earlier this year flagging up how many of his constituents felt that he was not around enough. He has spent hundreds of hours presenting on GB News and taking speaking fees for cryptocurrency platforms such as Blockworks.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome your advice and guidance, Chair. I will move on to talk about those Members who receive payments for posting on social media. Members of the UK Parliament should not receive payments from platforms such as X. I also note the entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe)—I have also advised him that I will mention him in this debate. The details of his most recent donation show that he has received over £70,000 from X since his election to this place. Given the international nature of social media companies’ revenue streams, the role that Elon Musk has attempted to play in US politics and the views that he has increasingly expressed about UK politics, we should ensure that there are limitations in place to prevent potential income from social media platforms from unduly influencing politicians. We know the way that the algorithms that these platforms use push content that evokes more feeling, because it drives engagement. Therefore, the more divisive and hate-filled the content, the more some of the algorithms allow it to be seen. I have tabled some amendments to the Representation of the People Bill that would address that issue and I would really welcome Government support for them. It is also worth noting the number of times that various Members who have already been mentioned today have spoken in this place in their role as an MP. For the hon. Member for Clacton, it is fewer than 50 times in two years, including points of order and supplementary questions—considerably fewer than any other party leader. As others have already mentioned today, some MPs have a second job related to a previous career. Within these walls, there are people with vastly different career backgrounds, from veterinarians to police officers. There is a vast difference between being an MP who maintains a medical licence, continues to practise at the Bar or keeps up their professional registration in nursing or social work, and being an MP who treats this Chamber as little more than a platform for personal enrichment. We should be honest about that difference, because members of the public already are. The Lib Dems do not feel that there is a strong enough argument for a blanket ban on MPs taking second jobs; we do not believe that that would be the right answer. It would force NHS doctors, care nurses and legal aid barristers to surrender their professional registrations to serve in Parliament—that would be a concerning and counterproductive unintended consequence. We do not want a Parliament made up exclusively of career politicians. However, the people of Hazel Grove did not elect me to pop in here occasionally while moonlighting for a string of corporate sponsors. Many of my constituents rightly expect high standards and some of them have raised concerns about the conduct of politicians. Most recently, Neil from Hazel Grove wrote to me about reports of a £5 million gift to an MP from a foreign-based billionaire. My constituents elected me to do things such as fighting for Stepping Hill Hospital to get its £138 million repair bill sorted, pressing for better rail services, and holding this Government—any Government—to account. That is what every MP should be doing for the people from their patch. We saw scandal after scandal under the last Conservative Government, from the resignation of Owen Paterson to partygate. Public trust in politics has been corroded, and as a country we are still paying the price for that failure. Although there are currently some restrictions in place, they do not go far enough—for example, MPs are strictly banned from acting as parliamentary strategists, advisers or consultants, That clearly recognises that having a second job can contradict our role as MPs, but it is not a full solution. The Liberal Democrats have long supported broader reform to the rules for MPs’ conduct. We should not end up in a situation where MPs are marking their own homework. I welcome the aims of the Modernisation Committee, but it was established almost two years ago. Indeed, I made my maiden speech in a debate on the motion that established it, yet the Government have so far failed to deliver the modernisation that is sorely needed, including in relation to second jobs. I welcome any update from the Minister on when we might expect some progress. Those who sit in this House of Commons must remember that we are representatives for our areas and our constituents. This is not a part-time role, and that is the standard that this House should expect of everyone who sits in it.