Freddie van Mierlo MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I would like to speak to new clause 19, in my name, which concerns overseas voters. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on improving voting arrangements. It has more than 50 signatures from Members from across the House, including many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, but also Conservatives, Greens and Independents, demonstrating a clear call for change. It also briefly had a Labour Member supporting it, before the Government Whips presumably intervened. We are demanding change on behalf of the 3.5 million overseas voters, including members of our armed forces stationed abroad. Postal ballots all too often arrive too late for them to be returned to the UK in time. The postal ballot return rate was just 48% in the last general election. Proxies, which are a potential solution, are problematic to arrange if people no longer have contacts where they previously resided. The UK is lagging on the international stage. In France, voting is allowed at overseas embassies. In the Netherlands, constituents can print their own secure ballot, as I have previously done. Estonia permits the use of electronic voting, and New Zealand’s voters can download and return ballot papers online. Of course, any change to our voting arrangements would need to be secure, and to be adapted to the UK context, but if other countries can improve their participation of overseas electors, so can we. However, the Government have so far refused to act. In a recent meeting with the former Minister for Democracy, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), I was disappointed by the lack of ambition. I was told that it is not possible to make the printing of ballots secure, yet other European and Commonwealth countries do it. What is so unique about either the UK electoral system or the British state that means we are incapable of enfranchising our overseas voters? Under a Bill that is supposed to ensure the representation of the people, the Government have made only negligible and limited changes to support the 3.5 million eligible voters abroad. The Minister’s response, if there is one, will refer to minor changes made to the timeline for registering for postal voting and the mailing of ballots, but this will not be enough. Half of all overseas voters were registered before the last election, and they still suffered from delayed ballots, so we already know that the changes proposed will not be effective. One voter got in touch with Liberal Democrats in Europe to share her story. Angela, a voter in Oldham living in France, was registered to vote before the election, but she received her ballot in the post the day after polling day. If this is the experience in France, what hope is there for those in Australia? Under the new leadership, can the previous Prime Minister’s incrementalism be dropped in favour of a solution that meets the size of the problem? As we have heard, there is interest in this Bill from Members from across the House, and not all amendments will be voted on, but I do hope that my new clause, or something similar, will be pursued in the Lords, and will, in the spirit of cross-party co-operation expressed by the Prime Minister, get a fair hearing.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have seen docudramas such as “Dirty Business”, in which water companies have sought to evade scrutiny. This amendment would correct that anomaly. The companies are supposed to perform the same public functions with the same public impact, but without the discipline of market competition. In the Bill, publicly owned water companies such as those that exist outside of England and Wales must follow standards of ethical conduct, including following the principles of integrity, accountability and openness. They must adopt a code that sets the standards expected for those who work at the authority, and make people aware of the consequences of failing to act in accordance with it. There must be a clear way for people not working at the authority to complain about their conduct. Requiring companies in England, such as Thames Water, to adopt such a code of conduct by law is one clear and immediate way the Government could reduce the problems we currently see with such companies. Constituents of mine tell me just how much they struggle to raise a complaint with Thames Water and are often ignored when they do so. They include Judy Washington, whose case I raised directly with the Prime Minister at PMQs. Time and again, we have seen Thames Water prioritise its own shareholders and debt, taking more from consumers in bills and delivering less in quality of infrastructure and water. These actions would simply not be acceptable under the code of conduct in this Bill. There would be ethical standards for these companies to follow and clear consequences for subverting these goals. By holding these companies to the same standard, we can reinforce the public interest obligations inherent in their statutory role and ensure consistent ethical standards across all providers of essential services. If the Government are serious about holding the water companies to account, they must close the loopholes that allow them again and again to escape judgment for their wrongful actions. It should not be one rule for them and another for everyone else.