Lisa Smart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Sept 2025 · Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful as always to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. In every single conversation about this issue in this House, our first thought must always be with the victims and the survivors. No child should ever suffer the devastating trauma of sexual exploitation or abuse. These crimes are abhorrent and an assault on the very values of our society. We carry a responsibility to act, to secure justice for victims, to ensure that offenders answer for their crimes and to build a future in which such suffering is not repeated. In 2022, Professor Alexis Jay published her independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. In June, Baroness Casey released her report on group-based exploitation. I am really grateful to the Minister for her update on the progress being made, but when does she expect to have implemented the crucial recommendations from both reports? Baroness Casey was clear about one of her key recommendations: the Government must end the practice of out-of-area taxis by introducing stronger national standards for taxi licensing and driver regulation. Across Greater Manchester, we know that problem all too well; for years, drivers have exploited the fragmented system by securing the easiest licences to obtain from councils in one area and then operating elsewhere. As a result, many taxis working in Greater Manchester are licensed 100 miles away in Wolverhampton. What work is the Minister doing to address that specific issue? It feels like there is an opportunity to do so this afternoon through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but that opportunity has not yet been taken. If an amendment to the Bill is the way to achieve that aim, will the Minister work with colleagues across the House to ensure that this important recommendation from Baroness Casey can be delivered? Finally, I turn to an issue that I and others have raised repeatedly, and on which some progress was hinted at in recent press reports. Could the Minister confirm when Parliament will see legislation for a Hillsborough law, as promised many times by the Government, to guarantee that public officials and authorities co-operate fully with a duty of candour in cases such as this one, including in the upcoming national inquiry?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Borders and Asylum · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Home Secretary, as always, for advance sight of her statement. Anyone with any sense knows that the Conservatives trashed our asylum system and left the backlog spiralling out of control, with applications for asylum routinely taking years to process. Some of the Home Secretary’s remarks are welcome, but I worry that this Government risk repeating some of the same mistakes. The Liberal Democrats will closely scrutinise the plan that the Home Secretary has talked about today, but given that the Home Office itself says that one of the reasons that those human beings seeking asylum make dangerous small-boat crossings is the lack of safe, alternative family reunion routes, cutting those back further seems counterproductive, especially when more than half of those granted family reunion visas in the year ending June 2025 were children under 18. It is right that the Government have increased the rate of decisions made—those with no right to be here should be sent back swiftly, and those who have a valid claim should be able to settle, work, integrate and contribute to our communities. The backlog is still too large, however, and initial application decisions still take too long. As the Home Secretary stated, a significant share of the backlog comes from appeals. According to the Government’s own figures, in 2024 almost half of rejected asylum applications were overturned on appeal. For applicants from high-grant countries, that proportion was even higher. I would welcome clarity from the Home Secretary on how long it is currently taking to process the average asylum application, and on what concrete steps are being taken to ensure not only that cases are processed more swiftly, but that decisions are right the first time, so that applicants are not left in limbo, the courts are not overburdened and taxpayers are not footing the bill for avoidable delays. I welcome the Home Secretary’s encouraging comments about the reciprocal agreement with France. Can she confirm whether the Government plan for that to be scaled up and, if so, when? Given that one of the main drivers of dangerous channel crossings is the absence of safe, legal family reunion routes, does the Home Secretary agree that cutting family reunion rules risks making the small-boat crisis worse, not better? The Home Secretary rightly also mentioned the impact on local authorities. When individuals leave hotels, many present as homeless, creating an unsustainable burden on councils, including my own. Will the Home Secretary explain how she is working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support councils and ensure that this crisis is not simply shifted from one overstretched system to another? In recent weeks, constituents have been in touch with me as they are concerned about the number of flags that have gone up on lampposts around our area. They worry that the flags have been put up by those who seek to divide our community, not bring it together. Patriotism is a good thing. We should be proud of our country. We should be proud that our country welcomed people such as my nan in the 1930s, when she was fleeing the Nazis. We should be proud of our record of doing our bit. We should be proud of the British values I see in action across my community every day. I am proud of those police officers who kept everyone safe during the protests at two hotels in my constituency over the summer; proud of those teachers and pupils who welcome new classmates when they have been placed in one of the hotels; and really proud of those who volunteer their time to support new arrivals, whether through local churches or other voluntary groups and charities—because that is what patriotism looks like.

• 14 Jul 2025 · UK-France Migration: Co-operation · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. We all want to stop these dangerous channel crossings, which first ballooned under the former Conservative Government. Cross-border co-operation will be key to achieving that, and clearly a lot of work is needed after the Conservatives ripped up the returns agreement that allowed us to send irregular migrants back to Europe. I was very interested to hear the shadow Home Secretary quote President Macron, but he was a little selective in doing so—he did not mention the section of President Macron’s remarks that attributed the problem to the Brexit deal that the last Conservative Government cooked up. This deal is a step in the right direction, and I sincerely hope that it works, but people will understandably be sceptical that such a small scheme will act as an effective deterrent at this stage. Questions still need to be answered about how and when the UK and French Governments will decide to scale up the pilot, so I would welcome more details from the Home Secretary. Of course, deals like this are only part of the solution. The Home Secretary mentioned placing officers within Europol, but will she commit to negotiating a stronger leadership role for the UK in Europol, to make it easier to crack down on the trafficking gangs behind these crossings? Does she acknowledge that we will not be able to fully take the power out of the hands of the gangs until we provide regulated entry to the UK for genuine refugees? One of the best deterrents to put people off the idea of coming here in the first place is for all asylum applications to be processed quickly, so that those who are granted refugee status can integrate and contribute to our community, and for those with no right to be here to be sent back swiftly. Can the Home Secretary update the House on the average time it takes to process an asylum application after arrival on British shores, and how has that changed over the past year? Until the Government act on these points, I fear that they risk repeating the Conservatives’ mistakes and failing to get to grips with the problem, which is something we all want them to do.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Elections: Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I recently had the pleasure of getting a robust grilling from some 16 and 17-year-olds from Aquinas sixth-form college in my constituency, which left me filled with optimism and a real sense that our democracy is in good hands. My worry, though, is that these sixth-formers and young people like them might lose their enthusiasm for our democracy and for voting because they feel that our first-past-the-post voting system leads to politicians taking a majority of power on a minority of votes. With more than 40% of MPs elected with under 40% of the votes cast in their constituency, does the Minister agree with her own Government’s statement on why they are scrapping first past the post for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, and should we expect a different voting system when the Aquinas sixth-formers vote at the next general election?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Elections: Participation · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she plans to take to help to increase participation in UK elections.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the hon. Member for those comments. We Liberal Democrats believe that the whole deprivation of citizenship regime needs fundamentally looking at and reviewing, and we would welcome any co-operation across the House with hon. and right hon. Members who want to work with us on that. The Liberal Democrats are clear that deprivation of citizenship must remain an absolute exception, and never be a routine tool of Government policy. New clause 1 would provide the necessary guardrails to help ensure this remains the case, even as further powers are placed in the Secretary of State’s hands. Ultimately, the integrity of British citizenship and our commitment to fundamental rights must never be compromised by practicality. New clause 1 would uphold those principles and ensure that such a grave power was exercised only with full accountability and the closest scrutiny of this Parliament.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right that one of the most serious jobs of any Government is to keep their citizens safe—I completely agree. There is, though, a need for robust scrutiny. The Government must have confidence that the legislation they are putting forward has the support of this House and of the country, including that that legislation does what they say they want it to do and does not accidentally do something else. I think the most confident legislators are those who are open, transparent and welcoming of scrutiny, so I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments. The Liberal Democrats support amendment 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), which would empower the courts to prevent the Secretary of State from issuing a deprivation order in cases where doing so would place an individual at risk of harm or undermine their ability to mount an effective defence, or in cases where a public authority has caused unreasonable delays in the appeals process. This is a measured and sensible proposal that places essential limits on the excessive powers currently wielded by the Secretary of State in matters of citizenship deprivation, and we will support the amendment if the right hon. Gentleman pushes it to a vote.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, in my name. As I said on Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats believe there is a need for proper reform of the entire citizenship deprivation process. A transparent and accountable system for citizenship deprivation would ensure that this extraordinary power was used only in the most extreme circumstances, was never deployed for political reasons, and was consistently subjected to thorough parliamentary scrutiny. Sadly, the Bill before us falls short of that standard. As I also said on Second Reading, the Home Secretary’s description of this Bill as merely closing a legal loophole does not mean that its provisions should escape robust scrutiny and review—quite the opposite; any expansion of powers to deprive individuals of citizenship demands the highest level of oversight. Earlier this year, even before this Bill was introduced, the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the Government’s current approach to citizenship deprivation falls short of the UK’s human rights obligations. It called for significantly greater safeguards, including stronger oversight and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of these powers. The Liberal Democrats fully echo that call. New clause 1 seeks to embed essential safeguards within the framework of these new powers in the same way. Specifically, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the effects of the changes made to section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 by clause 1 of this legislation. The review must begin within one year and be completed within two years of the passing of the Act. A report of the review must be produced and sent to the Secretary of State, who must then lay it before Parliament within one month. New clause 1 recognises that although the Bill may appear narrow in scope, its consequences are substantial. The power to deprive someone of their citizenship is one of the most significant powers the state can wield, engaging fundamental rights and liberties. It is particularly serious given that under the current legislation, deprivation can—in some circumstances—leave an individual stateless. This is especially important in the UK, which uses citizenship deprivation orders more frequently than almost any other country. The Home Secretary already needs only to be “satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good” in order to strip someone of their citizenship—a threshold that is far too low. New clause 1 would simply ensure that any further power granted to the Secretary of State is at least balanced by proper oversight and transparency in its application.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments this evening and on Second Reading, and I have a great deal of respect for him and the way he lays out his arguments. I am very much looking forward to the Minister’s comments from the Dispatch Box shortly.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Early Years Providers: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree that the funding model for early years and nurseries must be sustainable. We do not want to see the business model becoming no longer viable, so that these wonderful providers that give children the best start in life can no longer continue to exist. There have been Government announcements on the provider agreement, and announcements about how any shortfall in funding can be met by only voluntary contributions. There have also been announcements about staffing ratios. My view—the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest laid out this point really well—is that such announcements do very little to support the quality of provision or staff retention. For context, private providers across Stockport have told me that since 1999 they have experienced a 250% increase in wages, which is a good thing, but that is in comparison to a funding increase of only 83%. Those two things do not add up. Early years settings are having to deal with the increasingly complex situations that many children face at home, whether that is their special educational needs and disabilities or different situations. The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest was absolutely right to take about far too many children living in poverty, which clearly has a knock-on impact on all education and early years settings. It is important that we restate our request that the Government look at the two-child benefit cap when they make decisions about future planning. I am approaching my 20th year as a primary school governor, and I am acutely aware of the shared challenges and issues facing children and educators across all settings. If we want to see our young people thrive, the Government must commit to a sustainable funding model for early years care. They must also recognise the true cost of providing high-quality childcare, and not add more pressures to young parents already struggling with the cost of living. I ask the Government to recognise the increasing financial burden on parents, and to understand that proper funding for early years education is really an investment in our children’s and our society’s future.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Early Years Providers: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention. We spend a lot of time talking about the gender balance in various industries. My hon. Friend spent time in the armed forces, and I know that the armed forces think long and hard about how they recruit and retain women in particular. Men are often really under-represented in early years education, in care settings, and so on, and they would have so much to add, particularly for those children who do not have many male role models at home or in their families. I look forward to the Minister commenting on that hugely important point, because he is the one in Government and will, I am sure, have all the answers. Anybody who has had to spend time caring for multiple toddlers will know the skill, diligence, energy and resilience needed to do the job well. It is right that we expect high standards from our early years providers. High-quality early years education is crucial for ensuring that children from any background can go on to achieve their potential. However, many nurseries across Stockport and, indeed, across the country will find it difficult to improve or even maintain their good and outstanding ratings as their finances continue to be squeezed.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Early Years Providers: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I commend the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing the debate and on her speech, much of which I really agreed with. High-quality early years education is the foundation of young people’s learning and makes an enormous difference to how they settle into primary school and to the rest of their time in formal education settings. There is so much evidence of the role of the first 1,000 days in the lives of all children. I recently had a great time when I visited Brown Bear nursery and pre-school at Great Moor in my constituency. As well as having a really fun session creating art with some of the little learners, I spent time talking with the nursery’s highly experienced director, Wendy, about the impact of the ongoing challenges faced by nurseries across the UK. Staffing costs make up 70% of the nursery’s outgoings, and the increase in employer national insurance contributions has led to substantial staffing cost increases—and that is before taking into account the changes to business rates. Wendy described the cumulative impact as absolutely crippling. As a Liberal Democrat, I of course supported the calls for the Government to exempt early years education and care providers from the rise in employer national insurance contributions, the result of which has been, as expected, even more strain on nurseries like Brown Bear that are already under enormous pressure. In 2019, Wendy helped to set up a network for private providers in Stockport, which has since been going from strength to strength. The Stockport private providers network now includes 63 day nurseries, 22 pre-schools, 220 childminders and eight independent nurseries. The early years sector is primarily led by women, and it is worth us all reflecting on the way our society looks at women-led sectors, whether that is early years, care or even the multibillion-pound hair and beauty industry. It is important that we look at how we value those sectors.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. My constituent Andy from Offerton often plays a caring role for his adult son, as his son has serious mental ill health. During his son’s recent stay in prison, Andy struggled to get quality information from the prison about his son’s health situation and living conditions. What more will the Government do to ensure that parent carers such as Andy get the information they need and deserve during a child’s stay in prison?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  Enabling new refugees to prepare properly for life in the UK will be key to reducing the need for asylum accommodation. In my constituency we have seen the extension of the move-on period not only giving new refugees much-needed time to make those preparations, but protecting other public bodies such as the local authority from being left to pick up the costs. We welcomed the news last December of the Government’s decision to trial a longer move-on period for six months, but those six months have now come and gone, and despite numerous requests for an answer, the Government have provided no certainty on whether the trial will be extended. Can the Minister provide clarity today?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Policing · Hansard source

  More

  The best community policing is embedded within communities, responding to their needs. Whether it is attacks on Jewish-owned businesses or hateful chants at music festivals, there are too many sobering reminders of the reality of the antisemitism that too many within the Jewish community across the UK are facing right now. Home Office figures have shown that religious hate crimes are at record highs, and that the number of hate crimes specifically targeting Jewish people has more than doubled. Everyone deserves to feel safe in our society, and that must include British Jewish communities, so what steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that police have the training and resources needed to effectively tackle antisemitic hate crimes, while supporting survivors?

• 4 Jul 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is laying out clearly the need for change. A number of my constituents, including Ann from Bredbury, Shannon from Marple and Ashley from High Lane, have been in touch to ask me to support him in his endeavours. People are staggered that some of these practices are not yet outlawed. Does he agree that some of his proposals in the Bill are closing loopholes that people already expect to be closed?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Heritage Sector: Impact of Spending Review · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State and I are lucky enough to represent Greater Manchester constituencies, in a part of the country that played a pivotal role in our industrial heritage. Now, although Wigan is lovely, it is not Hazel Grove, so she will not have the junction of the Macclesfield and Peak Forest canal, she will not have our wonderful Marple aqueduct and she will not have one of the longest lock flights in the country. What support will the Minister give to communities like mine that are keen to see our area have world heritage site status so that these heritage assets get the support, funding and protection that they deserve?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to discuss this issue with me. As has been mentioned, there are three organisations listed today, and the order before us is unamendable. Taking each of the three organisations in turn, the Russian Imperial Movement is an ultranationalist and white supremacist militant organisation operating from inside Russia. The group has been proscribed by both the United States and Canada, and even the Russian Government have blacklisted many of the group’s publications and activities. The rationale and justification for proscription is clear, and we are content to support it. The Maniacs Murder Cult is similarly destructive, driven by a belief that society must be violently destabilised so that a new neo-Nazi or white supremacist order can rise from its ashes. It promotes random acts of violence including murder, assaults and bombings as a deliberate tactic to instil fear and chaos. The rationale and justification for proscription is clear, and we are content to support it. The questions for many Members today relate to Palestine Action. On 20 June, as has been widely reported in the press, two members of Palestine Action gained unauthorised access to RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, the UK’s largest airbase, circumventing perimeter security under cover of darkness. Once inside, they targeted two aircraft. Incidents involving members of Palestine Action include attacks at sites operated by Elbit Systems in Bristol in 2024 and again this year, as well as at a Thales UK facility in Glasgow in 2022. I note the Minister’s comments about cases currently going through the courts. No matter how strongly any of us feels about the appalling humanitarian crisis in Gaza—and many of us across this House and across the country feel very strongly indeed—that does not justify attacks on military bases in Britain. Those responsible must face the full force of the law; there is no doubt about that. However, those laws already exist, and that is not what is in front of MPs today. The question we face is not whether or not these people have committed crimes, but whether someone who merely expresses support for them should face up to 14 years in jail. The bar for which groups should be proscribed as terrorist organisations is rightly set very high. It is crucial that the reasons for these decisions are transparent to maintain the public’s trust in our counter-terrorism framework. I have listened carefully both to experts who have raised concerns, including those from the UN who were mentioned by the Mother of the House, and to what the Minister has said. I have also seen the Home Secretary’s words about her reasons for making this decision based on damage to property, notwithstanding the Minister’s comments on the use of violence. Proscribing an organisation solely on the grounds of serious damage to property would, I believe, be unprecedented. To date—I would welcome the Minister correcting me if I have got this wrong—no organisation has been proscribed in the UK exclusively for property damage, as is the case here, according to the Home Secretary’s words on the Government website. While there may be compelling legal arguments that the actions of Palestine Action have met the legal definition of terrorism in terms of serious criminal damage, the decision to proscribe is ultimately made at the Home Secretary’s discretion. There are still questions as to whether that discretion is proportionate in this case, given the level of threat posed to the general public. I would welcome more details from the Minister on why he believes this is a proportionate response, as I remain to be convinced. Currently the maximum custodial term for certain offences relating to membership of, or expressing support for, a proscribed terrorist organisation is 14 years. Yet in instances such as this, where actions, though criminal and damaging, may not pose the same imminent threat to life, a blanket application of such severe penalties risks being disproportionate. The Home Secretary rightly has substantial powers to take action to keep our country safe, but it is also right and entirely proper that we scrutinise the use of these powers and press the Government to ensure that any use of them is wholly proportionate.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Parental Leave Review · Hansard source

  More

  It is of course to be welcomed that the Government are looking at how best to support families of all shapes and sizes in the early weeks and months of a child’s life. I know that the Minister is aware that there is currently a gap for those who are self-employed looking to grow their family through adoption, because he and I have corresponded on the matter. I listened carefully to his comments. He talked about adoption and about self-employment, but I wonder whether he could give constituents like Kirsty from Marple the reassurance she is looking for that an explicit stream of this work will look at self-employed adopters, who currently do not get any financial support from the Government.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The United Kingdom employs deprivation of citizenship orders more frequently than almost any other country in the world. While it is right, of course, that the Government should have the means to protect national security, both the current legislative framework and the Bill before us lack adequate provisions for transparency in and systematic oversight of when, why and how the Secretary of State exercises the power to deprive individuals of their citizenship. The Bill is designed to ensure that if the Government take away someone’s British citizenship, that person stays deprived of that citizenship while any appeals against the decision are ongoing. In practical terms, if the Government deprive someone of their citizenship and that person appeals, the deprivation order remains in effect through the entire appeal period, meaning that even if that person wins an initial appeal, they will not get their citizenship back until all possible appeals from the Government—up to the highest courts—are finished, or the time limit for the Government to appeal has passed. The Home Secretary has described the Bill as a necessary step to close a legal loophole—a description that has caused some debate already this evening. However, even if it is a loophole, that does not mean that these provisions deserve any less scrutiny. The power to deprive an individual of their citizenship is an exceptionally significant one, which in any democratic society should be exercised only in the most limited and extreme circumstances, and should be subject to rigorous oversight by Parliament. We need to see proper reform of the whole citizenship deprivation process, not a piecemeal approach like we are seeing today. That principle has underpinned Lib Dem policy on the deprivation of citizenship since 2019, when it was most recently updated. At that time, our party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), set out clear and just principles that should govern its use: deprivation of citizenship should occur only in the most extreme circumstances, its use must never be political, and the legislation conferring this power must be used with transparency and should be the subject of continuous and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. The concerns about transparency have been echoed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a cross-House and cross-party body. Earlier this year, it informed the Government that their current approach to the deprivation of citizenship falls short of the UK’s human rights obligations. The Committee called for significantly greater oversight of powers, including periodic independent reviews of their use and regular reports to Parliament. The current regulations on the deprivation of citizenship already place far too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State. The requirement that the Home Secretary be “satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good” is too low a bar for the deprivation of citizenship. The Liberal Democrats would therefore confine the power to deprive naturalised citizens of citizenship only where their citizenship has been obtained through fraud, false representation or concealment of material fact, or where they have done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom and deprivation of citizenship is a proportionate response to such conduct and necessary for the national security of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, we are firmly of the view that no individual should be rendered stateless by the Government’s actions except in cases in which British citizenship was acquired by misrepresentation or fraud. The powers conferred by the Bill will transfer even greater authority to the Secretary of State. It is therefore essential that those powers be subjected to ongoing rigorous scrutiny. I would welcome further details from the Minister about the plans to ensure such oversight. For example, will the Government consider reforming the deprivation of citizenship process to require the Secretary of State to apply to a court for permission to make a deprivation order, thereby obliging the Secretary of State to demonstrate that all the proper requirements have been met? Will they commit to publishing annual reports detailing the use of deprivation of citizenship powers, and to facilitating a review of the exercise of these powers by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation at least once every three years? Finally, will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to ratify the 1997 European convention on nationality, thereby introducing an additional layer of international scrutiny of the UK’s use of these powers, particularly where there is a risk of rendering an individual stateless? The power to deprive individuals of their citizenship engages fundamental rights and must be exercised with appropriate safeguards, transparency and oversight. Deprivation of citizenship must be the strict exception, never the norm. The Bill risks further concentrating excessive power in the hands of the Executive with too few safeguards to prevent error or abuse. The Liberal Democrats will continue to press for reforms that ensure transparency, judicial oversight and proper parliamentary scrutiny.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks. She says that it seems entirely sensible to move to a proactive approach; does she have plans to update the guidance in a way that moves towards that approach, so as to be clear with local authorities?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member that the bureaucracy of who funds cameras should not be what holds up making our roads safer. We should have an agreed way of funding them and communities should be empowered, so that if they can raise the funds themselves, whether through a parish council precept or otherwise, they should not be blocked from doing so. Given the costs incurred through loss of life and injury, the expense of such interventions should be looked at as a whole; the installation of a speed camera can prevent such costs further down the line, so is a matter of making an investment in order to save. Another of my constituents, Christopher, also from Mellor, knows that all too well. He was involved in a terrifying crash with a stolen car being driven at dangerous speeds, and he told me that he thought his life was over. Nobody should have to feel that fear just for being on the road. In Offerton, my constituent Chris is one of many who have contacted me about speeding on Offerton Road and Torkington Road. He is worried about HGVs thundering down residential streets, ignoring the 15mph limits on the Torky bends. He said kids are scared to walk home, near misses are all too frequent and many incidents go unreported. In Little Moor, Marion lives on a dangerous bend, where cars have been written off, they have destroyed the lamp post next to her house and a motorbike has torn up her driveway. I cannot talk about speeding without mentioning the wonderful children of Mellor primary school. After I visited the school, the entire year 6 class wrote to me about speeding on Longhurst Lane—I had encouraged them to write to their MP about things that they cared about, and they did. Children aged 10 and 11 asked me for updates on what was being done about Longhurst Lane, and many of them told me that speed cameras would be an obvious part of the solution. If schoolchildren can see the solution, I think we should listen. These are just a few of the voices in my inbox—there are many, many more. Our communities are sounding the alarm, but they feel ignored and are desperate for someone to take action. Here is the root of the problem: under current Government guidance, local authorities should not install a fixed-speed camera until after there have been three or more fatal or serious injury collisions, as per circular 01/2007. So three serious injuries or deaths have to happen before speed cameras are encouraged—that is a disastrously reactive policy. It is a policy that says, “We’ll only fix the danger once enough people have died or have at least come close to it.” That is surely both morally wrong and practically absurd. Residents on Strines Road, for example, have repeatedly raised concerns about unsafe driving. They have logged the dangers and shown the evidence, but because the road has not yet claimed enough lives in a sufficiently limited time period, the current guidance is of little help. I should note that circular 01/2007 allows for the installation of fixed-speed cameras even before the usual thresholds are met, recognising that such cameras can play a valuable role where there is clear community concern. However, as the answers to several of my written parliamentary questions have made clear, that provision is treated very much as a secondary consideration. The Greater Manchester combined authority, which covers my own patch, frequently points to the national guidance when pressed on the installation of new cameras in parts of my constituency where local communities have made their concerns more than clear. The guidance fails to actively encourage or even enable local and combined authorities to prioritise that proactive approach as a central pillar of their road safety strategy, where it rightly belongs. Both in theory and in practice, the Government’s approach does not value prevention; it responds only to tragedy. We need a better approach based on risk, not on death tolls. Let us listen when residents report repeated speeding. Let us take community complaints seriously. Let us use data such as average speed monitoring and near-miss records, not just crash statistics. My community welcomed the Government’s announcement that speeding would be addressed in the new road safety strategy. That is a good first step, but we need to see that strategy take a proactive stance.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. My constituency is suburban, but a number of our areas are semi-rural and have roads without pavements. When pedestrians are walking along a road because there is no pavement, the danger level is increased. I agree that communities need to be able to take proactive action to make our roads safer. We should start with the facts. Speed cameras work. They reduce speeding, reduce accidents and reduce deaths—they save lives. The RAC Foundation and the Department for Transport have both shown that speed cameras reduce speeding and cut the number of crashes. Areas with cameras see up to a 42% drop in fatal or serious collisions. These are our children making it home from school or our grandparents crossing the road safely. This debate is not about whether cameras work, because we know they do. The threat of dangerous driving remains clear, and I want to take a moment to thank the Brake campaign for its work on these issues. It continues to be a powerful voice for road safety, fighting for changes that prevent heartbreak and loss in communities up and down the country.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  Too many of my constituents feel they are being left to fend for themselves on unsafe roads. They are scared for their children, they are tired of reporting the same danger again and again, and they are angry that nothing changes until someone is seriously hurt, or worse. My message to the Government today is simple: people should not have to die or be seriously injured before something is done about dangerous speeding. Provisional estimates for 2024 suggest that 1,633 people were killed on Britain’s roads last year, while 56% of fatal road collisions in 2023 involved one or more speed-related factors. I have three clear asks of the Minister today. First, the Government must move to taking a proactive approach to fixed speed camera placement, rather than waiting for a tragedy before allowing action. Secondly, I am asking that national guidance—specifically, Department for Transport circular 01/2007, “Use of speed and red-light cameras for traffic enforcement: Guidance on deployment, visibility and signing—be updated to reflect this proactive approach. Thirdly, I want the Government to make it easier for local communities, who know their roads better than anyone, to get the speed cameras they need without having to fight for years to be heard, if the data can back up the request.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  I am so sorry to hear that that happened to Lorraine and Chris. Of course Chris does not want that to happen to somebody else, and it is entirely understandable that he has taken action himself to remind drivers of the speed limit. My constituents on Strines Road have done something very similar—every single green bin has a speeding reminder on it. They have taken action into their own hands.