Lisa Smart MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for the clear way that she is laying out some of the issues that we are talking about today. I am lucky enough to be a vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, and one of our strands of work is on tackling myths and disinformation. One of the calls I have heard is that, at the very least, the social media giants should have a duty to carry out a risk assessment of legal but harmful content, which covers some of the issues that she is talking about. Does she agree that that is the very least the platforms could do?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Access to Sport: PE in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for opening today’s debate. My constituent Olivia recently wrote to me. She and her sister play football for the Stockport County under-8s and under-9s teams, and they are showing clear talent and skill. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is really important that we support young girls to get into the habit of playing team sports? Olivia wrote to me because they are looking for support with bibs and balls, which I am working on. I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that getting young girls playing sport is a really important way of getting them in the habit of doing so for the rest of their life.

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  The US is clearly seeking concessions from the UK, and it has been widely speculated that the UK Government are considering a reduction in the digital services tax as a way of placating Trump and his ally Elon Musk. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) asked the Secretary of State this question but I did not quite catch an answer in his response: will he commit today not to cut the digital services tax, as that is the way the tech giants pay their fair share here in the UK?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Green Book Review · Hansard source

  More

  It really is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Mr Pritchard. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) for securing this important debate. Our communities deserve responsible Government. That means a stable economy, support for green innovation and ensuring that no one is left behind. In its current form, the Green Book holds us all back. It is time for a smarter and fairer approach that invests in and for every community. The country needs to move forwards from the last Government’s fairly reckless approach to public finances and backtracking on climate commitments that left our country decidedly weaker. The Green Book’s framework continues to entrench regional inequality. The reasons for that are clear and twofold. It relies too heavily on blunt and limited cost-benefit analyses, and it fails to adequately factor in broader socioeconomic benefits to proposed spending. Placing disproportionate weight on cost-benefit ratios based on existing economic activity means that proposed spending that would invest in communities where wages and prices are lower is disadvantaged, because the short-term economic benefits appear to be lower. The Green Book therefore directs funding to areas that are already enjoying high levels of economic activity—namely, London and the south-east. Projects in areas such as my own in Greater Manchester, by contrast, can struggle to compete on paper, even when the real-world need for investment is clearly greater. By focusing disproportionately on direct economic output, the Green Book often misses the wider socioeconomic benefits of investing in less affluent regions. Those benefits include wellbeing, job creation, community cohesion and long-term sustainability. Without a national strategy to prioritise regional equity, too many good projects in the north fall through the cracks. The Liberal Democrats believe that all communities deserve a fair shot, not only the ones that already happen to be thriving. We need a framework that looks beyond simple economics and recognises the human, social and environmental value of infrastructure investment. It is not just a philosophical argument; in practice, the current system leads to under-investment in projects that could transform struggling communities. There is also an important environmental angle. The UK has legally committed to net zero emissions by 2050, but our appraisal framework has not caught up. The Green Book still applies discount rates that undervalue the long-term benefits of green investment, making it harder to justify climate-friendly projects with slower financial returns. If we want a green economy, we need green tools, and right now, the Green Book is steering us away from the very infrastructure—whether that is renewable energy, public transport or nature restoration—that will power our net zero future. We need to realign our economic models with our environmental goals. The 2020 review, undertaken by the last Government, was a missed opportunity. While it nodded to levelling up and net zero, it failed to make the structural changes that are needed. The think-tank Centre for Cities has argued that the Green Book should empower local leaders to choose the best projects for their regions, rather than leaving the Treasury to pick between places. I am interested to hear from the Minister what the thinking of this Government and the Treasury is on that. As it stands, the Green Book holds back the north. It stifles green investment and ignores the full value of infrastructure investment. My constituents are living with the consequences of that every day. There are many examples of transport infrastructure upgrades in Hazel Grove that would have a transformative effect on their lives. Direct rail links from areas such as Romiley and Marple to Stockport would save my constituents a lengthy and unnecessary trip via Piccadilly. Level access at stations in Woodley and Romiley would ensure that those with physical disabilities can get on the train, and a bus link to the Bredbury industrial estate would promote job growth and reduce the number of people driving to work. In debating the Green Book, a framework for investment decisions, we should not forget that it is not just about numbers—it is about people’s everyday lives. It is about their health, jobs and opportunities. We cannot let technical frameworks stop us from doing what is right. The Liberal Democrats are calling for bold reform: a system that promotes long-term prosperity, tackles inequality and delivers on our environmental commitments. We should all be working to build a country in which every region and community has a proper chance to thrive.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I rise as a proud adoptive auntie who has seen for herself the impact of the fund on the most vulnerable children and their families. I also rise as the MP for Christine, a child therapist who lives in Hazel Grove, who wrote to me about the impact that the uncertainty around the fund was having on the families she works with. Children who have been through trauma, who have been neglected and who have ended up moving into a new family need safety, security and certainty. Does the Minister agree that we should be encouraging more people to be adoptive parents and not put off those who cannot afford it? Does she also agree that those who are self-employed and currently do not get any financial support from the Government should get that support in line with the biological cohort?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Foreign Influence Registration Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister, as always, for advance sight of his statement. We on the Lib Dem Benches welcome the further implementation by the Government of the foreign influence registration scheme, but I find myself in the rather unusual position of agreeing with a lot of what the shadow Home Secretary has said—very dangerous territory. Last year, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee issued the excoriating China report, which said that the Government do not have a clear strategy on China and have not devoted sufficient resources to tackling the threat it poses. I will therefore ask the Minister some new questions that the shadow Home Secretary did not. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to generate a human rights and democracy report, to conduct the audit on China that they have promised, and to ensure that China is fully considered in the strategic defence review? As has been mentioned, many are severely concerned by the proposed Chinese mega-embassy, for which the Government have indicated their support. Does the Minister believe that the building of this embassy will encourage the Chinese Communist party to carry on its attempts to subvert our democracy? What conversations has the Minister had with colleagues across Government about blocking this plan and making protecting our democracy a key national security priority? Can the Minister say more about how the political influence tier will be administered? How do we ensure that every relevant foreign individual signs up to the register? It is right, if there is a top tier of the scheme, that Russia and Iran are on it, but will the Government now go further by proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation? Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long called for reforms to funding to prevent foreign interference and to increase transparency in political donations. What plans do the Government have to close loopholes that allow opaque and potentially corrupt funding of political parties, enabling foreign and dark money to influence British politics?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Police Forces: Gloucestershire · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister has said, getting more bobbies on the beat in Gloucestershire and across the country is crucial to delivering the frontline policing that our communities deserve, but recent freedom of information figures show that more than 1,500 police officers are stuck on long-term sick leave, including 148 in my own Greater Manchester police force. On the job, officers witness violent and traumatic events that can damage their mental health, but too many report being left without enough support. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that mental health support is good enough in the police? That is one of the ways to get officers fit for a return to work more quickly, to be part of restoring the proper community policing that our communities deserve.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Ukrainians in the UK deserve stability after fleeing war, yet almost half report severe stress and anxiety caused by prolonged uncertainty about their visa status. Some 44% have lost a job opportunity, 26% have been unable to sign new tenancy agreements and 25% have had a student loan rejected, all because of that uncertainty. Does the Minister agree that this is an unacceptable way of treating those to whom we opened our arms, and will she commit to giving Ukrainian refugees the certainty about their visas that they deserve?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Community Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  Stepping Hill hospital in Hazel Grove has a huge repairs backlog. Patients are having to park miles away to get to the hospital, corridors have been flooded and there have been frequent power cuts. Alongside Stockport council, the local hospital trust and the community, I am calling for an additional site in Stockport town centre, whether that is a diagnostic centre or otherwise. What assurance can the Health Secretary give my constituents that they will be able to get the health services they need closer to them, and what support can he provide?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber to hear the shadow Home Secretary’s greatest hits of Conservative failures from the last Parliament, whether it be cuts to neighbourhood policing or the woeful handling of the asylum system under the previous Government, in which he was a Home Office Minister. Of course the Home Office should ensure that all asylum accommodation providers deliver value for money, safety and security, but tinkering with contracts will not change the fact that asylum hotels are a lose-lose. They eat up taxpayer money and leave local councils and communities to sort out the mess. To pick dates at random, the share of asylum applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 83% in the second quarter of 2015 to just 6% towards the end of the last Government’s time in office. When does the Minister think that the processing of applications will speed up so that the backlog will come down, communities such as mine will get the use of their hotels back and those granted refugee status can integrate and contribute to our economy?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to return to the Chamber to consider the Bill. Over recent months, it has been scrutinised in detail at the other end of this building, and I thank colleagues in the House of Lords for their collaborative work. The changes brought forward are sensible and proportionate, and they reflect the broad cross-party consensus behind the aims of this legislation. A number of the changes were technical in nature but crucial for clarity. They address several concerns that I and others raised on Second Reading about the scope of qualifying events under the Bill. The Lords amended it to make it clear that private events—weddings, office parties or similar—sit outside its scope. That helps to ensure that the law is designed for public-facing venues without overreaching into personal or private spaces. In addition, several important changes were made to strengthen the safeguards around delegated powers. The amendments consolidate into a single clause the key power of the Secretary of State to amend the public protection procedures that must be in place in each tier. They also require the Secretary of State to meet a high bar of necessity to make changes to qualifying thresholds for protective measures, and to consult relevant parties before exercising these powers. These are welcome changes that introduce further transparency and ensure that the Bill’s implementation is balanced and accountable. Another key area of discussion throughout the Bill’s passage has been the need for clear and accessible guidance. On Second Reading, I and others cautioned that venue operators would struggle to comply with the law without adequate support. I am therefore pleased that the Minister in the Lords gave a firm commitment, repeated by the Minister today, that guidance will be published well in advance of the changes coming into force, and that there will be a period of engagement to ensure that it is robust and practical. I thank my Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Suttie for her tireless work on this point and for her amendment, which helped secure this assurance. Her contributions in the Lords have strengthened the Bill considerably. It is impossible to consider this legislation without remembering why we are here. Martyn’s law was born from an unimaginable tragedy—the terrorist attack at Manchester Arena in 2017. As the MP for Hazel Grove in Greater Manchester, I witnessed at first hand the resilience and the unity that followed the arena attack. I remember joining my community in Romiley Precinct when residents came together in quiet solidarity the evening after. It was an act of remembrance, but also a statement that terrorism will never define us, and that we will not be divided by it. Among the 22 lives taken that night was Martyn Hett, a 29-year-old from Stockport. His mother Figen Murray has shown extraordinary resolve in the years since the attack. Her campaign for Martyn’s law has been defined by compassion, determination and a belief that no other family should ever experience what hers has had to endure. Today we are seeing the fruits of her dedication. The Bill is a testament to her courage and unrelenting hope that something good could emerge from the darkest of circumstances. Thanks to Figen’s advocacy, this country will be better prepared to keep people safe in our public spaces. I welcome the Bill and the amendments before us today. Martyn’s law will not bring back those who were taken from us, but it will save lives. In doing so, it will stand as a lasting tribute to Martyn, Figen and the people of Greater Manchester. The Liberal Democrats are proud to support it.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Transport Connectivity: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing a debate on this important topic for our constituents. Transport connectivity is about economic growth and opening up the world so that our constituents can make choices about their lives that allow them to fulfil their potential. Reliable, affordable and accessible public transport is not just a convenience; it is an essential pillar of our economy, our communities and our future. Yet for too long the north-west has suffered from under-investment, unreliable rail services and disconnected transport networks that leave too many of our constituents struggling to get to work, school or essential services. That is why I am asking the Government for three things today. First, we need more frequent and reliable rail services with simple, affordable fares that encourage people back on to our trains. Secondly, I urge the Government to work with Stockport council and the Greater Manchester combined authority to bring Metrolink or tram-trains to my constituency. Thirdly, the Government need to make public transport the default for my constituents by expanding current bus and rail connections. Many in my community and in the surrounding areas of Greater Manchester and beyond will remember the absolute chaos towards the end of last year when, almost every day, commuters on Northern-operated trains saw swathes of red cancellation notices. I received dozens of emails from constituents talking about how they could not rely on the trains to get to work or to pick up their children from school. Some even told me that they had to reject job offers because the trains were just too unreliable. Since the pandemic, constituents commuting on the Rose Hill to Manchester Piccadilly line have faced an irregular timetable, and passenger numbers across the north-west have struggled to recover to pre-pandemic levels. I welcome the plan to integrate our trains, trams and buses, and I look forward to the streamlining of ticketing this will offer. However, it would be remiss of me not to mention that Metrolink does not yet extend into any part of Stockport. Our brilliant new interchange is Metrolink-ready, but we have no indication of when Metrolink will be ready for Stockport. We have even less idea of whether Metrolink or tram-trains will eventually reach into the towns and villages of my constituency. Many of my residents have to rely on buses to get where they want to go, and some of those buses are not operated by the Bee network because we are right on the edge of Greater Manchester. We need more frequent bus services that link to our rail services, but the ridiculous traffic levels on the roads in my constituency will prevent them from reaching their potential. Whether it is the A6 or Stockport Road, journeys that normally take 20 minutes can take over an hour in the morning and evening rush hours. Public transport is the obvious solution. We should make it easier for those who can take the tram or the train so that the roads are freed up for those who cannot. Trams and trains offer commuters the ability to bypass rush hour congestion in a way that buses cannot. Transport for Greater Manchester has an ambition to restore regular passenger rail services on the Stockport to Stalybridge line. This provides a unique opportunity to reduce rush hour journey times significantly for commuters heading to Stockport from my constituency. The rail line from Bredbury to Piccadilly crosses over the Stockport to Stalybridge line near Reddish Vale. I encourage the Department for Transport and TfGM to explore the possibility of linking those two lines, whether in the form of a new interchange station or a chord linking the two. The message from my constituents is clear: they need public transport that works for them. That means a railway system that people can rely on, bus routes that connect communities rather than isolate them, and investment in new transport links that drive economic growth.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Many of my Hazel Grove constituents are keen as mustard to get back to work, but they are waiting for either a diagnosis or treatment on the NHS. That is made more difficult because of the capital spending needed at Stepping Hill hospital, and because mental health services across Greater Manchester are stretched too thin. What assurance can the Secretary of State give my constituents that her announcements today will not make an already difficult time in their lives even more difficult?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is laying out the case very clearly for more certainty about the future of Access for All funding, and the real, crying need for many of our communities to have level access to public transport. Does he agree that stations such as Bredbury in my constituency, where a passenger can travel in one direction with level access but not in the other, are affecting people’s decisions about whether to take employment—making this a growth issue for our country, not just a fairness issue?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Community Theatre · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly agree. I remember growing up, with this accent, and really welcoming it when somebody sounded like me on the BBC or in a theatre production. It matters to all of us to see and hear ourselves and to hear our stories being told. Community and local theatre plays a hugely important role in that. Community theatre also plays an important role in saving money from the public purse. We have so many young people on a waiting list for assessment and treatment by child and adolescent mental health services. They might be out of mainstream school and struggling as they live with a mental health condition. Participating in the life of a theatre, whether in a production or at the front or back of house, can make people feel they belong. It can help them to find their voice and support them, thereby reducing the cost to the state in other areas. It also offers invaluable educational opportunities. At the Forum, local schools benefit from theatre experience days, when students can learn about career opportunities in the creative industries, which can be life changing. I am thinking about David, who discovered his passion for lighting and sound design during a school visit. When he left school, he became the theatre’s first apprentice, allowing him to master his passion over a two-year programme. The charity that operates the theatre, NK Theatre Arts, also ensures that financial hardship does not prevent participation. The theatre vowed never to turn down a potential member due to financial difficulties. Recently, a long-time member of a much-loved drama class stopped attending, because her family was experiencing a tough time financially, and they decided they could no longer afford it. The theatre team pushed through and insisted that the member continue and only pay what she could.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Community Theatre · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the perilous state of local government finances, the knock-on impact on assets and services provided by councils, and how councils can support important work in our communities. It is quite difficult to measure the impact of bringing people together. I feel that we look at the arts as a cost rather than as an asset and a way to reduce costs in other areas. I will come to those points later. The Forum serves as a hub for more than 30 local organisations: dance schools, community groups, bands, comedians and schools use the space. They rely heavily on the Forum for their events, because it is an affordable space compared with going into town and paying the price for city centre venues. Its usage is a testament to its importance and significance. The level of activity not only enriches the cultural life of my constituents, and more widely, but it stimulates the local economy. A study by the Society of London Theatre shows that for every pound spent on a theatre ticket, £1.40 is spent in the local economy. That boost is vital for the many independent shops, cafés and wine bars in Romiley, which benefit from the theatre’s bustling schedule. At the centre of those statistics are the real lives of those in my community who benefit from the Forum. The theatre brings together children and young people from different backgrounds, from those who are more affluent to those who currently live in the care of the local authority. At the theatre, they grow together with shared passions.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Community Theatre · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for community theatre. It is a pleasure to present this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. Community theatres across the country empower young people and enable them to find and amplify their voices. It is also wonderful fun to be part of the audience. I will make the case for community theatres to be treated as an asset that saves money for our communities. I will also make the case for community theatres to be able to access capital funding to keep the show on the road and, because of the important role that local councils play in supporting community theatre, I shall make the case for sustainable funding for local government. In my constituency, the Forum theatre in Romiley provides enriching opportunities to many young people from different backgrounds, including those who would otherwise not naturally feel able to get involved in the arts, as well as those with physical or learning disabilities. I have had the great pleasure of attending a whole range of performances at the theatre. The standard of production is extraordinarily high. It is especially uplifting to see the progression of young people moving from the chorus to a leading role, and then, for a few, to the country’s top drama schools.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Community Theatre · Hansard source

  More

  I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the team in her constituency. Having participated in some bids for lottery funding, I know it is not always an easy process, so they have done very well to be successful. Community hubs are also so much more than just a rehearsal space. They bring light, laughter and so much warmth to a community, so I absolutely agree with her. All hon. Members will know that theatres are facing higher running costs. If we think about the impact of higher energy bills on households, the cost of heating a very large, high-ceilinged space is even greater. Energy bills are increasing, and rises in wages and national insurance for staff mean that there is less and less money available to spend on improving things around the theatre. I spoke to people from NK Theatre Arts and they summarised my point perfectly: “Although it’s great to put on a brilliant show, it isn’t really about the shows and the events. It is all about the social benefits it brings to the children, young people and adults, and all of our partners who use The Forum Theatre, but it needs investment.” That investment would be its lifeline. I appeal to the Minister and the Government to take action to support councils to maintain and renovate cultural buildings such as community theatres. The previous Government provided schools and colleges with the funding that they needed, more or less, to permanently remove the RAAC. Considering the hugely important service that our cultural buildings provide and the amount they save the broader public purse, it makes sense for the Government to provide similar funding to remove RAAC from community theatres across the UK. Romiley Forum is, of course, not the only theatre in Hazel Grove. We also boast the Carver in Marple, which, while relying solely on volunteers, has been entertaining my community since 1906, and is where I have enjoyed the unforgettable Marple gang show. I should not forget Romiley Little Theatre, which is another charity that has been part of Stockport’s cultural landscape for over 70 years. Without our community theatres, the immensely valuable services that organisations such as NK Theatre Arts provide to young people would not be able to exist. The workshops and experiences offered by the theatre company not only provide accessible ways to get involved in the arts, but help keep young people off the streets and involved in their local communities. Any funding for community theatre would be an investment in our young people. We would be investing in our local communities and in the UK’s proud and storied cultural heritage, providing opportunities for the many extraordinarily talented young people in our constituencies who may not otherwise be able to get involved with their passions. I ask the Government to support community theatre and treat them as assets that bring money into our communities while saving money from the public purse, whether we are talking about CAMHS for young people living with anxiety, or day centres or other activities for those with learning disabilities. I also ask the Government to make funding available for capital repairs for theatres like the Forum in Romiley, as the Department for Education did for schools and colleges, to give a secure future to these vital community assets. Although I am aware that this might not be in the Minister’s gift alone, I also ask for local government to be given clarity over its long-term funding, so that we do not lose the local connection to the arts that so many of us cherish.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Community Theatre · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly agree that assets that are owned and run by the community are a powerful way of empowering that community to deliver what it needs. The Forum theatre is owned by the council but run by NK Theatre Arts, and I will come to some of the challenges that that funding model presents, but I think that communities being involved in improving themselves brings about the best for them.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Community Theatre · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I obviously agree with him about the important role that community theatres play in our communities, and I will comment on the importance of clarity on longer-term funding. As he rightly says, theatres face increasing costs. When energy bills go up and it costs us more to heat our homes, they go up significantly more for theatres. I will come on to the capital spending that is needed and how we are putting at risk some of the community cohesion work that theatres can do. The Forum theatre in my constituency faces an uncertain future because it has reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in the roof. It was forced to close while temporary repairs were made, and it was repaired with a temporary lifespan of five years. After a phenomenal campaign by the local community and local councillors pushed the local council to provide funding, the theatre is thankfully back open and back at the heart of the Romiley community. Last April, the estimates for the cost of the work to fully remove the RAAC panels at the Forum and deliver a permanent fix was forecast to be up to £2 million. The work involves removing the current roof coverings, removing each of the RAAC panels individually and disposing of them, and then creating a new roof structure and making it watertight. Although the work will disrupt activities at the theatre, it is crucial to securing the long-term future of a beloved community asset. The Forum theatre is owned by Stockport council. We all know there is a crisis in local government funding, and local councils across the country, including my Stockport council, have to deal with severe budgetary constraints. Simply put, Stockport council does not have the funds for the necessary building renovations at the Forum theatre to permanently remove the RAAC. Any money invested in local councils to support our cultural landmarks is undoubtedly well spent and will pay dividends.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Use of Stop and Search · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be in this debate and to have you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing a debate on this important topic. The hon. Gentleman powerfully laid out some utterly tragic cases, and made the point, rightly, that far too many young people are losing their lives to knife crime. I strongly agree with him on the need to support our police as they tackle and prevent crime, and I particularly agree with his point about the importance of preventing crime. He said there is not one simple answer to how we do that, and I very much agree. However, many of my remarks will mirror those of the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). The foundation of the policing model in this country is trust. The police are a vital part of our community, and trust is built and protected by using approaches and tactics that both show results and apply fairly to us all. Any successful policing model must strike the right balance between individual freedoms and keeping our communities safe, and any discussion of stop-and-search tactics is really a discussion of where we think that balance sits. For too many, stop and search is not a policing tactic that builds trust. Trust is undoubtedly the foundation of any effective policing model, and without it, communities can disengage, co-operation can dwindle and crime prevention can suffer. Today, too many communities who should feel protected by the police are instead made to feel like targets. According to Home Office stats, which the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill mentioned, in the UK black people are around four times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. When it comes to suspicionless stop and search under section 60, the figure is even higher. The Liberal Democrats are calling for an end to the disproportionate use of stop and search, and that includes abolishing suspicionless stop-and-search powers. The evidence is clear: the surge in the use of section 60 stop and search between 2016 and 2020 coincided with a drastic decline in arrest rates. Polling from the Criminal Justice Alliance found that three quarters of black, Asian and minority ethnic young people believe that their communities are unfairly targeted by stop and search. We want all members of our community to engage with policing efforts to keep our neighbourhoods safe, but that is made difficult if people do not trust the police to act fairly. We must not forget that these are not just statistics; we are talking about the everyday lives of people in our local communities. We need a police force that serves and protects, not one that alienates and discriminates. That is why the Lib Dems are fighting to ensure that stop and search is always used fairly, proportionately and only when there is a genuine suspicion of wrongdoing. That is how trust is built. However, this debate is not just about what we must stop; it is also about what we must start and what we must do more of. The new Labour Government have a unique chance to consider exactly that. As I outlined on Monday in the Second Reading debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, we will support the Government in any efforts they make to return to proper, visible neighbourhood policing. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home and walking down their own streets, yet under the previous Conservative Government that was far from the reality. Our police forces remain overstretched, under resourced and unable to focus on the crimes that affect people the most. The record speaks for itself: every day 6,000 cases or so are closed without a suspect being identified, and only 6% of reported crimes result in a suspect being charged. In a move that defies logic, the last Government slashed the number of police community support officers by more than 4,500 since 2015. Those PCSOs were the backbone of community policing. They were familiar, trusted faces in our neighbourhoods—building relationships, offering support and preventing crime. This new Government have an opportunity to do much more than tinker around the edges of policing, and we will push them to commit to restoring proper community policing, which is a model that has been abandoned for too long. The use of stop and search disproportionately can divide our police from our communities, whereas proper neighbourhood policing builds the trust and co-operation that our police force so desperately needs. Our communities deserve better, and the Lib Dems will continue to fight for a fairer, more effective approach to policing—one that prioritises neighbourhood policing and community trust. That is how we make our communities safer and build trust: by building a policing system that works for everyone.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  A great many very important employment-related issues are being discussed, but I rise in support of new clause 16. As it stands, self-employed people are not entitled to statutory adoption pay, which creates a substantial economic barrier for prospective adopters. Without this support, the selfless act of adoption is being made harder. New clause 16 would fix that. A constituent of mine, Kirsty, is a self-employed mother who discovered this significant gap in the financial support system while exploring the possibility of adoption. Kirsty and her husband have a son, Charlie, who is a bright-eyed four-year-old with an unshakeable love of trains. He often talked about how much he wanted a little sibling to be his assistant train driver, and after a year of trying to conceive a second child, Kirsty and her family decided that opening their hearts and their home to a child through adoption was the best option. However, one of Kirsty’s close friends—also self-employed and in the process of adopting—informed her that she was not entitled to the same financial support through statutory adoption pay, throwing her plans into doubt. Unlike biological parents, who qualify for maternity allowance, or employed adopters, who are eligible for statutory adoption pay, self-employed adopters such as Kirsty fall into a financial support void. While statutory guidance allows local authorities to make discretionary means-tested payments equivalent to these allowances for the self-employed, such support is not guaranteed, and local authorities have no legal duty to provide it. In fact, a freedom of information request by the charity Home for Good has revealed that 34% of local authorities lack any policy for providing this financial support. Even worse, 90% of self-employed adopters, when they were surveyed by the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence back in 2022, reported that their social worker never advised them about these discretionary payments and the possibility of receiving them. Adoption provides children with the opportunity to thrive in a permanent, loving home, often completing a family, as I have had the great pleasure of seeing for myself in my role as a proud adopted auntie. I am confident in my belief that Members across the House will agree that self-employed people are no less suited to adopt than anyone else. Despite the increase in the number of children in care, the number of adoptions in the UK has halved since its peak in 2015, and this is completely unsustainable. The enormous and growing pressures that face our foster care system will only worsen if the number of adoptions continues to decrease. As of December 2024, there are 4.39 million self-employed people across the UK. If we began removing the financial barriers and empowering those who are self-employed through guaranteed financial support for adoption, we could begin to reverse the worrying trends in the number of adoptions. That would allow willing adopters such as Kirsty and her husband to be financially able to do so.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member that while crime stats are important, the way people feel about crime also is hugely important for all our communities. The issues are felt acutely in constituencies like mine. In Hazel Grove, in towns and villages such as Marple and Romiley, shop workers report that they face a real surge in shop theft. Many tell me that they have no expectation that the police will respond. Even charity shops have been burgled. These organisations just cannot afford to absorb the losses. Another persistent concern raised by my constituents is the blight of illegal off-road bikes. I know that problem is felt in all our constituencies. From Offerton to High Lane, residents feel intimidated by this antisocial and often dangerous behaviour. Local officers tell me that although they do not lack the power to act, they lack the tools, resources and capacity to enforce existing laws, so we will scrutinise the Government’s proposals on this, especially as they relate to under-18s. The new Government must return to the neighbourhood policing model, with bobbies on the beat who are visible, trusted and properly resourced. Any element of the Bill that does that will receive Lib Dem support. What else do we support in this Bill? Part 4 deals with the criminal exploitation of children and others, and it is welcome. Part 5 seeks to update the law on sexual offences. These parts will of course need close scrutiny to make them as effective as they can be, but they have Lib Dem support. If this were a Lib Dem Bill, we would not be talking quite as much about criminalising those who climb on specific war memorials, and we would protect the important right to protest, rather than making it harder for this right to be exercised. We are surprised and more than a little bit disappointed that there is no mention in the Bill of bringing in domestic abuse aggravated offences. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for the work he has done in this area. We all agree that domestic abuse devastates lives, and that the criminal justice system must properly recognise its severity. Too many abusers escape appropriate justice because domestic abuse is prosecuted under general offences such as common assault or grievous bodily harm, which fails to capture the full nature of the crime. We urge the Government to back this change and ensure that victims and survivors receive the protections that they need and deserve. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have more to say on the matter in due course.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not recall hearing a question from the shadow Home Secretary, but I am sure that he would welcome the matter being further clarified in the legislation. He said at the Dispatch Box that live facial recognition is not mentioned in the Bill. I agree. I am sure that we would both welcome scrutinising it, perhaps from different starting points, but ending up with a situation in which our police forces were confident that they knew exactly what the rules were, and exactly how to make best use of any new technology coming through. The Government and this Bill have the potential to deliver real change, but only if the Government listen. That means a return to proper neighbourhood policing, to giving rural police the resources that they desperately need, and to protecting civil liberties. It is time for the Government to show that they are serious about preventing crime and enabling our police to act when crime has been committed. All our communities across the whole country deserve nothing less.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a genuine pleasure to be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for rising to his feet. What I said was that if this was a Lib Dem Bill—I look forward to one coming forward in the fullness of time—we would not spend as much time talking about this as a criminal act. There are many priorities for the Government, and I will talk about a number of measures that we were disappointed not to see included in this 340-page Bill, at the expense of the issue he raises. For example, we have waited with bated breath for the new Government to crack down on water companies that pollute our rivers with impunity. Nowhere is that issue clearer than in my community; sewage has been dumped in our rivers, and part of the Chadkirk country estate, a beloved green space in my constituency, was turned into a sewage swamp after heavy rainfall in the new year. The field beside Otterspool Road, which the council planned to transform into a well-kept community meadow, was flooded with raw sewage. Current laws allow the water companies to get away with that. Liberal Democrats will continue to push to make sewage dumping a specific criminal offence, so that water company executives can be held accountable for the damage they do to our communities. The Government’s failure to reference rural crime even once in the Bill is unacceptable. I heard the Home Secretary’s response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who is no longer in his place, and it is indeed welcome that a rural crime strategy is on the way, but we Lib Dems will push for a commitment to this issue in the Bill. Rural crime is not an inconvenience; it is a growing crisis. The National Farmers Union reported that the cost of rural crime soared to over £52 million in 2023, with organised gangs targeting farm machinery, vehicles and GPS equipment, yet fewer than 1% of police officers are in dedicated rural crime teams. I heard that for myself when I met a dozen local farmers at Far Benfield farm in Cowlishaw Brow last week. I clearly heard about the impact that organised fly-tipping and organised equipment theft has on farming families. Finally, there is a gap in the Bill where a discussion of regulating or legislating for live facial recognition should be. The Liberal Democrats have been clear that the technology is a threat to privacy, is discriminatory and does not make our streets safer. The previous Government pushed ahead with its use, despite serious concerns from human rights organisations, legal experts and even their own independent biometrics commissioner. The police should focus on evidence-based crime prevention, not rolling out flawed and biased surveillance technology. Any use of it by the police must be transparent, unbiased and regulated. We can see police forces coming up with their own rules within which to operate. It is long past time for the Government to set the framework.