Zöe Franklin MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  Liberal Democrats have long championed our high streets, tourism and hospitality sectors. While we strongly support devolving economic powers, businesses are already struggling under mounting costs, a VAT rate higher than that of our international peers and the Government’s national insurance contributions hike. Without support, an overnight levy risks looking less like genuine devolution and more like another short-term tax grab. If Ministers hand local mayors and foundation strategic authorities the power to introduce levies, they must bring forward vital sector relief—an emergency 5p VAT cut, relief from NICs and so forth—and must not reduce local government funding as a result. Can the Minister confirm when this House will see full details of the levy? Specifically, will Ministers implement a cap and sector support to protect local tourism and hospitality?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this important debate. It has been a powerful morning in this Chamber, in terms of both the challenges but also the stories of hope on this difficult issue. I want to start by expressing my solidarity with Jewish communities across the country and with everyone who is experiencing antisemitic abuse, intimidation or violence.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  The latest Home Office figures show that there were 106 religious hate crimes targeting Jewish people per 10,000 of the Jewish population—by far the highest rate, sadly, for any religious group. Behind these shocking figures are people who are changing the way they live, as we have heard in this morning’s debate, because they are frightened—frightened of being attacked, abused or intimidated simply for practising their faith. I see that in my own constituency of Guildford, which has a relatively small but growing Jewish community of around 450 residents, which rises to 600 during university term time. Members of the community have told me clearly that since the horrific attacks of 7 October, the tone has noticeably shifted in the community. Our local rabbi has received death threats and has even been physically assaulted in public. Jewish residents have faced verbal abuse, a swastika has been drawn at a local golf course, and a single Jewish mother had a rotten chicken thrown through her open window while she was with her five-year-old child, and those are not isolated incidents. What has stayed with me the most, though, is hearing that some local Jewish families have moved their mezuzah from the outside of their front door to the inside because they are frightened of being identified as Jewish. That is an extraordinary thing for anyone to feel they must do in Britain in 2026 to keep their family safe. It is why I believe our response must be about much more than simply reacting when another terrible thing happens. We need to step up, as community leaders and as Parliament. We need to ensure that Jewish communities are protected now, but we also need to tackle the hatred that makes that protection necessary in the first place. I welcome the Government’s additional £25 million for security following the attacks in Golders Green, bringing the total available to £58 million. I have seen how much that investment matters. The Guildford synagogue has had to spend thousands of pounds upgrading security, and our rabbi has had to spend money improving his own personal security. I refuse to accept that this is simply the way society is turning—that violence and intimidation is now being normalised. Will the Minister explain what long-term certainty the Government will provide for the Community Security Trust and for the security funding relied upon by synagogues, Jewish schools and community organisations? Protecting buildings is necessary, but it is not enough. We also have to ensure that our police and prosecutors can identify antisemitism and act when the law is broken. I want to be really clear on protest. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental in a liberal democracy, but there is no right to intimidate Jewish people, to glorify terrorism or to use protest as a cover for antisemitic hatred or incitement to violence. It should not be a difficult distinction for us to make as a society. We Liberal Democrats have called for mandatory antisemitism training for police officers policing demonstrations, as part of a statutory code for the policing of protests. That would also include stronger protections around places of worship, and place responsibilities on protest organisers to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment and intimidation. I really do think that those are practical steps that the Government should take seriously. Will the Minister consider introducing consistent antisemitism training for officers policing protests across the country? Will the Government also consider again how we protect synagogues and other places of worship from intimidating protests immediately outside them? The same applies when cases reach the justice system. I could go on, and I know that colleagues across this Chamber have raised a number of issues in relation to that point. I also want to note the gap between the official statistics and what Jewish residents say that they experience. I hear it in my own constituency of Guilford, and I am sure that colleagues hear the same. Many incidents are never reported to the police. Others happen in schools, universities and workplaces and are dealt with internally, which means that they simply disappear from the national picture. If we do not understand the scale of antisemitism, we cannot properly respond to it. We have talked this morning about the crucial issue of educating people to understand what is and what is not acceptable in our language. We have also heard about Sir David Bell’s review of antisemitism in schools. I have, sadly, heard too many stories in my own constituency and in neighbouring ones of children and young people facing antisemitism within their education setting. I am glad that Sir David Bell’s review is coming. Will the Minister commit to responding quickly to the review and its recommendations when it comes out? I want to end by sharing something positive, as many colleagues have done at the end of their speeches, too. I want to share the genuinely positive work happening in Guildford. I am glad that Surrey police have developed a stronger liaison relationship with our Jewish community. Guildford and Waverley councils, Surrey police, Jewish residents and local faith leaders have worked together on a hate-crime pledge. We have growing relationships between the Jewish community, the Reform Jewish community in Weybridge, and Woking mosque. Those relationships are crucial. They show that even at times of terrible conflict and division internationally, Jewish and Muslim communities here can continue to talk to one another, support one another and refuse to allow events overseas to divide neighbours at home. I was proud to stand with local faith leaders and civic leaders with the Guildford declaration of freedom of religion and belief. That work is crucial, and it brings me to the issue of inter-faith initiatives. Sadly, inter-faith funding has largely disappeared. Will the Government consider reinstating the crucial grassroots inter-faith funding, which is at the core of enabling positive cross-faith work? Ultimately, I do not want the measure of success for how the Jewish community is being protected to be about how many security guards we have funded or how many hate crimes have been recorded. I want Jewish families to feel comfortable putting their mezuzah back outside their front door. I want Jewish children to be able to talk about their faith openly, without worrying how other pupils will react. I want the Jewish community in my constituency of Guildford to be able to light the menorah on the high street without the need for armed police to make that possible. That requires proper security funding now, but it also requires better policing, better education, stronger enforcement online and investment in relationships that prevent hatred from growing in the first place. I think that everyone in this Chamber agrees that antisemitism has no place in our society. We should not accept Jewish people having to change how visibly Jewish they are in order to feel safe. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to set out more on the practical steps that the Government will take to help ensure that that is the reality.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of her statement. I have almost lost track of the number of times I have stood in this Chamber and warned the Government about problems with their local government reorganisation plans—yet here I am again. It appears that the Government have finally listened, but they have done so too late and the damage has already been done. Thousands of residents have been denied their right to vote over the course of this process, because of plans that many of us in this Chamber warned were on a very uncertain legal footing. Councils have poured enormous amounts of time, effort and money into proposals they were repeatedly assured were legally sound, only to discover that they are now being abandoned. The abortive costs are likely to be substantial. Worse still, a number of authorities were relying on reorganisation as part of a strategy to address serious financial concerns. Those councils are now being left in limbo. In my own area of Surrey, councils were forced down a reorganisation route that now appears to be effectively abandoned by the Government and questionable on a legal basis. Will the Secretary of State commit to meeting Surrey MPs and the new authority leaders to discuss how our county can avoid the risks and uncertainty that the Government say have prompted this decision elsewhere? The Government need to acknowledge the significant democratic harm caused by this episode and take responsibility for it, including by issuing an apology, so will the Secretary of State set out clearly what happens next for communities and local authorities left in limbo by today’s announcement? Will she also publish the legal advice so that Parliament and the affected communities can understand what went wrong with the original process?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Planning: Green Spaces · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place alongside her team. Guildford borough council’s latest green-belt assessment found that 92% of its green belt now meets the Government’s grey belt definition, and its assessed housing need has been doubled by the Government from 562 to 1,168 homes a year. That has left many of my residents worried about the loss of green spaces, about unsustainable development without appropriate infrastructure and about the loss of the distinctive historic character of their villages. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential impact of planning policy on green-belt land in my constituency, which falls within the Guildford borough area? Can she outline what steps her Government will take to protect green spaces for communities by ensuring that developers are directed towards genuine brownfield sites first, rather than development being concentrated on land around Guildford that was previously protected by the green belt?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Regional Devolution: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Prime Minister’s indication that newly formed local authorities will not be forced to have a strategic mayor in order to benefit from devolution. However, the key to success will be ensuring real fiscal devolution to support and deliver services and economic growth for residents. Will the Minister set out how the Department will ensure that for non-mayoral strategic authorities, including the emerging foundation strategic authority in Surrey, where my constituency is based? How will she ensure that our area receives the financial resources to make meaningful funding decisions at a regional level, including by accessing funding streams currently available only to mayoral strategic authorities?

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

  More

  I could not agree more. We have seen the difference that such a change has made at a local government level, where councillors’ home addresses are no longer in the public domain, and I certainly think it should be the same for all candidates. Returning to my point about the safety of candidates and those in elected office, I have tabled amendment 1 and new clause 6 to extend the existing protections beyond the candidates themselves and to their staff and families. Sadly, threats and intimidation do not stop at the candidate. Campaign staff are on the doorstep with us and run our campaign offices, often late into the evening, and our families can find themselves targeted simply because of the public role that we choose to take on. We must do everything we can to protect candidates and all those who serve in our democracy at every level. If the Government take these issues seriously, they will support both of my amendments and commit to continually review the threats to candidates, to work with organisations such as the Local Government Association and to listen to the plethora of councillors at every single level—from town and parish, right up to unitary—who are telling terrible stories of death threats and attacks on their homes. We have to address these issues, because we must ensure not only that candidates are kept safe, but that our democracy is kept safe. It is a rapidly changing political environment, and we all have a responsibility to address it. I really hope that the Government and the new Cabinet will act on these issues as the Bill progresses, and it will be deeply disappointing if this opportunity to implement change through the access to elected office fund, or through something of a different name that does the same thing, were not put into the Bill. If the Government will not act on these issues in this Chamber, we will continue, with our Liberal Democrat colleagues and others in the other place, to ensure that these important protections for equality and safety become a reality.

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

  More

  It was an absolute privilege to serve on the Bill Committee for this legislation and, before that, on the Speaker’s Conference, many of whose recommendations have appeared in the Bill. I am particularly pleased to see the Government adopt the long-held Liberal Democrat policy of extending the right to vote for 16 and 17-year-olds. Giving young people a say in the decisions that shape their lives and their futures is long overdue, and I am glad that we will see it become reality. I agree with many colleagues to whom I have spoken about this issue. When I speak to young people about politics, I see so much awareness, and so much desire to be able to contribute to the political debate and have agency over their votes and their future. I am pleased to have tabled new clause 2, as well as the other new clauses that stand in my name. I thank the organisations that have worked with me on my people-focused proposals, particularly Centenary Action and Elect Her. However, I am disappointed that the Government have continued to fail to act on the access to elected office fund, and on some of the concerns about personal safety that I have sought to raise in a range of amendments. In respect of the access to elected office fund, I have to ask the Government what we are waiting for. Back in June last year, they announced a working group to develop a new fund. When we debated the issue in Committee before the recess we were told that work was ongoing, and when I met the Minister who was then in charge of the Bill, I was again assured that the new fund was being developed. We are not reinventing the wheel here. An access to elected office fund has existed in England before, and equivalent schemes are operating now in both Wales and Scotland. Why does England need an entirely new fund, rewritten from scratch, that is taking over a year to create? We know what this support is for, we know the difference that it can make, and we know that disabled candidates continue to face additional costs simply to participate equally in our democracy. The Bill is precisely the vehicle to put that right. Rather than forming another working group, commissioning another review, or offering another reassurance that something will eventually happen in due course, I urge the Government to support new clause 37 and reinstate the fund in statutory form. Warm words do not pay for accessible transport, personal assistance or an interpreter. Disabled candidates need practical support and certainty. We want our elected representatives to be truly representative of our communities. The same frustration applies to the personal safety of those who participate in our democracy. Before the summer recess, after the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe, the Home Secretary addressed the issue in the Chamber with great seriousness. I was grateful when she assured the House that she would look at amendments to the Bill with colleagues across Government, and would consider what further action was needed to protect people in our democracy. Sadly, however, I have not been able to spot the those commitments in the Bill, and it is also disappointing that we did not hear more about this aspect of the Bill from the Minister in her opening speech.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  The death of Ann Widdecombe is shocking. I did not know her as an MP, but it has been wonderful listening to colleagues from across the House share some of their memories. She was clearly a formidable political leader. Of course, we will also remember her as an entertainer. My thoughts are with her family and friends at this incredibly difficult time. Her death is a devastating reminder of the problem that all of us elected Members and councillors face on a day-to-day basis while we try to serve the communities we love and have been elected to serve. It has come across very clearly in the Chamber that we all want and need to do more to protect each other and our democracy. I speak a lot to my councillors in Guildford and, as the Liberal Democrat local government spokesperson, to councillors across the country. The stories I hear are horrendous, whether it is parish council leaders or council leaders telling me about death threats. This is a democracy and elected representatives should not be experiencing that. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for what she has already set out, but could she also set out what actions the Government are taking to protect elected officials at all levels, in particular councillors and those who are served by Operation Ford? Can she confirm that more resources will be made available to Operation Ford, so that a consistent level of support can be provided across the country? I know that police officers and forces across the country want to do that, but I hear about varying levels of support.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  We Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution, because decisions are better made closer to the communities they affect, yet this Labour Government’s approach has been top-down Whitehall diktat from the very start. Councils have been undermined, residents have been barely consulted, and communities have been left in the dark about the future of local services, all while councils continue to face significant financial pressure. With the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) expected to saunter into No. 10 within days, I am deeply concerned that Members of this House, councils and residents have no clarity about the approach to local government reorganisation that he will take, whether the parameters will change, and whether future local elections will be cancelled yet again. What discussions has the Minister had with the right hon. Member for Makerfield about his plans for reorganisation, and will she commit to no further local elections being cancelled?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Civil Service Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Anita was widowed suddenly in December 2025, and Capita has failed to calculate her lump sum and pension payments. She is living in desperate hardship; she has exhausted all her credit cards and there are no friends and family left who can support her. She has not even been able to scatter her husband’s ashes. The Minister has insisted that bereavement cases are prioritised, but the evidence suggests otherwise. What is the Minister doing now to ensure that people like Anita are not living in hardship? They need urgent action.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his opening remarks, and the petitioners who brought the petition today. Public trust in our democracy is sadly at an all-time low due to broken manifesto commitments, resignations or just the perceived lack of accountability that has led to general political disillusion for so many. Every failure of standards and every perception that rules do not apply equally risks further damaging confidence in not only us as MPs but our democratic institutions. The petition was signed by over 200,000 people across the country, including 227 of my constituents in Guildford, and it asks a question that goes to the heart of our democracy: who is fit to stand for public office and how do we protect the institutions that make our democracy work? We Liberal Democrats believe that we should be working hard to restore public confidence in our democratic institutions. Those who have sought to undermine that confidence through political violence should face serious consequences. However, the question raised by the petition is not a simple one. Those who signed it are asking beyond whether someone convicted of terrorism offences should be able to stand for elected office; they are asking whether the system is serious about protecting itself. They are asking whether we understand what public office is for. The UK already disqualifies certain people with criminal convictions from holding elected office. Anyone sentenced to three months or more in prison is barred from serving on an English local authority for five years. Police and crime commissioner candidates are disqualified if they have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence. MPs serving prison sentences of more than a year are disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1981, so a framework is already in place. The question is whether it goes far enough for terrorism offences specifically. We do not think that it would be right to bar every person with any historic conviction from ever standing for office; that would be disproportionate and cut against the principle of rehabilitation. But terrorism and national security offences are different. They are, by definition, attacks on the institutions that the person may later seek to serve. It is reasonable for Parliament to treat them as a special case. Any new prohibition, however, must meet two tests. First, it must comply with the 1998 Human Rights Act. Restrictions on the right to stand for election must be proportionate and subject to proper legal safeguards. That is not a barrier to action; it is the framework that any workable law will have to fit within. Secondly, any prohibition must be consistent with the Good Friday Agreement. The constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland has held peace for a generation, and legislation drafted without regard to it could do real damage. That is a practical consideration, not a theoretical one, and I hope the Minister will address it directly. Within those tests, though, there is a clear route forward. The Elections Act 2022 already allows courts to issue disqualification orders, but only for five years. The Liberal Democrats support giving courts the power to issue longer disqualification orders, so that people who pose an ongoing threat to our democracy can be barred from public office for as long as that threat lasts. Currently, the Representation of the People Bill is making its way through Parliament. It provides a great opportunity for the Government to make changes to our electoral system. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has tabled an amendment that I fully support, which would prevent anyone convicted of offences relating to the promotion, incitement or use of political violence from making donations to political parties. If we agree that people who have used violence against our democracy should not sit in its chambers, we should also agree that they should not be funding the parties that do. I ask the Minister to look at that amendment seriously at the next stage of the Bill. There is a wider point about how nominations are handled. Returning officers currently have to accept nominations at face value. They cannot investigate allegations or reject a nomination because they think someone might be disqualified. As candidates self-declare their eligibility, the system depends on honesty. It is worth the Government asking whether that is still fit for purpose. Tackling extremism also requires more than legal disqualification. It requires the police and prosecutors to have the resources and training to prevent and prosecute hate crimes. It requires protective funding for places of worship, schools and community centres that have been the targets of attacks, and it requires all of us in public life to think very carefully about the rhetoric that we use and about the rhetoric that has too often been the precursor to violence. The Government currently have no plans to change the existing disqualification criteria. I hope that, having listened to the debate, the Minister will be willing to go further than that. Public trust is hard won and easily lost. On this issue, the Government can show that they take that trust seriously.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. We Liberal Democrats support the Flood Re scheme and the protection it provides, but we are concerned that the package still risks falling short in a few ways. We agree that it cannot be right for lower-income households to subsidise the most expensive properties. Targeting support more fairly is overdue, but fairness must also mean reducing costs at source, which means a far stronger focus on prevention. We are still spending billions reacting to floods rather than systematically reducing risk. Flood Re’s future must be tied more clearly to resilient homes, sustainable drainage, and a planning system that stops putting people in harm’s way in the first place. That includes progressing schemes such as Guildford’s flood alleviation scheme more quickly through greater Government support, which would protect homes and unlock sustainable brownfield development. Without doing this, we are merely rearranging who pays for failure. The proposals on flood performance certificates and Build Back Better are welcome, but they remain incremental. We need a step change—embedding resilience upgrades as standard, ensuring that insurers reward households that act, and bringing lenders fully into the framework. Serious gaps also remain: millions are excluded from Flood Re, including many leaseholders and those in homes built after 2009. If we are serious about fairness, those gaps must be addressed. Finally, the transition to a risk-reflective market by 2039 cannot simply mean a cliff edge and higher premiums for those most exposed. Reform is needed, but it must be matched by ambition. Fairness, resilience and prevention must go hand in hand.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Social Media: Dangerous Content · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State and the ministerial team for their positive engagement with me and colleagues across the House who have been working with bereaved families and the Molly Rose Foundation on the devastating impact of suicide forums. On the new crisis response protocol, my understanding is that it is primarily designed for large-scale public safety events. Can the Secretary of State advise on whether Ofcom will consider rapid response arrangements being expanded to cover cases where compelling evidence shows that content presents a risk for suicide, so that platforms are expected to act with the same urgency to protect individual lives?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent was repeatedly sexually abused by a family member, who received four concurrent 28-year prison sentences. He threatened to murder her during the trial. After serving about 10 years, he was transferred to the Netherlands, where he was released immediately. My constituent lives in fear of his returning to the UK and carrying out the threats that he made towards her. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this complex case, and will he commit to reviewing international prisoner transfer arrangements that have the practical effect of allowing dangerous offenders to be released far earlier than the UK courts intended?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I appreciate that these draft regulations are technical, but they touch on issues that directly impact families in my constituency, particularly those of children with special educational needs. I hope that the Minister will bear with me and be able to clarify a number of issues. In Guildford and across Surrey, the shortage of specialist state school places has reached an unacceptable level. Parents are telling me repeatedly that there is simply nowhere appropriate for their child to go. Sometimes, children are placed miles from home and are left in settings that are unsuitable. As Surrey county council cannot always meet its statutory duties, it is increasingly reliant on expensive private placements or pupil referral units. Those do great work, but they were never designed to support children with significant and long-term special educational needs. I see that the regulations expand procedural powers around PRUs. What safeguards will ensure that councils, including Surrey county council, do not end up using the PRUs as a substitute for specialist provision that they are unable or have failed to deliver? PRUs play an important role, but they should not be the default destination for children whose needs are not being met elsewhere. Another concern I have is that, if the Government are altering how new schools are proposed and approved, where is the guarantee that councils will plan and build the necessary specialist provision? We see this in Guildford and in Surrey. The number of children who need specialist placements but do not have them is unacceptable, and the track record on place planning is not great. Families are left waiting, fighting and appealing, all because state provision just does not exist. The draft regulations assume a level of competence and capacity in local authorities that, sadly, in my county council is not always borne out by experience, despite some fantastic officers. Could the Minister set out how we will ensure accountability in proper place planning? Ultimately, my Lib Dem colleagues and I support the SI measures, but I would appreciate if the Minister could explain how the regulations will ensure the provision of high-quality, state-funded specialist support. What assurances can she give to families in my constituency that failures will not continue to be repeated?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Child Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  It was interesting to hear the Minister’s comments in relation to the last question. In assessing progress on reducing levels of child poverty, what assessment has been made of hidden pockets of deprivation in places such as my own constituency? Overall child poverty in Guildford after housing costs is 13.2%, but in some of the neighbourhoods in my constituency, including the one where I was previously a councillor, that number rises to 50%. I continue to find that deeply shocking, and it presents very specific challenges in areas such as mine. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that children living in these pockets are not overlooked by their own policy?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister spoke about exceptional financial support. I was interested to hear her say that we do not wish EFS to be normalised. I suggest that we are in circumstances in which it is normalised, given that so many councils require it and so many of them expect to have to use it. A lot of councils are struggling to balance their annual budgets on that basis.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We Liberal Democrats are pleased by the reversion to SV and are grateful to the Government for it. We would have liked them to go further and introduce the alternative vote system, but, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned, such discussions have already been had in full. Before I end by saying that we will support the Government, let me ask the Minister whether the Government will make an order about police and crime commissioner elections in time to ensure that the surprise such election in Norfolk—because there has been a recent resignation—can take place under the SV system. The Government have established that that is a much fairer system so, given that we are making this shift, it seems wrong for that unexpected PCC election to take place under the old system, potentially wasting £2 million of expenses for an election under a system that the Government have admitted is unfair. The Liberal Democrats will support the draft order. In future, however, we would like to see change go further, and we will continue to press for that.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) have called upon the Government to withdraw the code and ensure that this issue is properly scrutinised by Parliament. Guidance of this significance should not simply be pushed through as a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure, without proper democratic debate or a vote in this House. Alongside parliamentary scrutiny of the code, there are urgent actions that the Government could take now. One meaningful and long-overdue step would be finally to implement a fully trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. That was proposed back in 2018 by Theresa May’s Government, but it still has not happened. I have attended many Pride events and talked to people about a ban, and they are not aware that a ban is not already in place, and they are frankly shocked. The Government promised in the last King’s Speech to publish a draft Bill, but they did not. They promised again to do so in this King’s Speech, and although I thank the Minister for her comments on this issue, I join the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) in pressing the Minister for clarity on a timeline. The LGBT community cannot wait until the end of this Session, only to see the same promise broken yet again. Conversion practices are barbaric. They are based on the offensive idea that LGBT people are somehow broken and in need of fixing. The practices cause profound psychological harm and have absolutely no place in a modern society. This Pride month, let us celebrate the progress that generations before us fought so hard to achieve. Let us also recognise that equality is never guaranteed and that we are in an incredibly fragile place. At a time when LGBT people, particularly trans people, are increasingly being used as a political football in divisive culture wars, this House has a responsibility to stand firmly on the side of dignity, compassion and human rights. Pride must always be more than a celebration; it must be a year-round promise that we will keep fighting until everyone is truly free to live openly and equally without fear.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I start by saying that I am honoured to be the spokesperson for this debate and to speak after some incredibly powerful speeches. In particular, I acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and her words today. I thank her for all she does on human rights, and particularly for her advocacy for the trans community. I am not sure how I will follow what she has shared. I know that there will be more to come in the Chamber, and that there will probably be more tears. Pride Month is a celebration of visibility, dignity and progress, but it should also be a moment of honesty. Despite the hard-fought progress we have made as a nation, we are slipping backwards on LGBT rights in this country. In 2025, the UK fell six places to 22nd in ILGA-Europe’s LGBT rights ranking; to put that into context, we were ranked No. 1 in Europe in 2015. When it comes to gender recognition rights, the UK now ranks in the bottom six of 49 European countries. That should concern every Member of this House who believes in the fundamental rights of equality, freedom and human dignity. Pride Month matters because standing up for the LGBT community is ultimately about standing up for everyone’s right to live openly, safely and authentically. It says that no matter who you are, who you love or how you present, you are equally valued and equally respected. This House should remember that progress in LGBT equality has never been inevitable. Every single right was fought for by campaigners, activists and political allies who refused to accept the discrimination that was the status quo. Our thanks should and do go to every single one of them. The Liberal Democrats are proud to have stood alongside that movement for decades. We fought to repeal section 28—the legislation that silenced LGBT people in schools and communities, and that told an entire generation that who they were was something shameful. I have two sons, and through them I have seen how different education is now from when I was at school. I am incredibly grateful to be able to see how education has changed. I can see that young people living as their authentic selves has become supported by schools. Most inspiringly, I have watched so many young people come through my door who are living and exploring who they are. I think that we should all take inspiration from so many of the next generation, who are simply letting each other love who they want to love and be who they want to be. As a party, the Liberal Democrats were instrumental in delivering equal marriage. Our former Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone—now Baroness Featherstone in the other place—led the fight inside Government to make marriage equality a reality in this country. I am deeply proud that we led that fight, and I have been deeply moved by the couples who have generously shared with me their stories about what that change meant for them as a couple and for their families. In spite of all that progress, this year has been a particularly upsetting year for much of the LGBT community, especially trans, non-binary and intersex people, following the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of sex in the Equality Act. Like many Members across this House, I have received deeply distressing accounts from constituents who are fearful that they will not be able to participate fully in public life going forward. Let me be clear: trans rights and human rights are not in conflict. After the Supreme Court ruling, the Government’s responsibility was to provide clear and workable guidance, but the EHRC’s code of practice, laid before Parliament just two weeks ago, is, in its current form, exclusionary, unworkable and deeply concerning. Even the Government’s own equality impact assessment acknowledges disproportionate harm to those with protected characteristics. It warns that women who do not conform to cultural expectations of what a woman should look like could face challenges simply in accessing a women-only space. It acknowledges the negative impact on disabled people, with Disability Rights UK warning against forcing trans and non-binary people into separate, third spaces. Most alarmingly, it explicitly states that some trans people could effectively be barred from both spaces aligned with their gender identity and spaces aligned with their birth sex, leaving them with no space in services at all. That is not dignity; it is exclusion. I am personally worried for the whole trans community, particularly the next generation of trans men and women. With all the changes in the way that the LGBT community are being spoken about here in the UK, and with the stories that have been shared by Members already about certain political parties and individuals, what is that saying to the next generation? What world are we leaving as a legacy? We have to act now before it is too late. That is why my right hon. Friend Ed Davey and our women and equalities spokesperson—

• 4 Jun 2026 · Victims: Right to Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Solicitor General for her previous answers. I have been contacted by constituents whose son was among the 79 British victims formally recognised in the Canadian proceedings against Kenneth Law. While families welcome that their loved ones have finally been acknowledged in court, many are devasted that there will be no prosecution in the UK, following the decision not to pursue extradition, particularly as they were informed only just before the decision was made public, leaving little time to process it. What assessment has the Solicitor General made of the potential merits of extending the victims’ right to review scheme to cases involving bereaved families affected by major cross-border prosecutions such as that one?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Conflict in the Middle East: Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  5. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the conflict in the middle east on the cost of living.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Conflict in the Middle East: Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor for her answer. The tensions in the middle east are pushing up energy and food prices, adding further pressure to households who are already struggling due to the cost of living. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister warned this weekend that families face “eight-plus months” of difficulty ahead. With the school holidays approaching in both the May half-term and the summer, many low-income families in my constituency of Guildford are asking how they will get through the summer. When I visited Holy Trinity school in my constituency last week, the children raised concerns too, which shows how deep the anxiety about this conflict is. What concrete support will the Government provide to protect the most vulnerable households from further cost pressures in the months ahead, especially if this conflict continues into the summer holidays?