Zöe Franklin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q For transparency, I met Dr Garland along with various other democracy organisations prior to this Bill Committee. My questions are about how we make our democracy more representative. In your view, to what extent does the fact that the access to elected office fund no longer exists mean that those who are from more diverse backgrounds or have a disability cannot access standing for election? Dr Garland: It is really important, and the more we can do to encourage people, the better. We also have to think about the pipeline, in terms of encouraging people into representative politics. Of course, many of the things that the Bill deals with around harassment once people are here are really important as well. We are still waiting on the enactment of section 106 on candidate diversity data, which would allow us to understand more about who is coming forward and how they are being supported to do that. I would really encourage that. It is not in the Bill, but I encourage people to have a look at that—it is a really important bit. We have to know the situation through the data before we can improve things.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency and right across the country, the continuation of the spike in the oil price is having a huge financial impact on families who are reliant on heating oil. Will the Leader of the House please allow a debate in Government time on the plans to help with this issue, and will he ask his colleagues in the Treasury to look at a heating oil price cap?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  I want to return to the Minister’s point about how mayoral authorities are making such economic progress, and to my question. When foundation authorities are formed on the journey to reorganisation, they do not get the same funding support as a mayoral authority. They are therefore losing out on essential kick-starting resources to help them on their journeys to successful economic growth. Will she clarify what support is coming?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am exceptionally grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate and outlining so eloquently his concerns and those of his residents. I thank all colleagues who have spoken; it has been helpful to weave together the different perspectives of those of us who are going through reorganisation and those who are experts in the field. I hope the Minister will take on board everything that has been said in the debate. Like my hon. Friend, I support the principle of local Government reorganisation. I am sure we have all spoken to residents who are surprised and frustrated to learn that they have to deal with one council to fix potholes and a different one to get their bins collected. Simplification for that purpose is actually a good thing but, as we have heard from west Surrey colleagues such as my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr Forster) and for Surrey Heath—it is a recurring theme in Surrey and for pretty much all councils in the south-east—reorganisation is frankly just about finance. Colleagues have clearly and starkly illustrated that Surrey is in billions of pounds of debt racked up by Conservative-led councils, and it has been Liberal Democrat colleagues in local government who have led the way in turning councils’ finances around. That said, I am grateful to the hon. Members for Crawley (Peter Lamb) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who both rightly noted that savings are not always guaranteed. It is going to be “interesting” to see how things evolve and whether the savings presented to us will actually come to fruition. Reshaping local government can make sense, but reorganisation succeeds only when it is done with communities, not to them. Across Surrey, residents, councillors and officers feel that the pace of the reorganisation process has left them struggling to keep up with decisions that will help to reshape local services. When we debated the draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 two weeks ago, I raised concerns about the speed of the process and the lack of meaningful consultation. I highlighted the fact that when residents were asked, they said they wanted three authorities. The financial figures show that the difference between the cost savings for two versus three authorities across Surrey is relatively minimal. When it comes to ensuring that a local authority reflects its residents, it is important that it gives them the sense of place that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) referred to, which is really important to residents. The structural changes order came into force today; unfortunately, I have not yet had answers to my questions in the debate on it, but I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that I will have them shortly. Members have articulated the serious financial pressures facing Surrey. Residents are understandably worried about historical debt, and how the cost of living crisis alongside that will affect them, whether that is through council tax harmonisation, the loss of valued community assets, or pressures on frontline services. Residents did not make the decisions that created the problems, yet they will be asked to shoulder the financial consequences. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on what transitional funding and support the Government are going to provide for west Surrey and other authorities that are going through reorganisation. They are going to start their lives as new authorities on a potentially unstable financial footing. As colleagues have highlighted, west Surrey is looking at an unstable footing in the order of around £4 billion. There is a wider question about the economic framework shaping the future of the authorities in question. The current proposals will give west Surrey strategic responsibilities that are similar to those of a mayoral authority, but without access to the equivalent long-term investment. Mayoral authorities benefit from 30-year investment funds, because the Government recognise that long-term certainty unlocks growth. If west Surrey and other new combined authority areas are expected to deliver the same strategic ambitions as a mayoral authority without the same tools, the Government need to explain how they expect those authorities to unlock the growth needed for them to economically succeed and serve their residents. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify two points regarding foundation strategic authority status. First, will the Minister give clarity on the pathway to a mayoral authority specifically for Surrey, and on the timing of any future mayoral election? Secondly, will she outline how the Government are going to ensure that areas that are undergoing reorganisation via the foundation authority route do not miss out on the growth funding available to mayoral combined authorities elsewhere? On communication and governance, large-scale structural change depends on strong collaboration among county councils, district councils, officers, community organisations and Members of Parliament, yet many colleagues across Surrey, including me and my team, have struggled to obtain clear and timely engagement with Surrey county council. A particular example—I could give a litany of them—is my work alongside Guildford borough council, South Western Railway and Network Rail on progressing discussions about a potential new railway station in Guildford. We are struggling to get engagement from the county council, which is also the transport authority. This does not bode well for the wider essential communication needed to make the transition to new councils work. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that. My final Surrey-specific point relates to the parish councils and voluntary sector organisations across the county, which are also significantly impacted by local government reorganisation and deserve urgent clarity. These bodies provide vital hyper-local leadership. They support vulnerable residents, deliver local services and act as a crucial bridge between communities and the higher tiers of government. Many of them are, frankly, unsure what the new governance structures mean for their funding, commissioning arrangements and day-to-day interactions with the new authorities. Surely such crucial partners need clarity. A specific concern that highlights the problem was expressed to me this week on behalf of parish councils. The parish council elections are due in 2027, but they will no longer align with the main-tier elections, so parishes will incur additional costs. Currently, those unexpected costs will have to be footed by parishes, so will the Minister outline what support they will be given for the unexpected electoral cost when elections do not align? To move beyond Surrey, local government across England is under immense pressure after years of financial strain, rising demand in social care and SEND, and inadequate long-term funding. Reorganisation alone cannot resolve the structural challenges; it is part of the solution, and we desperately need it to work, but it is only part of the solution. We Liberal Democrats continue to argue that alongside reorganisation we need fair funding, proper recognition of the costs faced by rural and semi-rural areas, and sustainable, multi-year settlements that allow councils to plan ahead. That is why we focus so much on needing a cross-party solution to the social care crisis. Many county councils face having to spend enormous percentages of their budgets on social care, leaving wider budgets stretched to breaking point, despite their herculean efforts. In conclusion, communities across Surrey, the wider south-east and England deserve local government reorganisation that strengthens them, not uncertainty that undermines them. We have heard from colleagues throughout the House about their grave concerns as experienced Members of Parliament and experienced individuals with backstories in local government, and about the concerns their residents have raised with them. I hope the Minister will reflect on the issues raised in the debate, take the steps needed to deliver, and work with colleagues across the House to deliver local government reorganisation that works for local people.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent, Hannah, tragically ended her life using a substance purchased from overseas. Following her death, the coroner issued a prevention of future deaths report containing specific recommendations. Since 2019, the Molly Rose Foundation has identified at least 65 similar cases in which coroners have made recommendations to separate Government Departments. Progress on these issues has been slow and vulnerable people continue to be left at risk as a result. Will the Prime Minister set out what steps the Government will take to ensure systematic oversight of coroners’ reports and their findings? Will he support proposals for an independent, national oversight mechanism to track trends of preventable deaths and ensure that lessons are learned so that future lives can be saved?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Community Cohesion · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this very important debate. His speech was incredibly powerful, and I congratulate him on the work he is doing to support and empower his constituents to build positive relationships and communities. It has also been good to hear from other Members of the positive stories about their communities coming together and of the clear vision, not only in this Chamber but elsewhere among colleagues, that we can together create more cohesive communities. We meet at a moment when communities across the UK are experiencing uncertainty and rising tensions. Alongside those challenges, however, we continue to see wonderful examples of solidarity, co-operation and everyday kindness. Our job as politicians is to empower more of the second through thoughtful policy so that it can continue to flourish. Community cohesion is not built by rhetoric or grand gestures; it lives in the ordinary moments of daily life, in shared spaces and shared conversations, and in the quiet confidence that difference does not threaten one’s sense of belonging. It is also built by the everyday choices that people make to treat one another with dignity and respect, not by the divisive narratives that some, sadly even in this place, choose to deploy. At the same time, many feel that the social contract—the belief that we all contribute to and benefit from a shared civic life—is under strain. Over the past decade, local authorities and community organisations have faced significant funding reductions; youth services have closed, community centres have disappeared and the everyday spaces where people once met across different backgrounds have diminished. Those were not mere local government services; they were the backbone of community life, allowing people to mix, understand one another and build solidarity. When those shared spaces disappear, so too do the opportunities for understanding. Alongside all that, many now face real pressures, with difficulties accessing services, finding affordable housing and making ends meet. When support feels distant, frustration grows, and the risk is that people turn inward rather than reaching outward. Those tensions reflect pressure and uncertainty, not a lack of good will. Rebuilding community cohesion requires more than responding to those who stoke division; it requires reinvestment in the local institutions and services that allow our communities to meet and thrive. Across the country, people are experiencing increasing hostility because of their race, faith, sexuality or gender identity. Even incidents that fall below the legal threshold of hate crime, when repeated or unaddressed, erode trust and weaken community cohesion. Police forces record thousands of non-crime hate incidents each year. Those are early warnings of tensions that can grow if they are ignored. I hear from some in my constituency how, every single day, they face unpleasant, abusive—even aggressive —and unsolicited interactions with others because of their race, gender or sexuality. The figures for Surrey show that hate crime remains significantly under-reported, which underscores the importance of early intervention to build trust so that people feel confident to come forward. In times of uncertainty, we really must resist narratives that divide people or single out newcomers or minorities. Those might offer simple answers, but they weaken the fabric of civil society. Strong communities are built not by excluding people, but by ensuring that everyone feels that they belong. Across the country are countless examples of cohesion in action, led by charities and faith groups. One example in my constituency and across Surrey is Big Leaf, which brings together displaced young people alongside other young people to create music, play sport and do so much more, fostering community and optimism. If we went around this Chamber and across the House of Commons, I am sure that we would have so many more examples, but I will stop there. I will focus on faith communities, not only because of their remarkable contributions, but because many of them face rising levels of abuse. Faith communities are deeply embedded in our society; they run food banks and warm hubs, support the vulnerable and isolated, and provide safe spaces for dialogue, care and belonging. During Ramadan, for example, many mosques open their doors for shared meals and community outreach, which are powerful expressions of the values that underpin cohesion. I am honoured to chair the all-party parliamentary group on faith and society. One of the things that we have led on has been local faith covenants, and I have seen how those create practical frameworks for partnership between councils and faith groups. They help to build trust, improve consultation and strengthen support for residents. Early feedback from academic evaluation of the faith covenant framework shows that it is improving relationships and co-operation across the country. As local government reorganisation continues, I hope that people will grasp the opportunity to instigate more faith covenants across the country, so that faith groups are treated not simply as stakeholders, but as trusted partners in the work that we all want to see in our communities to build community cohesion. Will the Minister support faith covenants and other structured engagement at the local level as part of any community cohesion strategy? On the subject of community cohesion strategies, ahead of the general election, the Prime Minister wrote to faith leaders recognising the vital role that faith communities play and the importance of partnership. That recognition was welcome, yet the progress on the actions that he outlined has been slow. Last month, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking about those promises and, in particular, when we will see the community cohesion strategy. Sadly, I have not yet received a response. I know that there are communities right across the country who want to contribute and are ready to contribute, and they want to see clear national leadership on this. As Liberal Democrats, we stand ready to work constructively with the Government, local authorities, police, civil society and faith communities to help to shape a strategy that reflects the realities of our communities. A clear strategy would align national ambition with local actions. When can we expect to see the publication of the community cohesion strategy? Which Department is leading the work? How will cross-government co-ordination be ensured? Community cohesion cannot be built in Westminster alone. It is built in conversations between neighbours, in partnerships between councils and faith communities, in the extraordinary work of charities and in the daily choices that people make to choose understanding over division. But goodwill is not enough; cohesion also requires national leadership, clear policy direction and adequate funding for local government to sustain the spaces and services that bring people together. It requires partnership frameworks, like the faith covenant, that build trust at a local level, and it requires a message of hope that unites people rather than dividing them. In every single conversation that I have with charities and with faith and community leaders, the same themes emerge: people want fairness, clarity, protection from hatred and the freedom to live their lives without fear. They want to be heard, to be included and to be part of the renewal of our society’s welcoming and inclusive heart. If we listen, work in partnership and invest in the relationships and institutions that bind communities together, we can strengthen the trust on which cohesion depends. Cohesion is not an abstract ideal. As many in this Chamber have already said today, it is something that we nurture together.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate on such an important Bill that represents a long-overdue modernisation of our democratic framework, but the Government should be in no doubt that we Liberal Democrats will push them to go further, faster. For decades, my party has campaigned for young people’s voices to be properly recognised, so I am delighted to see the voting age finally lowered to 16. This change will enfranchise around 1.7 million 16 and 17-year-olds, giving them a say in decisions that shape their future. Since becoming MP for Guildford, I have visited many schools across my constituency and spoken with young people whose thoughtful, informed questions make it abundantly clear that they are more than ready to participate in our democracy. While some may argue that 16 and 17-year-olds lack world awareness, I fundamentally disagree. With pre-registration from age 14, and with the right safeguards, we can build lifelong democratic habits and help close the participation gap. We Liberal Democrats also welcome measures in the Bill that protect our democracy from the corrupting influence of dark money. The new “know your donor” requirements and tighter rules on corporate and unincorporated association donations are essential to prevent foreign interference and restore trust in how politics is funded. We will call for further important changes to strengthen the Bill in this area. However, the Bill misses a vital opportunity to fix our broken electoral system. First past the post is unfair, outdated and increasingly indefensible.

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

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree that we need to do more to ensure that everyone is able to take part in voting, particularly those with visual impairments. It is an anomaly that Wales and Scotland offer support for accessing elected office, but England does not. Why does England not have that fund? We must ensure that people with disabilities are not prevented from standing to represent their communities. I am pleased that I will be serving on the Bill Committee, and I look forward to working constructively with the Government to strengthen the Bill so that our democracy is truly safe, fair and representative of all.

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

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. I urge the Government to listen to the 60% of the public who want a fairer voting system, including members of their own party, and take very seriously the case for proportional representation. I declare my interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference on the security of MPs, candidates and elections, and I welcome the inclusion of our recommendations in the Bill. We live in a time when abuse and threats deter talented people, particularly those from under-represented backgrounds, from standing for public office. I am pleased that the Bill will better protect candidates and their families, but we must go further. We need to update section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to explicitly criminalise the use of AI and deepfakes to smear candidates. Technology is moving rapidly, and those intent on undermining our democracy are moving with it, so we must future-proof this legislation. Looking across this House, I can see that we have made real progress in reflecting the diversity of the communities that we serve, but there is still far to go. The Bill is an opportunity to enact section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires political parties to publish diversity data. It has long been a Liberal Democrat commitment, and I pay tribute to organisations such as Centenary Action that have campaigned tirelessly for such transparency. I urge the Government to reinstate the access to elected office fund in England, which was scrapped in 2020. The Bill claims to support disabled candidates, yet it offers no financial mechanism to make that a reality. Wales and Scotland already provide such support, so why not England?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I was referencing specifically the debt of Woking and Spelthorne, which were under Conservative administrations. As I was saying, we understand why the Government decided to push Surrey to go first with reorganisation. However, we and local government colleagues in Surrey are deeply concerned by the speed at which the process has been pushed through, and the lack of meaningful consultation with residents. The decision to push ahead with a two-council model was taken in spite of residents saying quite clearly, in response to a survey, that they would prefer a three-council model, and the district councils setting out clearly that that would not be significantly more expensive and would, in fact, better represent communities and place. Local government reorganisation and devolution should be about strengthening local communities. I know that the Government want to do that—they set it out very clearly when this was originally announced by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner)—and yet I am afraid to say that the decision to have two councils and the double-speed process seem to be more about central cost savings than the people of Surrey. Of course, central cost savings are not enough to rebalance Surrey’s finances. Even with an unprecedented bailout for Woking, for which we are grateful—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Woking will mention it—the new West Surrey council, created by the draft order, is likely to start life with somewhere between £3 billion and £4.5 billion of unresolved debt, not to mention a potentially significant structural funding gap. East Surrey may face lower unresolved debt, but it will equally have a potentially significant funding gap. Ultimately, who pays the price for that? Residents, through both council tax and, potentially, the services they receive. I want to emphasise that it is vital that the Government provide sustained and adequate funding to ensure that reorganisation strengthens councils rather than destabilising them. Turning specifically to the draft order, although Surrey’s reorganisation is the first in the Government’s devolution programme, it is not the first county to ever go through this process, so it is interesting that the Government have diverged from the precedents set in previous examples such as Cheshire and Cumbria. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister to what extent her Department considered those previous local government reorganisation precedents when deciding on the Surrey joint committee model. What specific factors led to it diverging from those precedents, or was the decision primarily shaped by central Government’s evolving policy on reorganisation? On the formation of the two new councils, I am sure the Minister will agree that clear, vision-led leadership that puts local people first and seeks to work collaboratively and effectively with officers and political leaders involved in the creation of those authorities is absolutely crucial to a smooth transition. Article 15 of the draft order requires the formation of an implementation team led by the county council’s chief executive. Will the Minister advise what statutory or practical considerations led to the decision that that leadership must sit with the county council’s chief executive, rather than a mutually or jointly appointed lead? What representations did the Minister’s Department seek from councils across Surrey to shape its thinking, and can that information be shared with Surrey MPs and existing council leaders? I am also interested to understand from the Minister whether there were specific risks that the Department was seeking to mitigate by mandating county-level leadership for the implementation team, particularly given the scale of service disaggregation required. While reorganisation in Surrey is designed to create single-tier local government through the formation of East Surrey and West Surrey councils, I am glad that the draft order allows for the retention of parish councils. As the MP for Guildford, I have seen the very clear benefit of that hyper-local tier of local councils, which provide passionate, publicly accountable community leadership and deliver high-quality services and innovative ideas alongside local people. It has therefore been disappointing that, as far as I know, there has been very limited assistance from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the formation of new town and parish councils to cover the areas that do not already have them. I understand that the draft order makes provision for community boards, but I am sceptical that they would provide a similar level of community benefit or accountability that parish or town councils do, so I am very interested to hear the Minister’s views on that. Speaking of accountability, will the Minister provide some clarity on the council vacancies that will arise after 30 September this year? My reading of the draft order is that no by-elections can take place after this date, unless the number of councillors on the district or county council they are a member of drops below a third of the total number of councillors—for example, in Guildford, that would be 16 councillors. Given that the new councils will not form formally until 1 April 2027, surely if significant numbers of vacancies arise, that will leave residents technically without full representation. Does the Minister believe that is democratically appropriate? Before I close, I have two last queries to raise with the Minister. First, will she set out the timeline of the remaining steps for the draft order to come into place formally, including the date she expects it to come into force? Secondly—I recognise that this is something the Minister may wish to take away and write to me on—can she advise what considerations have been made to review the Surrey Act 1985 in the light of the changes taking place through the draft order and the associated reorganisation of Surrey into East Surrey and West Surrey? In conclusion, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches recognise the need for reorganisation. We do not oppose the draft order, but we urge the Minister and the Department to work closely with colleagues and officers across all tiers of local government in Surrey to ensure that they have the necessary funding and transition support so that local people see improvements to services where they are needed and council set-ups that put the needs of residents at the centre in both culture and service delivery and that are financially resilient for the future.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Roger; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the Minister for her introductory remarks and echo her thanks to all those across Surrey who have been involved in the transitional work, whether they are officers or elected members. The Liberal Democrats recognise that local government reorganisation is needed to make it easier for people to interact with their councils; how many of us have listened to the understandable frustration of residents who want to complain about the bin collections and the potholes, only to find they have two separate councils to contact? It is also, more seriously, the only realistic way to address the significant financial issues that councils across the country face after years of Conservative underfunding of local government. Nowhere is the difficult reality of council finances clearer than in Surrey, where previous Conservative administrations presided over Woking’s reaching £2.5 billion of debt and Spelthorne’s reaching £1.05 billion.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Businesses: Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  18. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of supporting businesses with the cost of energy.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Businesses: Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  A third-generation advanced manufacturer in my Guildford constituency invested in a solar-covered, energy-efficient factory to cut emissions and expand, yet overall operating costs have risen sharply, including business rates increasing from £130,000 to £570,000. That business is doing everything right, including switching to renewables and working to become more efficient. On top of the crippling hike in business rates, the straw that breaks the camel’s back is energy costs, so what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor about reducing industrial energy costs and the associated costs so that firms investing in clean growth are properly supported?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Transport in the South-East · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate. It was really interesting to hear her mention the M25/A3 junction 10, which is in my constituency. It has taken many years and has caused all sorts of challenges to my residents. As it comes close to completion, it is good to hear from colleagues—it is amazing how many MPs are interested in that project—and regular users about the difference that the upgrades are making. I hope it will show the potential for major long-term infrastructure improvements, but the learning points must be taken, because we need to recognise the disruption caused to residents and the significant financial problems caused to local businesses and the Royal Horticultural Society. There are many issues in my constituency that I could raise, but I want to focus on Guildford town, which demonstrates the enormous opportunity and the significant strain facing transport networks across the south-east. Guildford is a thriving economic hub. It is home to a world-class university, a rapidly expanding research park, a major regional hospital and a highly productive local economy that continues to attract talent and investment, but that success has created real and growing pressure on our local infrastructure. Road usage is exceptionally high, and congestion continues to worsen. Some residents tell me that it takes them an hour and a half to travel the hundreds of metres between the research park and the hospital junction. Too many feel that, despite the congestion, they have no real alternative to relying on their car. We have dual pressures. We have the strategically important A3 and A31—I imagine many Members have travelled down that major artery—and the concentration of employment, education and housing growth has not been matched by increasing public transport capacity. That is not just a local complaint or anecdote; the challenge is recognised at a national level. The Wessex Corridor study, commissioned by Network Rail, explicitly identifies the corridor between Reading, Guildford and the wider south-east as experiencing rising demand, constrained capacity and major unrealised potential. The study makes it clear that without targeted intervention, housing growth, employment expansion and limited rail capacity will lead to worsening congestion, increased car dependency—which we absolutely do not want—and a missed opportunity to shift journeys on to sustainable modes of transport. That brings me to the long-standing case for Guildford West railway station, which would serve the research park, the Royal Surrey, the University of Surrey and the surrounding communities. The community has been waiting for it for well over a decade. It would demonstrably have an enormous impact on congestion, access to important services and our local economy, and it would make an environmental difference by shifting everyday travel patterns away from car dependency and towards sustainable transport. I am committed to getting an answer on the scheme for local people and businesses. Just last week, I was pleased to bring together key delivery partners, including Guildford borough council, Network Rail and South Western Railway, to discuss the viability and next steps. Despite the overwhelming case for Guildford West station, delivery remains painfully difficult. Network Rail does not fund new stations, Department for Transport funding has become more restrictive and, although the Government have set ambitious housing targets, there is no dedicated centralised funding pot to deliver the transport infrastructure required to support the homes we are building. Local government finances are stretched to breaking point, and councils are being asked to plan for growth without the funding or power to deliver the infrastructure that it demands. No matter how much local need or enthusiasm there is, there is simply not enough money to deliver the projects that are needed. Of course, we must remember that sustainable transport is not just about rail. Too many residents are forced to drive simply to reach the station because bus services, ticketing systems, cycle routes and secure bike storage remain fragmented or inadequate. We should also remember the disproportionate impact on disabled people, low-income residents, students and young people—anyone without access to a car. I close by asking the Minister a couple of questions. What are the Government going to do to support communities such as Guildford that have been formally identified as critical growth corridors? Why is there no centralised funding mechanism to link mandated housing growth with the transport infrastructure needed to sustain it? How can areas like Surrey realistically unlock growth without clarity on governance, funding or long-term support? My Guildford constituency has great opportunity, but it needs Government help to unlock transport projects to support economic and community growth. I hope the Minister has heard my comments, and those of colleagues, and will respond positively to this request.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation found that weaknesses in risk assessment, information sharing and planning in domestic abuse cases are leaving victims at greater risk of harm and without consistent safeguarding across Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Will the Secretary of State set out what steps his Department will take to ensure that the changes identified in the report are implemented and that victims of domestic abuse receive effective support through the criminal justice system?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Local Authority Children’s Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing this important debate. He made a powerful speech on behalf of his vulnerable constituents, and vulnerable people across the county of Surrey and beyond. The central failing I want to highlight is this: Surrey county council—my constituency’s local authority for children’s services—repeatedly chooses not to use its statutory powers even when children are unsafe, out of education or legally entitled to support. Children and families across Guildford are feeling the consequences. Schools are often the first to spot safeguarding concerns. Headteachers and designated safeguarding leads do not raise alarms lightly. They do so because they are often the only professionals with consistent daily insight into a child’s wellbeing. At a meeting last year, a headteacher told us that safeguarding thresholds in Surrey are far higher than in comparable authorities. Referrals stall and the council is reluctant to move from voluntary support to formal safeguarding processes. That is often justified by the family resilience model. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a strengths-based approach, but the issue is how it is applied. One headteacher at the meeting described, with visible emotion, a child in her school showing clear signs of neglect and abuse. The headteacher followed safeguarding procedures and referred the case to Surrey but, instead of investigating, the council informed the parents that a safeguarding concern had been raised and the parents removed the child from the school. That headteacher told us that she lies awake at night not knowing where that child is or whether they are safe. That is not an isolated incident. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking referred to Sara Sharif, the most tragic example in Surrey. Those safeguarding failures are deeply linked to failures in education. In an example from my constituency, a looked-after child is approaching a critical educational transition, but approval for an appropriate placement has been delayed because that child is in temporary accommodation outside Surrey due to a shortage of placements. Despite Surrey being the corporate parent, it treated geography as a barrier rather adapting the system. There are many other examples I could share. I have several questions for the Minister but, given the time, I will write to him. Today, I simply want to ask whether he will commit to reviewing whether Surrey county council is meeting its statutory safeguarding educational duties, particularly in relation to thresholds for intervention. Children in Surrey need a system that acts without hesitation when their safety, welfare or education is at risk. I urge the Government to do all they can to ensure Surrey county council meets its legal responsibilities. I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Woking’s call for the Government to intervene in Surrey to keep children safe.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I will keep this brief. I was grateful that the Minister recognised that this issue must be set in its wider context: businesses are struggling. I regularly have conversations with businesses in my constituency and we are getting to the point where the situation could be a closure notice for many, as was mentioned earlier. The Liberal Democrats are particularly concerned that the Government promised to permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, but have failed to use the full powers they gave themselves to deliver support. We are also concerned about transparency and accountability. Despite repeated parliamentary questions, the Government have not published clear, sector-specific data on the impact of the revaluation, even though the Valuation Office Agency has confirmed that such data was shared with the Treasury. That lack of transparency makes it so much harder for Members to assess what the revaluation really means for their constituencies. That is ever so important where industries, such as hospitality, are a major part of their local economy. We have argued for practical targeted support and we have called for an emergency VAT cut for hospitality, accommodation and attractions. We have also raised concerns about the cumulative impact of alcohol duty and national insurance rises. Ultimately, we believe the measure set out in this statutory instrument do not go far enough to address the scale of the challenge facing businesses in places like my constituency, but voting against it would be voting against any transitional support at all, so for that reason, while I cannot support it, I will not oppose it. I will abstain and we will continue, as a party, to press the Government to recognise the pressures facing town centres and to take urgent action to protect pubs and jobs. I do push the Government, however, because they need to do more and they need to do what they have promised.

• 19 Jan 2026 · SEND Support: Access · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, the challenge that has been highlighted over and over again by the schools that I speak to is not necessarily about early identification, but having the resources and the places available for students once they have been identified. Will the Minister explain how the Government’s approach to early access will ensure that early identification is matched by a suitable vision in an environment that meets the child’s stated needs?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Local Elections: Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  That said, the Labour party is the main offender in cancelling elections, and it appears to be running scared from the ballot box rather than trusting voters. Does the Minister accept that cancelling elections risks setting a dangerous precedent that elections become optional when they are inconvenient to those in power? What message does it send to residents about the value of local government if their right to vote can be so easily set aside? Democracy is a right, not a matter of convenience.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Local Elections: Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  I find it really interesting that this urgent question comes from the Conservative party, which sought to cancel local elections this year and last year in Surrey. [ Interruption. ] Given the professed concern for democracy of the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), I hope that he will commit to supporting Lord Pack’s amendment in the House of Lords, removing the Secretary of State’s power to change the timing of local elections— [ Interruption. ]

• 13 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In Bellfields and Slyfield ward in my constituency, the local GP surgery is squeezed into a unit that is part of a parade of shops, and it is clearly no longer the size needed for the growing community. The team do a great job in spite of the challenges. Will the Minister set out the steps the Department is taking to support community health hubs in areas like this ward, in order to bring GP and wider services together locally and improve facilities and access for my residents?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Just over two weeks ago, we were in this Chamber for a statement cancelling the mayoral elections in six areas. At the time, the Government assured us that they intended to go ahead with May 2026 elections, so it is deeply disappointing to be here again discussing cancellations and the prospect of people being denied their vote and their voice. I do wonder how voters and Members of this House can trust the Government on the topic of elections, given that they have gone back on their repeated assurances that elections would go ahead. In her statement, the Minister indicated that concerns had been raised about lack of capacity. With the Government’s timetable for reorganisation having been clearly set out in July, it seems strange that capacity issues are only just being highlighted. Will she clarify to the House the type of capacity issues that are being highlighted? Will she also say which tier of council will be the primary decision maker on whether an area has capacity issues? What will happen if district and county councils have differing views? Finally, the Minister will be aware that councils have already committed significant financial resources, not to mention staff hours, to planning for the May 2026 elections. Will she commit today to fully reimbursing councils for costs incurred in planning for 2026, if they end up having their elections cancelled?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that this is a multi-year settlement, which gives councils a greater degree of certainty and the ability to plan ahead. We have long called for that. However, a longer settlement on its own does not resolve the deep financial instability facing local government. The Minister is right to say that social care, SEND and homelessness costs are destabilising council finances—a direct result of years of Conservative neglect—but recognising the problem is not the same as resolving it. It will take us and council teams time to review the detail of the settlement and understand what it means in reality for local government. However, early conversations with local government colleagues have highlighted a concerning lack of clarity on the SEND debt. The settlement provides minimal information on how councils are to manage SEND costs until 2028, or how existing deficits will be resolved. Can the Minister provide a clear timeline for when councils will receive certainty on the SEND deficit? Without one, responsible financial planning is simply not possible. I also seek clarity on the issue of social care. Although the statement includes various measures to try to address the social care crisis, the reality is that that will be swept away by the rising scale of need and the costs of social care. When will the Government finally bring forward a fully funded, long-term plan for adult social care reform that ensures that local authority funding settlements are not undermined by the escalating costs of a social care system that is bankrupting councils and placing unsustainable pressure on the NHS?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Molly Rose Foundation’s latest report makes it clear that bereaved families are deeply concerned that Ofcom has relied on voluntary measures, such as geo-blocking, to deal with pro-suicide forums. Can the Secretary of State explain what steps her Government are taking to ensure Ofcom moves beyond voluntary compliance and uses its full Online Safety Act 2023 powers to require the removal or blocking of suicide-promoting content?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.