Zöe Franklin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the content of his statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the statement and the decision to establish an independent review. This is a serious issue that clearly demands action, and we will follow the review closely. Public trust in politics is dangerously low. Polling consistently shows only 9% to 12% of the public trust politicians, which should seriously worry every Member of this House. Restoring trust must begin with integrity and transparency. People need confidence that the information shaping our political debate is accurate. Trust also relies on fairness. Every vote must count equally, and that requires a fair and credible electoral system. Finally, and most relevant to today, trust depends on transparency about political finance. Voters should know who funds our politics, and should trust that wealthy individuals, corporations or foreign interests cannot buy influence or access. With that in mind, will the Government accept that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals now wield disproportionate influence over British politics? That includes overseas donors, which raises serious questions about foreign interference. In a recent Westminster Hall debate, Members from across the House spoke out about this strongly. Finally, will the Secretary of State commit to donation caps, which are supported by voters across every major party?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, as in so many others, we face the particular challenge of significant affluence in one part and extreme poverty just across the road. In some areas, one in three children are living in poverty, despite the great work of many local organisations. What measures in the strategy will address that challenge specifically?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for granting this incredibly important urgent question, Mr Speaker. I am sure colleagues from across the House will have been as shocked as I was to read in the media last night that the four priority strategic areas have had their elections cancelled and postponed until 2028, especially given the reassurances to the House that have been referenced by other hon. Members. Will the Minister explain why, yet again, information about election cancellations has been announced to the press and council chief executives ahead of MPs? Why have the Government chosen to cancel these important elections, which are a fundamental part of our democracy, and then told the media, not Parliament, first? Will the Minister provide clarity on funding for local authorities, about which I am very concerned? The Government have repeatedly spoken about the importance of mayoral strategic authorities to unlocking investment and funding for authorities. Why are the Government limiting investment funding for the next two years, releasing only one third at a time, when local and upper tier authority leaders have already agreed the share of priorities? If mayors must work collaboratively with other local authority leaders and there is consensus on where investment is needed, why will the Government not release the funding now? Why will they hold that back by delaying the elections? Those authorities need the money now, so will the Government provide reassurance?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. President Trump is directing increasingly aggressive and lethal military actions against vessels off Venezuela, which experts warn amount to extrajudicial killings. Even though the UK has paused some intelligence sharing in response, will the Secretary of State now go further, explicitly condemning the actions and ensuring Britain pushes back against that escalation and any further actions outside international law by the Trump Administration?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Hong Kong: Human Rights Violations · Hansard source

  More

  Given the marked deterioration of civil liberties and democratic freedoms in Hong Kong since the introduction of the national security law, can the Minister outline what specific steps the Government are taking to support those affected by these abuses, both in the UK and abroad? Many of my constituents are Hong Kong nationals who have made their home here through the BNO route, and they remain deeply worried about family members who are still in Hong Kong.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Hong Kong: Human Rights Violations · Hansard source

  More

  10. What assessment she has made of recent trends in levels of human rights violations in Hong Kong.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  We are here in the UK Parliament, and it is within our power to change the law to address the current situation around theory test validity. It is clear that people are struggling as a result of the two-year limit.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for ensuring that this important topic could be debated today. It of course affects people of all ages, but I wish to focus particularly on the impact it is having on young people in my constituency. We currently face a 24-week waiting list for a practical driving test at the Guildford test centre. That is a six-month delay before a young person can even attempt to pass their test. As someone who, I confess, passed on my third attempt, being able to start that journey early is really important. For many young people, the ability to drive is a vital gateway to obtaining work or accessing education, particularly in those areas where public transport links are limited or non-existent. More than one in six job adverts in the UK explicitly require a driving licence, and that figure rises still further in key entry-level sectors. In trades, care work, delivery and property services, the ability to drive is not a luxury but a fundamental requirement. Young people are ready and willing to work, but they are being excluded—not because they lack competence or enthusiasm, but purely because they are stuck waiting months for a test. That sits alongside a worrying regional picture. The south-east now has one of the highest rates of young people not in education, employment or training, recently rising to just over 13%. These are not disengaged young people. Many are actively seeking work but are prevented from doing so because they cannot drive. The driving test backlog is not simply a frustration; it is directly contributing to regional youth unemployment. Beyond the delays themselves, the system has become dysfunctional and, in some cases, blatantly exploitative. One constituent had to book a test for her daughter in Erith, a place they have never visited and would never normally go, but she did it simply to get into the test system. I have heard from other constituents who have gone to Winchester, Cardiff and beyond. People should not have to travel miles from home to a place they have never visited, potentially staying overnight and incurring extra costs, simply to take a test. To book a test, my constituent tried to find an alternative slot, as many families do, so she found herself in a digital queue at 6 am with 60,000 others doing the same. That forced her into joining an unofficial online group to exchange test slots, where she was scammed. She sent £10 by bank transfer to someone claiming to assist in securing a test, only for that individual to later demand £100. The bank later confirmed that more than two dozen similar fraudulent payments had been made on the same day to the same account. Another family in my constituency spent two months waking at 5.30 am every Monday to attempt to book a test. Last week, they were number 7,561 in the queue at 6 am. By the time a slot appeared, it vanished before they could even complete the booking. I, too, faced this as we sought a test for my son. We eventually got a test, after many very frustrating and unsuccessful early mornings, but it was nine months later in Tolworth. On a personal note, I am delighted to share that my son passed his test last Friday. Another constituent passed their theory test more than six months ago, yet still cannot find a practical test slot before their theory test expires. We are penalising young people for the failures of the system, not their own. Within this messy and frustrating system, we are also seeing third parties bulk-booking and reselling test slots at inflated prices. This is the exploitation of scarcity, and it is completely unacceptable. Although the Government have acknowledged the problem, enforcement has not yet met the scale of the issue. We currently have a system that prevents young people from accessing work, which is contributing to rising levels of young people who are not in education, employment or training, wasting time and money, and exposing families to scams and fraud. I acknowledge and welcome that the Government have signalled corrective action, but it is not enough and, critically, it is not happening fast enough. Many of these changes are not expected to be fully implemented until 2026. Furthermore, I respectfully note that the changes to address bots are simply not working, based on what I hear from my constituents—too many are still in the 6 am scramble. In the meantime, waiting times remain extreme and young people continue to miss out on employment. One additional change the Government have not yet committed to is extending the validity of theory test certificates in cases where the state cannot provide a timely practical test. It surely cannot be right that someone should lose their pass because the system has failed them. I urge the Minister to consider this seriously, and I hope he will go into detail on the Government’s thinking. This is not simply a transport issue. Some may argue that driving is a privilege and not a right, but in reality it has become a precondition for employment, independence, accessing education and entering the economic world. When young people are prevented from getting a driving test, we are not just limiting their mobility; we are limiting their future. This is a barrier to social mobility, employment access and regional economic participation, and it needs to be urgently addressed.

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of our fantastic parish and town councils, and I hope that Members from all parts of this House will support that new clause. We have tabled new clause 70 because neighbourhood planning only works if communities can afford to take part. Without support, neighbourhood planning becomes a slogan. With support, it becomes genuine grassroots devolution. We believe that new clause 70 would plug that gap and ensure that real community voices are heard. Finally, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to plug yet another gap that the Bill sadly leaves wide open, and we return to the theme of parish and town councils. Under the Bill, those could be sidelined, merged or absorbed without proper public consultation. New clause 41 closes that loophole by protecting parish and town councils from being swept aside in the rush to build bigger, centralised combined authorities. If the Government claim to trust communities, they must protect the governance closest to those communities, and new clause 41 delivers just that.

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Today I will continue to highlight our concerns on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Labour Government spend a great deal of time telling the country that they are putting power back into the hands of communities and say they are on the side of local leaders and delivering locally led renewal, but when we examine the powers that the Bill actually grants, it is clear very quickly that they risk doing the opposite. Through this Bill, power is being snatched upwards and away from local voices. It strengthens combined authorities and concentrates power with a statutory authority mayor at the expense of constituent, unitary, parish and town councils. It enables key planning decisions to bypass local authorities and gives Ministers sweeping powers to redraw governance arrangements without genuine local engagement. Local leaders, parish councillors and residents see that, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches certainly see that. If we are to empower our communities, as this Government promise, this legislation needs to be improved. That is what we seek to do with the amendments we bring forward today, just as we did yesterday. Let me begin with our primary measure, new clause 17. The Government really cannot keep coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that they want locally led delivery while creating legislation that puts responsibilities on councils without giving them money or support to do the job. That just does not add up. The truth is that without even considering devolution, councils are currently not funded properly. Every single one, regardless of political leadership, is under unprecedented strain, and many are on the brink of effective bankruptcy. Some have declared section 114 notices, and others are warning that they may not last the financial year. Even more are raiding reserves, cutting services to the bone and desperately firefighting rising demand in social care, temporary accommodation and children’s services. Instead of addressing this crisis with the urgent, national level of investment for which local government was calling out for years under the Conservatives and now this Government, the Government seem committed to perpetuating this problem, albeit now with a different approach of giving to one council by taking from another. We see that clearly in the rather inaptly named fair funding review, which does not increase funding from central Government, but simply redistributes an already insufficient pot. It is a winless exercise dressed up as equality. Council leaders from across the political spectrum are all deeply worried that this Bill is a continuation of that same approach. It asks councils to do more, take on more and deliver more, all without serious new funding models, and nowhere is that clearer than in west Surrey. This Government have imposed a new local governance model that local leaders have warned will be financially unstable and structurally incoherent. Instead of listening to local authority leaders and residents, the Government pressed ahead with a structure that groups multiple councils facing extreme financial pressure—the legacy of current and former Conservative Administrations—leaving the new West Surrey council with roughly five times the debt of neighbouring East Surrey council. What is the Government’s answer to the question of how West Surrey council is to manage its significant debt and financial instability? Their answer is that West Surrey should pool its budgets, sell its assets and harmonise council tax. They may as well have suggested tackling the debt with hopes and prayers. We simply cannot redistribute a crisis. We cannot create a strong structure on foundations that are already breaking under debt, demand and chronic underfunding, and that is exactly why our new clause 17 is so vital. If we ignore local leaders and refuse to fund local government properly, we do not empower councils; we set them up to fail. I call on MPs from across this House to back new clause 17 and back our local councils. Funding alone is not enough; devolution relies on democratic legitimacy. That brings me to new clause 35, which would safeguard the integrity of local democracy by ensuring that residents could hold their leaders to account at the ballot box. Our new clause would ensure that when Government restructure local governance, shift power or redraw boundaries, they must explicitly consider the impact on local elections. In Surrey this year, as in many places, we have seen clearly what happens when elections are cancelled or postponed. The failing Conservative Administration has been allowed to remain in office not because residents have endorsed them, but because the Government and the local Conservative leadership came together to deny residents their chance to remove them. Based on local by-election results, it is clear that the Administration would have been removed, had the elections taken place in May.

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises an interesting point, which returns us to the theme that we need to allow local communities a say in their own destinies. I will leave it to my wonderful colleagues in local government to continue that thought. We Liberal Democrats remain concerned about the many gaps that we see in the Bill, and they are what our new clauses attempt to plug. Every single one is designed to strengthen the democratic, localist, community-led principles that Ministers say they support. With our new clauses, this English devolution Bill might finally seem to provide the devolution that the Government keep promising us. I urge Members across the House to support these vital amendments, and to give local democracy the respect, the voice and the power that it deserves.

• 24 Nov 2025 · East Sussex County Council: Elections · Hansard source

  More

  It has been very interesting to hear the back and forth on this question. It is not just about East Sussex, of course; it is about all the councils up for reorganisation. Councils across the country that are due to have elections next year have received letters asking them whether they would consider cancelling them. Will the Minister set out the content of those letters, and will he stand with the Liberal Democrat by backing our amendments, which seek absolute assurances for councils across the country that are putting money into organising those elections?

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak in support of the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill. They remain true to our party’s tradition of empowering communities, upholding democratic accountability, protecting the environment and defending the role of local government at all levels. Our amendments, numbering around 120, exist because the legislation as drafted falls short of the Government’s own declared aim for meaningful devolution. My colleagues and I on this side of the House have found ourselves needing to strengthen provisions, close loopholes, and introduce safeguards just to ensure that power genuinely flows outwards to communities, rather than upwards to centralised mayoral offices. Before turning to the amendments, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for her work in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for her efforts in both the earlier stages of the Bill and in Committee. The volume, detail and quality of the amendments they presented and defended have improved the Bill and clearly reflect the seriousness with which Liberal Democrats approach devolution. As the MP for Guildford in Surrey, I feel that it would be remiss of me not to comment on what the Government have said about decisions on local reform being led by local people and local councils. I can state that that has not happened in Surrey. The Government have: overruled local people who indicated a strong preference for option three; ignored geography, natural place and communities; and clearly stated that the decision was led solely by the financial state of Surrey, which was created by a number of Conservative-led authorities. I will leave that thought there. As drafted, the Bill would allow the mayors of combined authorities and county combined authorities to appoint unelected commissioners over substantial areas of public service delivery, from transport to planning, economic regeneration and even aspects of social care. It is astonishing that a Bill claiming to devolve power begins by concentrating it in the hands of one individual, with the authority to outsource major public functions to people who have never faced a ballot box. This is not localism. It is not devolution. It is centralisation masquerading as reform. Let me be clear, this is not a minor administrative detail. It is the ability to hand over control of core public services that shape our constituents’ lives to someone who has not been elected, cannot be removed by the public, and whose appointment could be based on personal loyalty rather than competence. We have seen this in the past, with police and crime commissioners, where concerns have been raised about appointments of close associates or unelected political allies to influential roles. Even the perception of that is damaging to the public’s confidence in the role. It is extraordinary that the Government would open the door to repeating those mistakes on an even larger scale. Liberal Democrat amendment 85 would stop that from happening. It eliminates the ability to make those unaccountable appointments entirely. It guarantees that important public roles cannot be delegated to individuals chosen behind closed doors, safeguarding the integrity of devolution by ensuring power is exercised transparently and by those answerable to the public. If the Government insist on pressing ahead with this centralising model—this top-down, trust-us-we-know-best version of “localism”—then the bare minimum is democratic safeguards. That is where our new clause 14 comes in. It ensures that an elected representative must carry out any development or delivery of policy within a strategic authority’s remit. But let me be clear: new clause 14 is the fallback; amendment 85 is the safeguard. If the Government are genuinely trying to create democratic, community-led devolution, we must not allow unaccountable commissioners to be appointed to run major public services. Turning to environmental protections, I welcome the Government’s concession on air quality—it is a meaningful win for public health. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their work in Committee lobbying for its inclusion, and the Government for engaging so constructively and now including it in the Bill. But we are still looking for one crucial assurance from the Minister: will nitrogen dioxide be explicitly included in the provisions, not just general air quality? Nitrogen dioxide is one of the most harmful pollutants we face. It disproportionately affects children, older people and those with respiratory illnesses. I hope the Minister can offer that reassurance today. We also tabled amendment 75, which would require a review of the financial needs of local authorities in tackling health inequalities. Devolution without actual resources is not devolution, but rather the delegation of responsibility without the means to deliver. In my constituency of Guildford, for example, the difference in health outcomes between neighbourhoods just a short distance apart is stark. Life expectancy, rates of chronic illness and access to preventative services vary dramatically. Local authorities cannot hope to address these inequalities without the right resources, data and powers. Amendment 75 ensures that those needs are properly understood and resourced. I also want to take a moment to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has re-tabled important amendments on sports provision and the committee system. I thank her for doing so, and the Government for picking up the committee system amendment. Finally, regarding town and parish councils, for a Government who have repeatedly assured me and others of the importance they place on these levels of local government, the Bill is surprisingly silent on their vital role. We, as Liberal Democrats, have consistently proposed amendments throughout the Bill process to address that gap, safeguard their role, and ensure they are not overridden or abolished without genuine community approval. Parishes are often the tier of government closest to our constituents—strengthening them strengthens democracy—yet the Government have generally refused our amendments. Taken together, the Liberal Democrat amendments make the Bill stronger, fairer and more democratic. They turn a framework that risks re-centralising power into one that can, if implemented properly, deliver genuine community-led devolution by: protecting against the unaccountable concentration of power; ensuring environmental and public health commitments are meaningful; and giving local communities, right down to parish and town councils, the voice they deserve. We have already seen that when concerns are raised clearly and constructively, the Government can listen, as they did with the committee system and clean air commitments, but there is so much more to be done. If we want devolution that the public can trust and that empowers rather than bypasses communities, we must ensure robust safeguards are in place. Amendment 85 is absolutely central to that effort. It would ensure that public services cannot be handed to unelected appointees, and that accountability remains where it belongs—with the people elected by the people. I urge Members from across the House to support the amendments that I have spoken to—and, above all, to support amendment 85—so that the Bill delivers the democratic, transparent and community-led devolution that our constituents need.