Zöe Franklin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Nov 2025 · Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, residents face the challenge of there being four different bus companies, with four different tickets available, potentially at four different prices. Different providers’ tickets are not interchangeable, even when residents are trying to get to one location. What are the Government doing to empower local councils to work with bus companies to create joined-up ticketing systems, which would make bus travel simpler and more affordable, and would encourage local people to use bus services?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Injury in Service Award · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I am pleased to speak today in support of the motion and my constituent, Andrew Barr, who is in the Gallery. Andrew served in the Metropolitan police as a detective constable from 2003 to 2019, and also volunteered with a search and rescue unit while off duty. He is among the many great servicepeople we are discussing today who have had their careers cut short by severe injuries sustained while protecting the public. He now lives with complex PTSD after years of assaults, road traffic fatalities and traumatic incidents—injuries that will remain with him for life—and yet, because those very injuries cut his career short, he was denied the long service and good conduct medal. At official events, he stands as a spectator beside former colleagues as they proudly wear their medals, while he has nothing to show for his committed years of service and for the health, career and identity he lost in the line of duty. The creation of a dedicated injury in service medal would give men and women from the emergency services like Andrew the simple but powerful and important thanks and acknowledgment they deserve. To him and to all those injured in service, I say: thank you for your service. Like colleagues who have spoken today, I urge the Government to commit to creating this award. We must show men and women who have been injured in service that they will no longer be overlooked.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Freedom of speech is a vital right, but it must end where harm to another begins. Online freedom cannot mean the freedom to exploit, to encourage self-harm or to destroy lives. I appreciate that I am taking the debate in a slightly off-piste direction, but this is relevant to the debate we are having today, because suicide forums and other user-to-user platforms are also part of what Ofcom counts as social media. If this debate is about the proportionality of penalties applied to offences arising from social media posts, we must address the stark reality that the most harmful content online is actually the least likely to attract enforcement. Nowhere is that clearer than in the case of unregulated suicide forums, which The Telegraph recently described as a terrifying online world where users share methods, encourage one another to die, and prey on the vulnerable. The Molly Rose Foundation, founded by bereaved parents after losing their daughter Molly, has exposed the scale of the threat. Its report “Missed chances, lost lives” links at least 133 UK deaths to a single pro-suicide forum that operates overseas. On that site, young people—many just teenagers—are encouraged, instructed and groomed into taking their own lives. The forum hosts detailed methods, promotes poisonous substances, shares advice on bypassing UK regulations and even enables suicide pacts between strangers, which facilitates the abuse of vulnerable women. That is not free speech, as the site moderators claim; it is the deliberate facilitation of harm—fatal harm. I first became aware of the foundation’s work when I met a local family who had lost their daughter, Hannah. She had been on that forum, where she found links to poisons and guidance on how to obtain them outside UK restrictions. Her father, Pete, warned me that harm is out there waiting to be found by teenagers. No parent should ever have to bury their child because of an unregulated user-to-user forum or social media. What makes this even harder to accept is how many missed chances there were to act. Coroners issued 65 prevention of future deaths reports to three Government bodies—65 formal warnings that the site and its content were putting people at risk. Had those warnings triggered action when they should have, many of those 133 people might still be with us today. Ofcom eventually opened a formal investigation under the Online Safety Act, but only in 2025—long after families had begun sounding the alarm. Its own letter acknowledges serious risks to UK users, including children, yet despite that Ofcom initially accepted a voluntary geoblock, which could be easily bypassed with a simple VPN. It took the discovery of a mirror site, and determined, unrelenting pressure from bereaved families, to escalate the case to priority. That goes to the heart of today’s debate: if we are examining how penalties are applied for offences arising from social media posts, we must ask why the quickest and toughest enforcement does not fall on those creating the greatest real-world harm. The Online Safety Act creates strong penalties for encouraging suicide and serious self-harm—up to 14 years’ imprisonment and up to five years’ imprisonment respectively. Those penalties must not be weakened; they must be used, and they must be supported by regulators who treat the loss of life due to online harms with the urgency it demands. I have met too many parents, siblings, friends and loved ones whose lives have been shattered. Their message is simple: protect young people, target the real harms, and use the penalties to save lives. If proportionality is the principle, let it be proportional to harm, because our young people deserve a system that protects them, not one that leaves the deadliest corners of the internet untouched. I thank the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), in part, for the debate today, which has enabled me to raise this part of the important conversation about penalties for offences arising from social media posts and user-to-user platforms.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Access to Justice · Hansard source

  More

  I was interested to hear the Minister’s answers to the previous question, but true access to justice must include those still imprisoned under legal tests since ruled wrong, including many young people from marginalised communities convicted under joint enterprise. Will the Government consider adopting the review mechanism in my amendment to the Sentencing Bill, which would create a statutory process for a review of convictions so that they, too, can access justice?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is indeed a highly significant issue, which is why I have put forward the new clauses. Since his conviction, Alex has been diagnosed with autism, a condition that fundamentally affects how he perceives and reacts to social situations. That diagnosis raises serious questions about whether it was even fair to suggest that he could have foreseen a friend’s violent act, let alone intended it. Alex’s story is not unique. Many others—overwhelmingly young men, disproportionately from minority ethnic backgrounds—remain imprisoned under a doctrine that our highest court has disowned. I recognise today Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association—JENGbA—whose members have worked tirelessly for more than a decade to support families and campaign for reform. Many of them, and the families of those affected, are also here in the Gallery. I place on record my gratitude for their courage and persistence in seeking justice. I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) for her support this afternoon. New clause 22 would allow people still serving sentences under laws that have materially changed to apply for a review. It would give courts discretion to resentence in line with the law as it now stands or to make any other order necessary in the interests of justice. This is not about reopening every case or granting automatic releases; it is about restoring fairness. New clause 23 would complement that by requiring the Secretary of State for Justice to review and report to Parliament on how changes in criminal law affect existing convictions and sentences. It would ensure that when the law evolves, we look back and ask what the changes mean for the people already affected. This is not just a moral necessity, but a practical one. We face a severe crisis in our prisons, which are overcrowded, understaffed and at breaking point. It makes no sense to fill cells with people serving sentences under laws that no longer reflect justice, while those who genuinely threaten public safety wait for space. We need prison places for those who are truly dangerous, not for those who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time under the wrong law. The Secretary of State for Justice has long recognised the injustice of joint enterprise. In 2021, he called it “shoddy law”, “outdated” and “backward”, and pledged to change it. Families across the country, including many in the Gallery, remember that promise; today’s Bill gives the Secretary of State and the Government the chance to make good on it. The new clauses provide a practical, proportionate and fair way to ensure that our justice system can correct itself when the law gets it wrong. As such, my ask today is for the Secretary of State and the Government to champion these clauses from the Government Benches. Work with me and campaigners to refine the detail if needed, but do not let the principle fall away, because the strength of our justice system lies not in its perfection, but in its capacity to put right its own mistakes. For Alex Henry, for the families in the Gallery today, and for everyone who is still serving a sentence under a law that our courts have already rejected, I urge all Members on both sides of the Committee and the Government to support new clauses 22 and 23.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Justice must be capable of learning from its mistakes. When the law evolves, it must reach back for those left behind. That is the principle behind new clauses 22 and 23, which I tabled. The new clauses would create a fair route for people still serving sentences under laws that have since been abolished or where the legal basis has materially changed. They would allow courts to review such cases so that punishment reflects the law as it stands today, not as it stood decades ago. At present, there is no clear mechanism for that to happen. Even when Parliament or the courts have recognised that a law was wrong, those affected have no way to benefit. Our system can acknowledge injustice, but it cannot yet fix it. We see that most clearly in the case of Alex Henry, whose sister is my constituent. She has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, and she and Alex’s mum are in the Gallery today. Some 11 years ago, Alex was convicted of murder after a 40-second altercation. He did not wield the weapon; he threw a phone and one punch, then ran. He was convicted under the now discredited doctrine of joint enterprise, which allowed juries to convict if a defendant merely foresaw what someone else might do. Two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that that interpretation had been wrong for more than 30 years. Foresight is not enough for guilt—intent must be present—yet Alex remains in prison, serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 19 years for a crime that he would not have been convicted of under today’s law.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 26 Duty to establish carer liaison service “(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows. (2) In Part X (Miscellaneous and Supplementary), after section 133 insert— “133A Duty to establish carer liaison service (1) The managers of every hospital providing services under this Act must establish and maintain a dedicated carer liaison service. (2) A service established under this section must provide— (a) support to unpaid carers when a patient for whom they provide care is— (i) awaiting admission to hospital for treatment under the Act; (ii) receiving treatment in hospital under the Act; (iii) set to be discharged from a hospital where they had been receiving treatment under this Act; (b) timely and accessible information regarding the discharge of the patient they care for, including details of— (i) the patient's discharge plan; and (ii) aftercare arrangements under section 117 of this Act; (c) support for unpaid carers to identify their own needs and connect to relevant local services for post-discharge support, including local authority adult social care services, general practitioners, and local carers' centres; (d) facilitation of effective communication and collaboration between unpaid carers and the patient's multidisciplinary clinical team regarding the discharge process; (e) assistance to unpaid carers in developing or updating a carer's support plan in the context of the patient's discharge, including guidance on— (i) their rights to assessment and support as carers (ii) their participation in education or employment; (iii) available counselling services; (iv) support in planning for emergencies in relation to the patient; (v) benefits for the carer and patient; and (vi) other forms of local support; and (f) services to ensure that the perspective of the unpaid carer, as a key provider of support, is considered during discharge planning, where appropriate and with due regard to patient confidentiality and consent.””— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require hospitals to establish a dedicated liaison service for the carers of patients detained under the Mental Health Act. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am honoured to open today’s debate on Report and to have served in Committee, where it was clear that Members on both sides of the House shared a commitment to high-quality mental health care for those in crisis. I thank my colleagues who also served in Committee; it was an informative and moving discussion. It is that commitment to high-quality mental health care that underpins new clause 2. It addresses a critical issue: the inconsistency and inadequacy of care in mental health units across England. I am sure we have all heard distressing accounts of vulnerable individuals being placed in units that are understaffed, unsafe and ill equipped for recovery. Families entrust the system with their loved ones during moments of crisis, only to find that trust undermined—not by a lack of compassion, but by a lack of national direction. New clause 2 seeks to change that by establishing a national strategy and annual reporting to ensure that every mental health unit is safe, well-staffed and fit for purpose. In my Guildford constituency, a family recently shared with me their experience of a loved one’s stay in a mental health facility. The unit was understaffed from the outset and wards were mixed in age and illness, with little therapeutic structure. There was no clear advocate or caseworker, and the family did not know whom to contact. They described a system that, in their words, “dishes out drugs without improving mental health or wellbeing.” The setting was so short-staffed that their loved one was able to self-harm—an unacceptable failure in any care setting. New clause 2 aims to prevent such failures from recurring. The Care Quality Commission has repeatedly raised concerns about the safety of mental health wards, citing staff shortages, poor infrastructure and environments that are unfit for therapeutic care. In 2023, the King’s Fund reported that 40% of NHS mental health providers were rated “requires improvement” or “inadequate” on safety—figures that would be intolerable elsewhere in the health system. The Health Services Safety Investigations Body has identified systematic risks in in-patient mental health care, including delayed responses to distress, inappropriate use of restraint and a lack of therapeutic staffing models. Perhaps most starkly, the British Medical Journal reported over 17,000 serious incidents in mental health services between April 2022 and March 2023. Each one was a moment when care went seriously wrong. These are not just statistics; they represent real people who deserve better. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to publish a national strategy within 12 months to ensure that all mental health units meet or exceed “good” safety standards under the CQC framework, and to report annually to Parliament. It focuses on three key areas: recruitment, retention and training of staff; safe staffing levels and patient-to-staff ratios, especially during nights and peak times; and ongoing accountability through public reporting. The new clause would make patient safety a national obligation, not a postcode lottery. It is about responsibility and transparency. Although the Bill modernises detention criteria and patients’ rights, it does not explicitly require the Secretary of State to guarantee basic safety and staffing standards, and new clause 2 would fill that gap. Some may worry that it would be too prescriptive or add bureaucracy, but it would not replace local management; it would support it. It would build on the CQC’s role by ensuring that action is taken when failings persist, and it would turn inspection findings into a driver of national improvement. On cost, unsafe care is already expensive. It leads to readmissions, litigation, staff burnout and the loss of public trust. A national strategy would allow for smarter investment, preventing failures rather than paying for them later. We have had decades of guidance and reviews, but what we have not had is statutory accountability. My new clause would deliver that. New clause 2 is focused, deliverable and urgently needed. It complements the Bill by ensuring that the rights it enshrines are backed by safe, well-staffed and properly regulated environments. Without it, we risk legislating for rights in theory while leaving patients unsafe in practice. By supporting it, we affirm that mental health care deserves the same national standards as any other branch of healthcare. I urge Members to support new clause 2 and make safety, dignity and accountability a permanent part of our mental health law, and I look forward to the debate in this House today.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In June, the Department made the welcome announcement of legislation to allow proxy voting and remote attendance, which will help to drive up the diversity of councillors across the country, but the Government have not yet set out a timeline. Will the Minister advise the House on when a timeline will be shared, and whether the Government have considered including the changes in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Police: Professional Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate speech on behalf of his constituents on this difficult issue. As other Members have, I pay tribute to my police force, Surrey police. They do great work, but sadly things sometimes do go wrong. I have had to deal with a number of cases in my constituency office where the process has not worked in the way we would all like it to. People have gone to the police with complaints, only to find themselves in distress and unable to trust the outcomes because, in effect, the local force—although also in another case with the Met—has marked its own homework. The complaint has stayed with that force, which does not fill people with the confidence they need for their case. Does my hon. Friend agree that serious consideration is needed? If we want people to trust our fantastic police forces up and down the country, we need to look seriously at the current situation so that we can move to one where other forces review some of the most serious complaints.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  There are some tragic stories of horrendous errors with EHCPs in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly important that accountability is maintained in the system? If we cannot get it right now, how will we be able to—under the potential threat of EHCPs no longer existing—ensure that families and children are protected and get the support they need, and that the accountability of county councils and local authorities is maintained?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Future of Terrestrial Television · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Supporters of the switch-off argue that most homes will have gigabit broadband by the 2030s, but of course theoretical access does not guarantee adoption by households. Around 13 million to 19 million adults are estimated to be living in digital poverty, and the switchover risks pushing more households into such poverty. We know that it is not just older people and people living in rural communities who do not have or will not be able to access digital television. We also know that one in five children is affected by digital poverty, which can have a huge impact on their educational outcomes. So I really am concerned that the proposed switch-off risks extending the digital divide, with unequal access to entertainment and educational resources, as well as to unbiased news. We need to be clear about the cost of the switchover. Terrestrial television currently accounts for just 3% of the licence fee. By contrast, switching entirely to internet-only delivery could cost £2.1 billion up front and £1 billion annually. I want to ask the Minister who is fronting those costs. For the 4.3 million households who rely exclusively on terrestrial TV, it could mean an extra £218 per year simply to access content that today is free to air. All this comes at a time when one in four households already struggles to afford their communication services, and when millions have had to cancel broadband contracts to make ends meet during the cost of living crisis. Once again, the switchover has risks. I think we can all agree that in the current world, terrestrial TV has an important role as a trusted source of information. Research shows that 96% of people trust the information that they receive on terrestrial TV. In this age of misinformation, that is not a luxury; it is a necessity in a healthy democracy and civic society. Broadcast television is a shared civic space where the nation comes together, whether it is for the coronation, the Olympics, the “Gavin and Stacey” finale or the women’s Euros, which reached more than 22 million on the BBC alone. Terrestrial broadcasting is not just about culture. It underpins our critical national infrastructure, supporting radio, emergency alerts and communication during crises. Are we comfortable discarding such resilience in our world, which is sadly encountering growing global instability and increasing informational interference from hostile foreign Governments? I am not arguing against digital innovation. Streaming offers flexibility and choice for those who can afford it, but it needs to complement, not replace, terrestrial broadcasting. That is why Ofcom has recommended a hybrid model combining digital, terrestrial and IPTV to give guaranteed universality and resilience. I ask the Minister: who will bear the burden of the annual cost of switching off terrestrial television? Will it be taxpayers, the vulnerable or both? How will the Government preserve emergency broadcasting if the network is dismantled? Does the Minister acknowledge that abandoning terrestrial TV risks widening the digital divide, raising household costs and potentially weakening our national resilience? Terrestrial television remains one of the last universal and accessible public services, and we should not dismantle that before every household has a real, affordable alternative.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a privilege to speak in this debate honouring the legacy of Sir David Amess—an MP who tirelessly advocated for his constituents. I could feel how all colleagues who have spoken are also deeply passionate about their communities, and it is a privilege to be part of the debate. Sir David Amess’s Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 was ahead of its time in recognising that action on energy poverty and environmental policy are two sides of the same coin. Today, I want to speak in that same spirit about one of the defining challenges of our time: the climate and nature emergency. Despite the suggestions from Reform MPs and some Conservatives that policies on the environment are a waste of governmental time and money, residents from across my Guildford constituency have spoken clearly, urgently and passionately about the crisis facing our environment. What is striking is not just how much people care, but how much they believe that the Government are falling short. Sixty-five per cent of Surrey residents do not think the Government are doing enough on climate and nature. Polling by Surrey county council’s resident insight unit shows that climate change and environmental policy consistently rank in the top five public concerns, alongside healthcare and NHS privatisation. The determination to see action begins young, as was clear when my constituents from Burpham primary school wrote to me recently about their concerns about deforestation and the heartbreaking loss of animals, birds and plants that comes with it. They understand that cutting down trees fuels global warming, destroys animal habitats and wipes out potential medical solutions that could one day save human lives. Tormead school eco club wrote to me about the challenge of sewage pollution in our waterways—one of our country’s most shameful current environmental failures. Although I welcome the pledge to halve sewage pollution by 2030, action is happening far too slowly, but collectively we can do better. Community actions groups such as Zero Carbon Guildford are doing the kind of work in my constituency that we should back at a national level. Zero Carbon, in work with the Water Rangers and the River Wey Trust, regularly tests our precious waterways to monitor sewage pollution. Nearly 500 residents are trained in citizen science, nine water-testing hubs are now active, and a new community water lab has been opened, in partnership with the University of Surrey in my constituency. That is proof that local people are not just waiting for change; they are making it. But they should not have to do it alone. They tell me that they want the Government to match their urgency. They want visible leadership on nature protection, tougher laws to stop sewage polluting our rivers, green spaces protected from poor planning decisions and support to make their homes warmer and cheaper to run. On that point, the evidence already shows that insulating and retrofitting homes could slash energy demand by the equivalent of six nuclear power stations. It could cut household bills by a quarter, save the NHS £1.5 billion a year, and prevent nearly 10,000 deaths caused by cold and damp housing annually. This is not just an environmental policy; it is a health and cost of living policy, too. I say to colleagues across the House that if residents are that engaged and schoolchildren are that active, what excuse do we have not to act with a level of urgency matching theirs? I will end by highlighting one of the most visible ways in which we can lead: by supporting sustainable transport. Residents are asking for better, greener transport options. They want joined-up infrastructure that serves people, not just cars. That is why I am pushing for a new train station in Guildford, and I am calling for the Government’s support to make that happen. Guildford’s residents have been waiting for more than a decade for a decision on that. Given the major housing development taking place locally, the appetite among local businesses and residents for greener ways to travel, and the Government’s commitment to rail travel, I say simply that now is the time. Let this summer recess not be a pause in our work but a call to action for when we return. Let us deliver the cleaner air, safer streets and low-carbon transport systems that communities are calling for. If we do not act, we are not just failing future generations; we are failing this one. I hope that we have the restorative recess that we all need, particularly those of us who have spent our first year in this place. I say an enormous thank you to all the staff across the House, whether they work for us or help to make the House function. Without them, we would not be able to serve our residents in the way we do. I wish everyone a very good recess.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Public Service Delivery · Hansard source

  More

  10. What support his Department is providing to local partnerships to improve public service delivery.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Public Service Delivery · Hansard source

  More

  It is really good to hear about that partnership working with local communities and local government. In June, I had the privilege of going to the launch of a new innovative partnership between the University of Surrey and Guildford and Waverley borough councils, which is seeking to apply the university’s global research expertise to real-world problems faced by local communities, from creating better housing to addressing the shortage of planners. How will the Government support important initiatives like this, which seek to deliver on the Government’s aim to innovate and improve public service delivery and which matter even more as local government reorganisation progresses across Surrey?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Generative Artificial Intelligence: Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this important debate. AI use in schools has reached a critical juncture. According to Ofcom, 50% of children aged eight to 17 have already used AI tools. The Alan Turing Institute and LEGO report that 60% of teachers actively use generative AI. We have heard many colleagues across the Chamber today reference that. AI is everywhere, whether through explicit choice or integration into Google Workspace, Microsoft 365 Education and countless educational tools. The Government have funded AI development for teachers to speed lesson planning and reduce workloads, positioning AI as central to educational transformation. Yet, as 5Rights highlights, no statutory standards currently govern genAI use in schools. The Government’s own AI opportunities action plan fails to address children and their rights and development needs, despite encouraging schools to “move fast and learn things” when piloting these technologies. With AI’s undeniable rise, the Government really need to address this head on, hence today’s debate is incredibly important. We have heard across the room today that AI presents genuine opportunities for education. For teachers struggling with budget cuts from the last Conservative Government, AI can ease the burden of lesson planning, marking and administrative tasks. For students, responsible engagement with these technologies prepares them for tomorrow’s world of work. Those who understand technological change and harness AI effectively will thrive in today’s and tomorrow’s economy. They will be prepared for an AI-dominated world where critical thinking and analysis become even more vital. However, serious concerns are emerging about generative AI’s impact. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology research indicates that “over-reliance on AI tools could lead to the erosion of teaching, writing and reasoning skills”. The MIT Media Lab recently released a study that was so urgent, it published it before peer review. The study showed that students using ChatGPT showed dramatically lower brain activity than those writing without AI. Brain scans revealed a 32% drop in cognitive load. After just weeks of use, 83% could not even remember what they had supposedly written. That is really concerning information. We can understand why it was so keen to publish it, despite the fact that it had not yet been peer reviewed. The voices of concern grow louder, UNESCO warns that AI roll-out is “outpacing the adaptation of national regulatory frameworks.” Even industry leaders in the Alan Turing Institute acknowledge we have “limited evidence on the impact of AI use in education on learners’ development”. Evidence mounts about the negative effects of an unsafe online world. Research by 5Rights and the London School of Economics found that “EdTech products used in schools are highly invasive of children’s privacy and rely on the extensive collection of children’s data.” As we heard earlier, the NSPCC has documented cases where generative AI created deepfakes of children in schools, and the Children’s Commissioner has called for urgent action. This is particularly concerning given that many AI tools have not been developed with the younger audience in mind. We Liberal Democrats call for a public health approach to the online world, including AI, to ensure that children remain safe online and can enjoy their childhood as intended. We also call on the Government to introduce a safer screens taskforce that would be empowered to ensure a public health approach to children’s social media across all Government Departments, and lead research into social media’s impact on children. We believe that the UK must lead the world in building a future where AI is developed and deployed ethically, transparently and in the public interest. We favour a workable and well-resourced framework for AI that can promote innovation and protect individual rights and freedoms. We call on the Government to establish a cross-sector AI regulator, combining flexible, ethical oversight and technological expertise to ensure that the UK keeps pace with rapid technological advances. As Liberal Democrats, we also believe that we should modernise our curriculum to face 21st century challenges, offering an approach that allows students to explore pathways in science, maths and the arts without prejudicing their learning in other disciplines. Such a curriculum must embed digital and data literacy throughout children’s learning experience, preparing every single student for a future shaped by AI and new technologies. I have a few questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer in his remarks. What skills audit has been done to ensure that we have the right skills for AI, and for working alongside AI, such as critical thinking? We welcome DFE guidance that pupils should only be using generative AI in education settings with appropriate safeguards in place, such as close supervision. But where is the implementation guidance, and where are the resources for schools to achieve this? Finally, how will this Government prevent AI from widening inequality between those with access and those without? Once again, I am grateful for being able to take part in this debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for bringing it to this Chamber. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, which I hope will be just the start of an ongoing conversation on this incredibly important issue, as we look to the future of our young people.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. I wish to raise the case of my constituent whose 89-year-old father was subject to serious abuse through a lasting power of attorney. It took two years and significant legal costs to get the power of attorney removed through the Court of Protection. The father tragically died, homeless and penniless. Does the Minister believe that the current LPA protections are sufficient to prevent such abuse, and will the Government consider an urgent review and reform of the system?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for outlining the PCREF and the focus that it will have in addressing these issues. I was particularly interested in the explanation of the iterative approach that it will allow. I also thank the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh for his insights into the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 2 Mental Health Crisis Breathing Space “(1) Any person detained under sections 3, 37, 41 or 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 must be offered support from the mental health crisis breathing space debt respite scheme.” —(Dr Chambers.) This new clause ensures that MHCBS, a debt respite scheme, is offered and available to patients detained under sections 3, 37, 41 and 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Brought up, and read the First time .

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments; it was really helpful to hear about how he sees the timings in our new clause fitting with the ongoing work to implement the Mental Health Act and the commissioning of the independent review. I am concerned about his comment that the work will be dependent on funding. I hope that the funding for the important independent review will be ensured. However, on the basis of the Minister’s comments, I am happy not to press any of the new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 16 Transfer of patients: out of area placements “(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows. (2) After section 19 (transfer of patients), insert— ‘ 19A Transfer of patients: out of area placements (1) The Secretary of State must reduce to zero, within five years of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, the number of patients transferred to a hospital outside of the area in which the patient is ordinarily resident. (2) The Secretary of State must publish, within six months of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, a report to outline how the duty under this section will be met, including how provision for treatment under this Act will be increased.’”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require the transfer of patients to hospitals outside of their area to be reduced to zero within 5 years, and for the Secretary of State to produce a report on how this will be achieved. Brought up, and read the First time .

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. New clause 1 seeks to ensure that racial disparities in the use of community treatment orders are properly understood, monitored and addressed. We have known for many years that black individuals are disproportionately subjected to coercive powers under the Mental Health Act 1983, including detention, restraint and community treatment orders, yet progress has been painfully slow. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review within 12 months of the Bill passing and to publish the findings within 18 months. It would look specifically at whether certain racial or ethnic groups are over-represented among those who are subject to community treatment orders, and whether there are disparities in outcomes—including treatment effectiveness and patient experience—across racial groups. The aim is not just to collect data, but for meaningful scrutiny of how coercive community powers are applied and whether they are serving all groups equally. The 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act found that black individuals were more than eight times more likely to be placed under a CTO than white individuals. That is not a minor discrepancy, but a structural injustice. The review also raised concerns that CTOs were not necessarily used because they are clinically effective, but because they are seen as a way to manage risk, particularly where racialised assumptions come into play. We must ask, are CTOs truly supporting recovery, or are they disproportionately used to control and surveil? Are they fostering trust or fear in mental health services? The new clause would give Parliament the information we need to answer those questions. It would set a timeline for transparency and create a foundation for future policy reform that is rooted in fairness and equality. In the absence of this new clause, we risk continuing a system where racial injustice is baked into mental health practice, without sufficient oversight or accountability. If this Government are serious about tackling racial inequality in mental health, they will have no objection to this basic measure of review and reporting. We have discussed specific disparities in previous clauses, but new clause 3 aims to ensure that systematic and sustained action is embedded in the way that mental health services are run. The disproportionate detention and coercive treatment of black and minority ethnic people under the Mental Health Act has been evidenced for decades, yet progress on addressing these inequalities has been too slow and too inconsistent across the country. New clause 3 takes a structural approach. It would require each mental health provider to appoint a dedicated senior lead to take responsibility for reducing inequalities within their services—not in name only, but through published plans covering staff diversity, culturally appropriate advocacy care planning and the use of advance choice documents. It would also ensure that frontline staff receive ongoing training that equips them to recognise and respond to disparities and uphold anti-discriminatory practice, with regular refreshes to ensure that this learning stays live. Importantly, it would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report breaking down how the Bill is used across racial and other demographic groups, and what progress is being made to close those gaps. This is not about creating more paperwork; it is about requiring leadership, transparency and accountability at every level, from clinical teams through to Government. If this Bill is to earn the title of a reform, it must act decisively on the most pertinent inequalities in the system. I urge the Committee to support the new clauses.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would introduce a dedicated veterans’ mental health oversight officer, recognising that those who serve or have served in the UK or Commonwealth armed forces face distinct mental health challenges that are not always adequately met by the current system. Far too many veterans experience post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety or substance misuse that, sadly, is linked to their service. Yet they are often treated within a system that does not fully take account of those experiences, and they are sometimes detained under the Mental Health Act without the benefit of trauma-informed, veteran-specific pathways of care. New clause 9 seeks to change that. It would create an independent officer, tasked with monitoring the use of the Mental Health Act in relation to veterans, advocating for tailored assessment and care linked to veterans’ service history, promoting alternatives to detention where appropriate, particularly through veteran-specific services, and reporting annually to Parliament on outcomes including rates of detention, recidivism and systemic barriers. It is not just about oversight; it is about respect and responsibility.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  When it comes to enabling the Mental Health Act to function, having an understanding on the ground of the picture across our communities regarding mental health wellbeing is very important. That is why we tabled the new clause, which would allow us to get community care right. That would then feed into the crisis care that we are discussing in this Committee.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 19 would require the Secretary of State to report on mental health outcomes for LGBT patients detained or treated under the Mental Health Act 1983, and to publish clear guidance to improve staff training, patient safety and inclusive care for that group. We all deserve appropriate support when experiencing poor mental health, and that support must be fair and respectful, no matter whether the patient identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Members of the LGBT community should have confidence that they will be treated with dignity and should not face unequal or inappropriate treatment because of who they are. Unfortunately, we know that that is not always the reality. Stonewall’s “LGBT in Britain—Health” report revealed deeply concerning findings: almost one in four LGBT individuals had heard discriminatory or negative remarks about them from healthcare staff, one in eight had experienced unequal treatment, one in 10 had been outed without their consent in healthcare settings, and one in seven had avoided treatment altogether for fear of discrimination. That is unacceptable anywhere in our health system, but it is especially alarming in mental health settings, where patients are already in distress and often detained, and may not be in a position to advocate for themselves.