Zöe Franklin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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

  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.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments. In particular, I was interested to hear about the mental health centre pilot schemes. I look forward to their further roll-out. They will be crucial in addressing the issues that we sought to address in the new clause. I was also very pleased to hear about the focus on a meaningful partnership between local government, national Government and mental health providers. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 7 Funding and reporting “(1) For each financial year until all sections of this Act have come into force, of the total health service expenditure by the bodies (taken together) in subsection (2), the proportion which relates to mental health spending— (a) under the Mental Health Act 1983, and (b) under this Act or which, in future, would be made under provision inserted into the Mental Health Act 1983 by this Act, (taken together) must not decrease. (2) The bodies are the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and integrated care boards.”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require that mental health spending as a proportion of health service expenditure must not decrease in the implementation period of the Act. Brought up, and read the First time.

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

  More

  New clause 15 calls for an independent review of whether the legislation achieves one of its core aims: reducing unnecessary detention under the Mental Health Act. People with learning disabilities and autistic people are still far too often detained in hospital settings, sometimes for months or years, despite clear evidence that community-based support would be more effective and humane. The Bill’s provisions—including those on grounds for detention, care and treatment planning and aftercare—are supposed to address that, but if we do not review their impact, there is a risk that they remain warm words without real change. The new clause would ensure that the Government must review how well the new law is working, in particular for those most vulnerable to inappropriate detention, and then act on that evidence within a year. If we are serious about reform, which I believe the Government are given the content of the Bill, then the new clause would ensure serious scrutiny and accountability. I turn to new clause 18. Eating disorders are complex, often misunderstood and frequently mismanaged in the mental health system. Too many patients face delayed interventions, inappropriate detention or a lack of tailored care, particularly when their condition does not fit into a narrow clinical threshold. The Bill introduces reforms to detention criteria, treatment decisions and care planning, but we must ensure that the changes actually work for people with eating disorders. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within 12 months that assesses the Bill’s impact on patients with eating disorders, including whether it is has improved access to appropriate treatment, safeguarded against unnecessary detention and strengthened aftercare. This is a matter not just of policy but of real people’s lives. We owe it to this vulnerable group to ensure that the reforms deliver real change, and that they are not left behind in a system that is still too often shaped by other conditions. Finally, on new clause 23, children and young people in temporary foster care are some of the most vulnerable in our system. They often face multiple disruptions in care, placement and support, all of which can significantly impact their mental health. The new clause asks for a focused impact assessment on how the changes in the legislation will affect them. In particular, the new clause looks at whether the ordinary residence rules delay or block access to mental health treatment, whether placement changes disrupt continuity of care, and whether the provisions in section 125G of the Mental Health Act unintentionally harm this group. Foster children should not fall through the cracks of bureaucracy. If we are serious about improving mental health services for all, we must understand and address the unique risks that face those who are moved frequently, often with little warning or support. An impact assessment is a necessary first step to ensure that their needs are not overlooked. I commend all the new clauses to the Committee and look forward to hearing from the Minister.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments—particularly about Op Courage, Op Nova and the armed forces covenant—and for his commitment to the veterans who have served this country and their courage, even when they face challenges with their mental health. The Liberal Democrats are willing to withdraw the amendment, but we will observe the passage of the Bill closely to ensure that it serves our veterans well across the UK. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 11 Costed plan to ensure community provision for individuals with learning disabilities and autism who are at risk of detention “(1) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a fully costed plan for how Integrated Care Boards and local authorities will ensure provision of adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people who are at risk of detention under Part 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. (2) As part of the development of that plan, a formal consultation process must take place to determine how the decision to enact the relevant parts of this Act will be made. (3) The consultation must include input from relevant stakeholders, including— (a) individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people; (b) carers for people with learning disabilities and autistic people; (c) healthcare professionals; and (d) advocacy groups.” —(Dr Evans.) This new clause requires a costed plan to ensure that ICBs and local authorities are able to provide adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people at risk of detention under Part 2 of the 1983 Act, informed by a consultation with a range of stakeholders. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments, for the recognition that individuals in the LGBT community clearly have concerns about the way that mental health care is provided, and for the commitment to addressing those. I hope that at some point he will be able to advise on the timeline for looking to resolve the issue of the unreliability of data; it is crucial that we have accurate data in order to ensure good outcomes and improvements in mental health care. However, in the light of the Minister’s comments and commitment on the issue, we will not press the new clause, although I look forward to observing closely, as this Bill continues through the House, how it will address the current inequalities for the LGBT+ community. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 22 National strategy on mental health units “(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows. (2) In Part VIII (Miscellaneous Functions of Local Authorities and the Secretary of State), after section 118, insert— ‘ 118A National strategy on mental health units (1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of the Mental Health Act 2025, publish a national strategy to set out how the Government will ensure that all relevant mental health units meet or exceed ‘good’ safety standards as assessed by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). (2) A strategy issued under this section must address the following matters— (a) recruitment, retention and training of mental health staff, (b) patient-to-staff ratios, and (c) safe staffing levels during crises and night shifts. (3) Following publication of the strategy, a report on implementation progress must be laid before Parliament annually. (4) For the purposes of this section, a ‘relevant mental health unit’ is a facility used for treatment under this Act.”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy, followed by an annual progress report, on how the Government will ensure that all mental health units used for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 are rated “good” or above by the CQC. Brought up, and read the First time .

• 12 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Our amendment would ensure that people who are subject to community treatment orders receive information about their right to advocacy. People under CTOs should not miss out on advocacy because they were not aware. CTOs can have a significant impact on how people are able to live their lives, and ensuring that those who are subject to them are effectively represented is crucial. I am delighted that advocacy is a crucial part of the Bill, but this seems something of an oversight. Not being aware of mental health advocacy could lead to a damaging lack of autonomy and voice for an individual. This simple change would ensure that people receive the support to which they are entitled. People in this situation are in acute mental distress, so the idea that they must actively seek out information on advocacy seems an unfair burden that will make the welcome provisions around mental health advocates far less effective. We also need to be aware that CTOs have consistently been shown to be a point of disparity in care for black and minority ethnic groups. Clearly pointing towards an advocate may help to alleviate that and ensure that the patient is adequately supported on leaving the hospital. Is the Minister satisfied that people subject to CTOs will have adequate access to advocacy under the Bill? Is he satisfied that information on rights to mental health advocates will be clear enough? My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are concerned that the answer to those questions is no, which is why we tabled the amendment.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 6, page 13, line 6, at end insert— “(c) after subsection (6) insert— ‘(6A) Any person subject to a community treatment order must be informed orally and in writing at the time of the making of the order of their right to an independent mental health advocate under section 130A of this Act.’” The amendment would ensure that people who are to be subject to a community treatment order would receive information about their right to advocacy.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the Committee will forgive me if I take some time to address the various amendments in this group. Amendment 48 would ensure that care and treatment plans do not stop at clinical intervention and address the underlying social and financial stressors that contribute to the cycle of poor mental health, and crucially, to avoidable future detention under the Mental Health Act. We know that treatment is not just medication and monitoring. For many, the tipping point for crisis is social and financial stressors. The relationship between debt and mental health has been well documented. Nearly half of those behind on their bills experience mental health problems. Those experiencing mental ill health are three times more likely to be behind on at least one key payment—such as rent, energy bills or credit cards—compared with those without mental health problems. Social stressors are likely to be even more severe for people from racially diverse communities and the LGBT community, and disabled people. Including these stressors in care plans will help to address disproportionate detention rates and support more equitable care.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), and I am sure many in this room will remember his passionate speech about his constituent Declan Morrison, who has inspired many of these amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his help with my notes. Amendment 20 would require integrated care boards to establish and maintain appropriate crisis accommodation specifically designed for people with autism and learning disability, as one its duties in relation to registers of people at risk of detention. Currently, just over 2,000 people with autism or learning disabilities are detained in mental health hospitals for an average of five years. Over half of delayed discharges are due to a lack of suitable housing or accommodation. The crisis provision created in Cambridgeshire after my hon. Friend’s constituent Declan passed away was operating at 90% capacity before funding was withdrawn. When we hear Declan’s story, we realise the severe implications behind the amendment and why it is being put forward. We must also recognise that there has been a significant increase in section 136 use over the past 10 years. Many of the suites being used are outdated, unable to keep up with demand and unfit for purpose. The amendment would therefore make appropriate crisis accommodation a statutory duty, and I hope all Members would agree that there is a desperate need for such accommodation, specifically for autistic people and those with learning disabilities. It would also require there to be specialist training for staff. We have already referenced today how important training is when it comes to protecting those who are in crisis and who need support. Finally, it would provide for safe, alternative detention under section 136, preventing situations such as that experienced by the hon. Friend’s constituent, where a vulnerable person is held in inappropriate emergency settings for extended periods. Amendments 10 and 22 are both designed to ensure that there are sufficient resources for people with autism or learning disabilities. On amendment 10, it is crucial that community services are properly resourced to meet the needs of people with autism and learning disabilities. Too many of us will have seen how inadequate community services make detention and in-patient care much more likely, which is worse for the person detained, far more costly and unsustainable in the long term. Our amendments place duties on the integrated care board at the local level, and the Secretary of State at the national level, to be transparent about gaps in provision and to take steps to eliminate them. Amendment 22 would require an integrated care board to conduct an assessment of the availability and adequacy of the relevant services within its area for people with autism or learning disabilities who have specified risk factors for detention, and to set out a plan to respond to those findings. There is currently an absence of suitable placements, with over 100 places that were contacted having no single bed available. We cannot continue with such a situation, given the significant implications when things go wrong. Through those amendments, we are asking for an assessment, because there is currently no systematic assessment of whether services match demand, which is crucial to ensuring that the Bill is workable in the long term. It is also acknowledged that it may take 10 years to fully implement the Bill and to ensure that additional clinical and judicial staff are trained. Amendment 21 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. It would establish an accelerated implementation timeline for provisions related to autism and learning disabilities, requiring those provisions to be fully implemented within two years. Currently, just over 2,000 autistic people and people with learning disabilities are detained in mental health hospitals who are being let down by the system. The Government have sadly already missed the targets, and we cannot afford to wait another decade—people’s lives are too important. In fact, the UN Human Rights Committee has called on the UK to end the detention of people with disabilities based solely on their disability. Every day that we wait means more people at risk of tragic outcomes. As I said, the amendment would establish a two-year deadline, and it recognises that these are some of the most urgent reforms in the Bill. I ask the Government to consider them as a priority. Finally, amendment 24, which was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, would establish an accelerated implementation timeline of services related to autism and learning disabilities, by again requiring them to be implemented within two years. I reiterate what we heard in the Chamber, which I am sure we will all hear in our inboxes and in conversations with our residents: it is crucial that we implement these changes at pace; otherwise, we risk failing individuals with autism and learning disabilities further.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Court Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met representatives of the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre in my constituency. They support hundreds of survivors every year through counselling, advice, and carrying out vital prevention work in schools and the wider community, but, as they explained to me, their work is being undermined by a justice system that is in crisis. Trials are routinely delayed, sometimes for up to four years, owing to a chronic shortage of judges, and as a result some victims are considering dropping their cases—not because they do not want justice, but because they cannot cope with such a traumatic experience. That is a gross injustice. I am grateful to the Minister for her answer, but will she expand specifically on how the Government will help to prevent re-traumatisation in the court backlog process, and on how they will continue to fund organisations such as RASASC?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Easter Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to take part in this Easter Adjournment debate. I always find that these end-of-term debates really enlighten me about fellow Members of the House, their constituencies and the issues that are important to their constituents. Before I talk about something close to my own constituency and heart, I associate myself with the contribution of the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) and the thanks that she gave to Surrey police. My own borough team in Guildford has been fantastic, just as hers has been, in supporting our town centre by dealing with antisocial behaviour. I note the absolutely cracking contribution and egg-cellent Easter puns from the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer). I will stop there with the Easter puns and move on to my constituency. I will use my time to highlight an issue in my constituency that has both national and local significance. I hope that action on the issue will not just resolve it in Guildford, but help to drive long-term change in the way we support charities and businesses during multi-year infrastructure projects. Many Members will be aware of the extensive redevelopment works taking place at junction 10 of the M25, near the Royal Horticultural Society garden at Wisley. The redevelopment works started in November 2022 and were due to finish in summer 2025, but sadly it has been confirmed recently that that will not be the case; they will finish in approximately spring 2026. That is four years of disruption for local residents and businesses. Ultimately, the project should improve the junction, but—it is a very big “but”—there have been serious consequences for RHS Wisley and our much-loved local café, Ockham Bites, alongside frustration and disruption for local residents in villages around the junction and everyone who has had to travel through it. While the two places are very different in scale, both have seen a significant loss. Ockham Bites is losing £600 a day, and RHS Wisley predicts that by the end of the project it will have lost £11 million. These financial losses were highlighted in the early days of the project but dismissed on the basis that current legislation compensates only on the value of property, not for loss of business. For RHS Wisley, the loss has had far-reaching consequences. Plans for new arboretums have been delayed, funding for scientific research has been reduced and community outreach programmes have been scaled back. The impact goes beyond my constituency and the garden itself through to the communities around Guildford and other RHS sites across the country. They are being forced to consider cuts to training opportunities, with a projected 10% reduction in workplace student horticulturalist positions over the next two years. I am sure that Members of the House will be very sad to hear all those things about RHS Wisley. I know that residents in my constituency, as well as people across the country, feel strongly about this issue. A petition that is currently live has 92,000 signatures, and that number keeps increasing. I pause to thank my colleague Baroness Benjamin, who has been highlighting this matter in the other place, for the answers she has gained from Members of the House of Lords on the issues surrounding the problem at RHS Wisley. Will the hon. Member for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen) encourage the Transport Secretary to respond to my request to meet me and representatives of RHS Wisley? Returning to Ockham Bites and its fantastic cakes and tea, it has suffered big financial losses for a small business. There have also been problems with water, and all those things combined have forced the owner to make serious personal and professional adjustments, including relocating their home and dealing with heightened stress levels. These two businesses’ stories are of very different scales, but they highlight a serious flaw in current legislation. We should not be leaving small businesses, charities and other organisations struggling financially and potentially failing due to multi-year infrastructure projects. Not only are those organisations the lifeblood of our communities; they are fundamental to our economic success. I hope that Ministers will agree to meet me and work to find a way to support those businesses, and commit to reviewing the legislation to ensure that their stories are not repeated and that future multi-year infrastructure projects are delivered without leaving key parts of our local economy and community behind. I want to close on a positive note in this afternoon’s fantastic debate by giving a cheeky little encouragement to everyone in the Chamber, if they have not yet experienced RHS Wisley or their local RHS garden, to please go and enjoy them during the Easter recess. I also echo my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) in encouraging Members and the public, when enjoying the great outdoors, to be fire safe. Finally, I hope that all Members of this House and all the staff, security and police have a restorative Easter, and I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for leading the debate.

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  When I speak to residents across Guildford, they raise again and again their fear of the impact of debt, and the particular financial problems that we have in Surrey. Local organisations have raised again and again their worries about how those problems will affect their bottom line, and the funds that they need to serve residents when councils no longer provide services. Will the Minister agree to meet all Surrey MPs to discuss how the Government will address the issues of Surrey’s finances? So far, we have not been involved in those conversations.

• 19 Dec 2024 · Christmas Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  I will use my time in this debate to raise an issue that we have heard so much about over the last six months: the crisis in special educational needs. Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting a coffee morning held by Family Voice in my constituency of Guildford. I was honoured to hear some stories from a group of mums who shared their experiences relating to their children’s journeys, and trying to get support for those young people. Every single one of them stressed to me how challenging those journeys have been, with emails going unanswered; caseworkers who go on holiday and never come back; months—sometimes years—of their children not being able to attend education; thousands of pounds spent on private assessments to get the support that their children need, or appealing decisions made by the local authority; and fighting every day to be heard, and the exhaustion that that brings. The thing that distressed me most was the moment when one mum shared that, as a result of the whole process, she had considered suicide. Then another mum said the same thing. How are we in a position that the process that is designed to support and provide for young people is creating so much distress that families are at breaking point and even considering ending their own lives? I am deeply grateful to Education Ministers for making it very clear that the Government are committed to addressing the SEND crisis, and I hope to be able to work with the Government to address it in 2025. I will tell the House two very quick stories to emphasise how desperately the situation needs to change. The first is that of a 17-year-old woman in my constituency who has been out of school for five and a half years. She was not able to do her GCSEs. She was given a placement in October at a place where she has thrived. She has said herself that she has felt seen and has found her community, but that placement has not yet been renewed by the local authority. She has been failed, and the hope that was there has potentially been ripped away. The second story is that of a nine-year-old boy with autism and pathological demand avoidance. The local authority, Surrey, sent him to an independent school in 2022 to provide for his needs. That school has now said that it cannot provide for those needs. It has removed his placement and said that it will not hold the place while his family try to find a school. I find that deeply unacceptable. They are apparently not the only family who has experienced that off-rolling, but Surrey says that the families have elected to home-school. Will the Minister ask a colleague to meet me to discuss the practice of off-rolling, which I am sure is happening not just in my own constituency? I reiterate that so many of us will have received deeply distressing emails seeking support from our residents. These are the people who are able to advocate for themselves. How many families are unable, for various reasons, to advocate for themselves? As we try to fix the SEND crisis, we must remember that we do so not just for the families we hear from every day in our inboxes. At the moment, I have nearly 50 separate cases, but we are also seeking to fix the crisis for those families we do not know about. I hope that we will be able to work across the House in 2025 to fix this crisis, because we cannot and must not continue to allow our children to be failed.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Improving Public Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing the debate on this important topic. As the Member for the Guildford constituency, I could probably bore for the south-east of England when it comes to the public transport challenges we face. I recognise that in comparison with colleagues from across the House we do have very good public transport, but it still is not good enough and my residents regularly get in touch with me to tell me so. For too long, our transport networks were neglected by the previous Conservative Government, leaving transport users frustrated by delays, poor accessibility and high costs. For us to achieve the greener, fairer and more thriving future that I am sure all of us here want for our communities, high-quality public transport is essential. In my consistency of Guildford, we have two long-proposed railway stations: Guildford West and Merrow. These stations were first suggested 10 years ago and we have had barely any progress. The main reason? Funding. Or, rather, the lack of funding. For those not in the know, building a railway station costs upwards of £25 million, with at least half of that spent on planning before a single shovel breaks the ground. That financial barrier has left residents waiting far longer than they should for essential infrastructure. Yet even as we struggle to deliver new stations, existing ones remain inaccessible for too many. I am, of course, talking about the issue of step-free access. In my constituency, stations such as Clandon, Effingham Junction and Horsley still lack basic accessibility for my residents to be able to access the train in their rural area. Instead, they have to go to other, larger places such as Guildford and Dorking. We must support those in wheelchairs, but step-free access is also about making life easier for parents with prams, people with invisible mobility challenges and anyone who finds steps a barrier. Without doing so, we prevent people from choosing greener public transport. That is a matter of fairness and inclusion but, just like the new stations, it comes with a significant price tag. With the news this week that South Western Railway will be moving to public ownership next year, it is my sincere hope that the urgent improvements we need will start to take place and we will see an end to accessibility deserts. But railways are just one part of the public transport puzzle. In the villages of my constituency, like many rural and semi-rural areas, buses are a lifeline for residents and businesses, yet far too often routes are being cut, services are deeply unreliable and communities are being left isolated. From our extensive experience in local government, those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches know that local solutions work best. That is why, personally, I would like the Government to look at empowering borough, district, town and parish councils to run their own localised bus services, not just the county level transport authorities. These councils know their communities and can deliver the targeted services that people need. I have spoken to people running some of the larger town and parish councils, and they would like at least the opportunity to consider commercial shuttle bus services. Some of them have the financial potential to do so, but cannot because it is currently illegal. It is in the gift of the Government to change that. Along with a number of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I have campaigned for many years for solutions to our public transport woes. My constituents completely understand the frustration shared by everyone else in the country about the delays and the difficulties that result from the inadequacy of public transport. The answer is, of course, investment. I have said this before to Conservative colleagues, and I say it again now: “Please don’t be shy. Borrow our ideas, and with those ideas—for our manifesto is always fully costed—we can deliver railway stations, we can deliver step-free access, and we can deliver buses for residents, communities and businesses, so that our communities can thrive.”

• 8 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that large energy suppliers work with community energy organisations to generate and sell electricity locally at discounted rates, and provide fair community benefits, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats?

• 11 Sept 2024 · Building Safety and Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by congratulating the hon. Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on their excellent maiden speeches, which gave a real flavour of their constituencies and their constituents. Today’s debate highlights once again the wider issues of building safety and poverty. The safety of the buildings that house people and their families should not be subject to their economic status, and we must work together across the House to level the playing field to provide safety for all in this country. There is clearly much work to be done to achieve this, and I am grateful to the Minister for noting that we will have an opportunity to further discuss this issue at a future date. It is with immense pride that I can say that in July, on my third attempt, I was elected to represent the residents of the Guildford constituency, the place that has been my home for the past 25 years. In my speech at the count following my election, I made a commitment to my residents that I will be an MP for everyone in my constituency, including those whose voices have gone unheard for too long. I reiterate that promise today. I first stood for elected office in 2008, driven by a love for my community and a deep frustration that my area of Bellfields and Slyfield was being failed by the Conservatives. I dedicated myself to helping those at risk of losing their homes, working on community projects and being the voice of my community fighting for change in the council chamber. Some 16 years later, I am here in this Chamber because of my frustration following 14 years of Conservative failure that has, once again, left communities across Guildford and the whole country struggling. I am also here because the people of Guildford felt that too. They said, “Enough is enough”, and felt that I could be their voice for change in this great Chamber. I am honoured by the trust they have placed in me. We are here as MPs to serve our residents, our constituencies and our country. I hope that will always be at the forefront of our minds as we fulfil our work as MPs, and particularly as we speak in this Chamber and as we vote. Speaking of service, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank my predecessors, Angela Richardson, Anne Milton and Sir Paul Beresford, part of whose former constituency is now part of the constituency of Guildford. Angela and Anne served Guildford, its residents and businesses with determination for 14 years. I thank them on behalf of our constituents. Now, on to my wonderful constituency. Guildford is an ancient town. The earliest human activity in the area was in the mesolithic era and it is mentioned in Alfred the Great’s will from 880 AD. The name Guildford means golden ford, which comes from the golden banks at the river crossing below St Catherine’s chapel, but that was not the only golden watermark in this election. In June, we saw a golden tide of Liberal Democrat MPs, with 72 elected across the country, including six of us in Surrey. This victory is a message of change for our country and I am very much looking forward to working with my fellow Lib Dem MPs, particularly on the issues of special educational needs and disabilities and Thames Water. As an MP, I am especially committed to addressing the cost of living crisis that continues to push too many people into poverty, trapped by a crisis not of their own making. We must lift people out of hardship, ensuring that everyone has access to the services they need, without draining their pockets. I am sure that colleagues throughout the Chamber will agree that the fact that over 3 million people across the UK rely on Trussell Trust food banks alone in 2023-24 is a disgrace. It is a blight on our country and it must end. Guildford is not only a historic town but a modern hub of innovation, often referred to as the Hollywood of the computer gaming industry, and home to many high-tech businesses at the cutting edge of envirotech, defence, space and more. Our town is a tech hub that draws on the legacy of our constituency: Ada Lovelace, the mother of computing, lived at Horsley Towers in my constituency for many years, and Alan Turing, whose genius continues to be honoured through the Alan Turing Institute at my alma mater, the University of Surrey, had his childhood home in Guildford. My constituency is also blessed with breathtaking natural beauty, from the stunning RHS Wisley to the Surrey hills and our many National Trust properties, including the River Wey navigation, which the National Trust also manages. As MP, I am committed to balancing the continued evolution and success of my town and surrounding villages with protecting the natural beauty of my constituency for generations to come. That is why I will be championing in the House the cause of cleaning up our rivers. The River Wey, which flows through the heart of Guildford town and through the villages to the east of my constituency, has been the lifeblood of Guildford for centuries. It is central to Guildford’s identity, its history, residents’ leisure time and its future. The levels of pollution being recorded in our river month after month are disgusting, and that is impacting the health of nature, animals and residents. It is time to clean up our rivers and bring to an end the stories I hear too often on the doorsteps, about residents becoming unwell after going in the water. As one example, I met the coach of a children’s cricket team earlier this year who shared how, in 2023, his young team went for an end of season celebratory dip in the River Wey. Every single one of those children became ill after going in the river. I will end with two final thoughts. The first comes from my time studying music at the University of Surrey. It taught me the importance of harmony, both in art and in life. It is my sincere hope that together in this Chamber, over the coming years, we can create a symphony of voices, change the divisive rhetoric of the last few years and restore public trust in politics and politicians. If we do not, I worry about the future we leave for future generations. Finally, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my friends and family, particularly my husband, Chris, and my sons, Reuben and Josh, who have supported me every step of the journey to this place and continue to walk it with me. Without their love, encouragement and occasional campaigning skills I would not be here today.