Zöe Franklin MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

• 29 Jun 2026 · Child Poverty · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

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

  More

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

• 4 Jun 2026 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

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

• 4 Jun 2026 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

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

• 27 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to thank the Government for agreeing to put that on the face of the Bill. I turn now to the issue of brownfield development. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches continue to believe that development must follow a clear principle of brownfield first—not green belt by default, and certainly not the vague concept of grey belt. From experience in my constituency, I know how important that principle is in practice. Brownfield first is not an abstract planning preference; it is how we protect the precious green spaces that communities value most. Across Guildford, we have brownfield sites that currently cannot be developed because of severe flooding constraints. With the right flood alleviation investment, including support from the Government, these sites could come forward for housing and regeneration; without that support, pressure inevitably shifts on to surrounding green spaces. Ministers have talked a lot about embedding environmental considerations across their programme, but it is difficult to reconcile that with continued resistance to practical, deliverable measures. If we are serious about sustainable growth, we must support councils to reuse land responsibly, not force them to make false choices between meeting housing need and protecting the environment. I set out my party’s position on local authority governance last week, but as the Government are again seeking to reject the Lords amendment on this issue, it bears repeating. We Liberal Democrats do not believe that compelling local authorities to change governance arrangements that were chosen democratically by the communities they serve is devolution; that is direction from central Government, dressed up as localism. Ministers are demanding that councils give up systems that work for them—not because local people have called for change, but because Whitehall prefers a different model. That fundamentally undermines the principle that this Bill claims to advocate. Devolution is about trust, and devolution without choice is not devolution at all. We continue to differ from the Government on whether this Bill really does deliver devolution, but I hope that Ministers will see today not as the end of the conversation but as the beginning of a more ambitious programme, building on what I imagine will be set out in the King’s Speech. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches stand ready and look forward to working constructively with the Government to achieve real devolution. Local government is the bedrock of our democracy. It shapes the daily lives of our constituents, often more directly than this House does. If we are serious about renewing trust in our democratic institutions, we must start there—by trusting communities, respecting their choices and giving them a real voice over the decisions that affect their lives. This is the test of true devolution, and it is one that we still must strive to meet.

• 27 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. We have fought for the amendment consistently because rural communities are indeed overlooked too often, and it would put them at the heart of the Bill. As I was saying, we support Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, which adds coastal communities to the list of strategic competences, so I am grateful to the Secretary of State for tabling it. Together, the changes ensure that rural and coastal areas are explicitly recognised in the framework of strategic authorities and will be taken into account when powers, funding and responsibilities are devolved. The changes ensure that such areas are explicitly recognised in all decision making. As my hon. Friend says, rural and coastal communities have too often felt overlooked, and their needs really need to be considered properly in the devolution process. We Liberal Democrats have long championed these communities, and many of my hon. Friends in this Chamber represent rural and coastal areas. We really welcome the constructive approach that the Government have taken in working with us, and I will continue to press for that spirit of collaboration as this Bill is implemented and, indeed, when further legislation on local government is introduced after the King’s Speech.

• 27 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision not to insist on their disagreement with Lords amendment 2, which proposes the inclusion of rural affairs in the list of competences for strategic authorities.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When it comes to brownfield-first development in my constituency, there is an area in the town centre where we could deliver homes, but that is prevented by the fact that we do not have the money to progress at pace with the necessary flood alleviation scheme. We will be voting to support Lords amendment 26 —we need to keep the provision in the Bill. Local government structures are perhaps the clearest example of how democracy itself is not being devolved by the Government. Our Lords amendment 36 would allow local authorities to determine their own governance structures. Instead, the Government insist on imposing a single model from the centre.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. We saw how the previous Labour Government imposed the cabinet structure on councils up and down the country. True devolution puts the power of choice of local governance methods in the hands of local people and, therefore, an approach that does not allow local councils to change to that committee system is the wrong approach and is not devolution. The Government cannot simply claim to devolve power while denying local areas the ability to keep the system they have chosen or wish to choose. I ask the Minister to clarify whether councils will be able to stay as a committee system and whether she will consider allowing other councils to change to the committee system should the local council team and local people wish to do so. Lords amendment 37 would introduce a national strategy to support and expand parish and town councils. The Government say that that should be left entirely to local decision making, but this is not about removing local choice; it is about whether communities are even given the opportunity to understand what a parish council could mean. Without a national strategy, there is no direction, support or momentum to expand parish governance. I have seen the power of parish councils in my community and constituency. Parish councils give residents a direct voice. They ensure that development works with communities, not against them. At a time when councils are becoming larger and more distant, parish councils keep power close to the people. One of the most compelling things about parish councils is that, where they have a local neighbourhood plan, 25% of the community infrastructure levy goes directly to the local community. Outside parish councils, that figure drops to 15%, which is held centrally.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. Across the country, we can see that giving parish councils power and community assets allows them to look after those assets for the community. I am a massive advocate for that approach and for town and parish councils generally. One final area of Government reluctance on devolving power is around Lords amendment 41 on the agent of change principle. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music. I have seen in my own community the wonderful power that live music venues have to bring people together. The amendment is so crucial to protect community assets and live music venues. Can the Minister advise on whether the guidance that she mentioned will be statutory or non-statutory? We Liberal Democrats will vote to support our Lords colleagues. I want to end, in a spirit of positivity, on what we can do when we work collaboratively. Lords amendment 80, which my colleague Lord Foster of Bath co-sponsored with the Government, genuinely shows what we can do when we work across Benches to improve legislation. Good ideas do not belong to one side, and the amendment reflects that. I will end on my central point: the Bill asks us to believe that it delivers devolution, but devolution cannot simply mean the limited powers that Ministers are willing to relinquish, while so much remains controlled by Whitehall. If we do not trust local communities and their elected leaders with real authority, real decision making and real agency, we have not really devolved power at all. That is why these Lords amendments matter, and it is why we will oppose the Government’s attempts to defeat them.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to start by thanking colleagues across the House in the other place who have worked tirelessly to improve this Bill, in particular the Liberal Democrat peers Baroness Pidgeon, Lord Foster of Bath, Baroness Bakewell and Lord Shipley. As we on these Liberal Democrat Benches have said throughout the passage of the Bill, it has potential but it does not amount to true devolution, and I sincerely hope that after the next King’s Speech we will see more real devolution and more on neighbourhood governance. What this Bill offers is power handed down with strings attached—shaped and constrained by central Government rather than genuinely entrusted to local communities. The Government’s response to the Lords amendments before us only reinforces that fact. The Government say that the Bill rebalances power away from Whitehall, but their response to the amendments tells a different story, resisting even the most modest steps that would give local areas more clarity, flexibility and control. I believe that those are the real hallmarks of devolution. Let me start with where I feel power is being withheld. Our Lords amendment 2 would ensure that rural affairs were properly recognised within the competencies of strategic authorities. The Government say that that is unnecessary and that non-statutory guidance will suffice. I appreciate that the Minister has moved forward on this issue, but I take the view that without a clear legal requirement, rural areas risk being overlooked, as they too often are at the moment. There must be a duty, either in the Bill or through statutory guidance, to ensure that rural communities are properly considered. Non-statutory guidance can, sadly, be ignored because it creates no obligation. This really matters. Rural areas are already under pressure, facing higher delivery costs and feeling the strain of the recent funding review. Without a clear duty, they risk once again becoming an afterthought. We see the same pattern when we look at how power is exercised. Lords amendment 4 would ensure transparency in the appointment of mayoral commissioners. The Government again say that the guidance is enough, but these are unelected positions with real influence. Transparency should never be optional in any layer of government. The guidance speaks of visibility and accountability, yet says nothing about merit-based selection. Concerns about patronage are quietly acknowledged but not addressed structurally. If the Government believe that appointments should be fair and open—that is what I firmly believe, and we can clearly see that that is what the public expect—they should have no hesitation in putting that principle into law. Lords amendment 13 moved by my colleague in the Lords, Baroness Pidgeon, would strengthen democratic oversight of the Mayor of London’s budget. Put simply, a two-thirds threshold is not a safeguard; it is a barrier to effective scrutiny. A simple majority is not radical; it is democratic. Londoners deserve an Assembly that can genuinely hold the mayor to account. We also see the Government’s lack of true devolution in how planning decisions are shaped on the ground. Lords amendment 26 would embed a genuine brownfield-first approach. The Government say that the policy already achieves that, but the reality is different. Developers are often incentivised to build on greenfield or grey belt land because it is quicker and cheaper. The reality in my own constituency is that the majority of large planning applications are coming forward on green belt and grey belt. That is undermining public trust in development altogether. People recognise that we need more homes and they want more homes, but the way they see it happening undermines their trust in the process. Brownfield sites may be more complex, but they come with infrastructure, connectivity and the opportunity for real regeneration. Once again, if the Government are serious about that priority, it should be reflected in law, not left to policy alone.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 31 would require the Secretary of State to use regulations to ensure that the Electoral Commission established a fund to help disabled candidates meet additional disability-related campaign costs in England. Historically in England, the access to elected office fund and the EnAble fund provided funding for practical support and reasonable adjustments to remove barriers for disabled candidates standing for election. That could include help with communication, transport or personal assistance, not general campaign costs. The interim £250,000 EnAble fund was launched in 2018. It involved a two-stage approval process, with an independent panel of experts on disability as well as the political groups of the Local Government Association. In total, 41 candidates were awarded funding and 45% of those were elected. In the 2022 Scottish local elections, 46 people got support from a similar fund available in Scotland; of those, 22 were elected. Based on those numbers, I would suggest that the types of funds that provide support make a tangible difference. However, the English fund was discontinued in 2020 and, although I understand the Government have indicated that they wish to do something about that, it has not yet been reinstated and an alternative has not been put forward. That leaves a distinct inequality between the different nations of Britain—Wales and Scotland both have funded schemes; England does not. Representation in politics is crucial, whether here in Parliament or in our council chambers across the country. The House of Commons Library estimates that 25% of the UK population is disabled, with 24% of working adults stating that they are disabled. A truly representative parliamentary House would have 156 MPs indicating that they have a disability, yet only 12 declare themselves as having a disability—less than 2% of Parliament. According to the Local Government Association’s 2022 census, approximately 15% of local authority councillors in England declared a disability or long-term health condition. Essentially, we are consistently not returning a set of councillors or MPs that is truly representative of the people we seek to serve. In my view, that is a wrong that needs to be corrected. Establishing a new fund in England to provide that support is absolutely crucial. That change is supported by Elect Her, Centenary Action, the Jo Cox Foundation, Unlock Democracy, the Fawcett Society, the Disability Policy Centre and others. This Bill is the opportunity to right this wrong. I would welcome hearing whether the Minister agrees with the new clause. I hope that she will but if she does not, will she outline how the Government plan to support candidates with disabilities and to address this glaring disparity between the nations? We really must do better when it comes to representation of people with disabilities in our politics. The other new clauses are also important; they continue the theme of ensuring that our democracy is truly representative of the people we serve. New clause 34 would require the Secretary of State to bring section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 into force within three months of Royal Assent. New clause 35 would place a duty in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which is the main law governing political parties, campaign finance, donations and so on, requiring the Electoral Commission to publish the information in an accessible form. It would also give Ministers the power to require registered political parties to publish anonymised information about the diversity of the people coming forward as candidates—for example, information about protected characteristics among applicants, selected candidates and elected candidates. This duty applies only so far as it is possible to publish characteristics while, of course, retaining the privacy of the people it is referencing. For a long time, we have as a nation talked about ensuring that that information is made available. In March 2026, the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) stated: “The Government is committed to commencing section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, requiring registered political parties to publish anonymised data relating to the diversity of their candidate selections…officials are currently exploring when and how to commence the provision under section 106.” She said that there would be an update “in due course”. That was then repeated in the House of Lords. That statement took place a while ago, yet we have not seen any movement as yet. Again, I personally feel that this Bill gives the opportunity to enact that section of the Equality Act. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister whether she supports the amendment and, if she does not, when the Government will bring into force section 106 of the Equality Act.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Local Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  May I take this opportunity to wish you a happy Easter, Mr Speaker? Under the previous Government, youth funding was reduced by approximately 70% and universal provision was impacted the most. Although we on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the youth strategy, I am very concerned that local government reorganisation will result in a continued reduction in youth provision in our communities. We need to remember that the voluntary sector so often picks up the pieces; I see that in my constituency. It does a brilliant job, but it should not be down to the sector alone. Will the Minister advise on what assessment has been made of the impact of local government reorganisation on youth provision in areas beyond the promised 50 Young Futures hubs?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Just before Easter, a development of 500-plus homes in my constituency, predicated on building a brand-new Howard of Effingham school, was withdrawn after a decade of commitment to the plan. The developer is expected to proceed with a new application without a school. The community and school are understandably angry and upset. What powers does the Minister have to ensure that developers can be held to such long-term commitments, and will he meet me to discuss the issue and its implications in my constituency and more widely?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  It is deeply disappointing that this matter is being addressed today through an urgent question, and was not addressed yesterday through a proper statement from the Government. As I have said, the Liberal Democrats support devolution and reorganisation where that strengthens communities, but changes must be locally led, properly consulted on, adequately funded and never top-down. In recent months, I have spoken to local government leaders across the country, and their really clear and consistent message is, “First, trust us. Secondly, work with us to fix the broken local government funding system,” which is leaving councils struggling to meet rising costs and needs. While the decisions announced for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk provide clarity—even if areas remain concerned about viability and sustainability—they fail to address those fundamental issues. In the case of Sussex, the Government have essentially dismissed the local proposals, and have instead chosen to consult on their own plans, leaving the county in another period of uncertainty. Does the Minister recognise that that approach undermines trust between national and local government? Has her Department fully assessed the financial consequences of the proposals for reorganisation in those areas and across the country? Will she commit to a cross-party piece of work, carried out with local leaders, on creating a fair, adequate and long-term funding settlement for councils?

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

  More

  Q I guess the question is whether there is more that could be done, potentially through this Bill, to empower every single person in our democracy to vote. Councillor Golds: I have witnessed this several times in my life. I remember, after ’83, taking a blind woman to vote and watching the presiding officer do the process. He said, “I am clearing this area,” and he took the lady over and discussed it with her. He said, “Mr Jones, the Labour party candidate. Mr Smith, the Conservative party candidate. Mr Brown, the Liberal Democrat party candidate.” Then he asked, “Who do you wish to vote for?” She said so quietly and he marked the ballot paper. It was done incredibly professionally. I have seen it done with people with disabilities, where sometimes they are taken into a side room. What we are talking about goes straight back to where we began—it is the case that people do not know. The facility is there, you just need to get people to know. Harry Busz: From our observations back in 2024, we found that there are two separate issues. One is the polling station building and whether that is accessible—importantly, independently accessible—for somebody to get to the presiding officer’s desk and a polling booth. Second is the type of aids that are there for them to be able to vote independently. It is very difficult to find the correct buildings and buildings that are accessible. Councils struggle, election to election, to go, “We have this much time. We need to find these spaces.” Over the last few years, we have seen a real improvement in the type of aids that are given to people. We have gone from just having a tactile voting device and maybe a pencil grip to a lot more councils having things like lighting and QR codes with audio lists of candidates on, which is really encouraging. There are lots of countries around the world where we observe far greater levels of accessibility aids. I remember once seeing somebody in the USA, who was paralysed from the neck down, being able to vote independently by blowing through a straw—I did not really understand how that worked. There are ways that we can improve. Obviously, it all costs a lot of money. Some of the opportunities to make elections more accessible for people could be through advanced voting, and having voting hubs and specialised pieces of equipment in a single polling station, which anybody could use if they were voting in advance of the election.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 3 Mar 2026 · Community Cohesion · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 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.

• 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.