Zöe Franklin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jun 2026 · Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We Liberal Democrats are pleased by the reversion to SV and are grateful to the Government for it. We would have liked them to go further and introduce the alternative vote system, but, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned, such discussions have already been had in full. Before I end by saying that we will support the Government, let me ask the Minister whether the Government will make an order about police and crime commissioner elections in time to ensure that the surprise such election in Norfolk—because there has been a recent resignation—can take place under the SV system. The Government have established that that is a much fairer system so, given that we are making this shift, it seems wrong for that unexpected PCC election to take place under the old system, potentially wasting £2 million of expenses for an election under a system that the Government have admitted is unfair. The Liberal Democrats will support the draft order. In future, however, we would like to see change go further, and we will continue to press for that.

• 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—

• 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.

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 33 Impact of the Act on trust in elections (1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report into the impact of the Act’s provisions on trust in elections. (2) Any report made under subsection (1) must make proposals on any further measures required to increase trust in elections. (3) For the purposes of this section, “trust in elections” includes public confidence in the fairness of elections, the voting systems used, and the representativeness of election results. (4) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult— (a) the Electoral Commission; (b) the Scottish Ministers; (c) the Welsh Ministers; (d) the relevant Northern Ireland department; and (e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”— (Zöe Franklin.) Brought up, and read the First time .

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

  More

  I hear what the Minister is saying, and I am really pleased that the Government are undertaking that process, but what concerns me is that we go through sets of elections again and again without consistency across the nations. Some in our nations are supported to stand so that have a more representative democracy, while others—here in England—are not. I am willing to withdraw my new clause, but I would appreciate it if the Minister committed to sharing a timeline. More importantly, will she commit to making information more available publicly—certainly to organisations working in this space and MPs—about what is happening about a fund to support candidates with disabilities? The same applies to my new clauses about section 106 of the Equalities Act. One of the reasons why the new clauses had to be tabled is that, although the Government have said things on the public record, they have not shared what is happening behind the scenes. This is a matter of public interest. I will not press the new clauses to a vote, but I would appreciate it if the Minister came back on those queries.

• 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.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. As has come up repeatedly in the Committee, trust in elections is in a very difficult place at the moment. As MPs, we really need to consider how we can address the lack of confidence that the public have in our political system and, frankly, in the voting system that is used and whether the results feel representative. While we continue to face a flood of foreign money and powerful actors working to undermine our social fabric and interfere in public life, we must make sure that we are improving the public’s confidence in the face of those threats. The requirement to consult the devolved Governments is essential, as this law would apply across all four nations, and trust deficits are not uniform. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a voice in assessing the impact in devolved elections. The Government are already taking very welcome steps in the Bill to modernise elections, and we have the opportunity to make further reforms. One of the most powerful causes of disillusionment within politics is a sense that people’s votes just do not count—that they turn up on polling day and their voice simply disappears into a system that does not reflect it. We believe that any serious review of representativeness has to grapple with that, and that any Bill looking to reform our elections should consider how to change that perception and the voting system to better reflect what or who people are actually voting for. The Bill presents an opportunity for the Government, but we believe they are grasping it only in part. We need to recognise that the threat is real and urgent. Mis and disinformation and the concentration of power in the hands of too few are undermining public trust. The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove seeks to address that. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

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

  More

  The new clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), goes to the heart of this basic question: who does our democracy serve—voters or those with the deepest pockets? It would introduce a cap on political donations from any one individual or entity each year, with that cap set following independent review and approved by Parliament. It would ensure that the level is kept under regular review so that it remains appropriate over time. At present, there is no upper limit on political donations in the UK, which is a striking gap in our system that allows vast sums to be given by a single donor, creating the risk of disproportionate influence by an individual. Already, too many people across the UK look at our politics and see a system that appears to be tilted towards those with wealth and access. They question whether decisions are made in the public interest, or in the interests of those who can afford to make the largest contributions. That is unsustainable, and it undermines our democracy. My hon. Friend wishes to be clear that the new clause is not about stopping people supporting political parties; it is about drawing a reasonable line to ensure that no individual or organisation can dominate political funding simply because of the scale of their resources. There is also a clear issue with integrity and security. While there are rules on permissible donors, there remain loopholes that allow money to be routed through UK-registered companies and complex structures, which creates a real risk of foreign or opaque influence on our politics. A cap alone would not resolve that problem, but it would significantly limit its scale. The new clause seeks to take a careful, balanced approach to the issue. It does not impose an arbitrary figure, but instead requires an independent, evidence-based review to recommend the level of the cap, considering economic considerations, democratic participation and political competition. It would place that decision firmly within a transparent and accountable process. Ultimately, elections should be decided by voters persuaded by the strength of arguments, the quality of ideas and the credibility of leadership—I do not think that any member of the Committee would disagree with that. They should not be about the scale of financial backing. If we allow money to operate without meaningful limits, we undermine the fundamental democratic principle that every voice should carry equal weight. I do not wish to press the new clause to a vote, but I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it. With your permission, Sir Desmond, I will also speak to new clause 54, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove. The Committee has established that, unfortunately, public trust in political funding—and sometimes in democracy itself—is at a very low point. With donations in the millions from a handful of wealthy individuals, spending wars between parties and loopholes that undermine the spirit of the rules, there is a public perception that politics can be bought and that elections can be won through the donations of the few. I think we would all agree that that is not a place we want to be. New clause 54 calls for a royal commission to look at the evidence properly and make recommendations, which would allow for a level of independence and cross-party process. The current system allows single donors to give millions to a party, which raises legitimate questions about whose interests are being served. There are limited financial provisions on long campaigns; significant money is spent well before the official period begins and the limits do not catch that. The Liberal Democrats have long called for greater transparency in political spending; the real-time disclosure of donations, a cap on political donations and annual expenditure limits sits squarely within that agenda.

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

  More

  It was very good to hear from the Minister setting out this group of clauses. The Liberal Democrats are very pleased it seeks to address the hostility towards those who administer our elections. As colleagues on the Conservative Benches and the Minister have outlined, they play such an important part in our democracy. Amendment 38 and new clause 55 in my name address the need for there also to be protection for the families and staff of candidates. I was a member of the Speaker’s Conference, and I would like to put it on record how pleased I am to see so many of its recommendations in the Bill. We considered in quite some depth the issue of abuse of candidates. The survey of MPs and their staff highlighted the nature of the abuse and intimidation they experience, and the sad reality that it is not limited to them. Rather, where a bad actor is unsuccessful or unable to silence the candidate directly, they turn to the people around them. That can be partners, children or staff. We firmly believe that should not be deemed to be okay in the eyes of the law, and that it needs to be addressed. New clause 55 amends the Elections Act 2022 so that relatives and staff of candidates are a protected category for the purposes of hostility-based disqualification and related provisions, defining “relative” by reference to the Family Law Act 1996, and “staff” as people “employed by or working under the direction” of a candidate. Amendment 38 amends clause 71 of the Bill to include candidates’ relatives and staff in the list for the hostility aggravating factor. I hope that the Minister and the Government will support those important provisions. If they do not, could the Minister please outline how the Bill as drafted already covers candidates’ relatives and staff, or what the justification is for leaving such a gap?

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for her comments, but I sadly remain unconvinced that we are addressing the significant problems that overseas voters are encountering when they seek to be involved with our democracy. They may live overseas, but they are still British citizens and deserve to be able to cast their vote. I will not press new clauses 6 and 7, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot, to a Division. However, I intend to press new clause 8 to a Division, if that is feasible, Dame Siobhain.

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

  More

  New clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), picks up on the 2024 voting reforms that expanded eligibility for around 1.4 million to 3.4 million people—yet of those individuals, only 191,000 overseas voters are registered. I suggest that that is not a lack of interest in democracy, but a failure of the system to make voting workable for those living abroad. What that means practically is that the UK is now near the bottom internationally for how effectively it enables our overseas citizens to vote. One of the core problems is postal voting, as it does not work reliably for those living overseas. According to the Electoral Commission, only 52% of overseas postal ballots arrive in time to be counted. Following conversations between my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and other organisations—we took evidence on this during the Committee evidence sessions—it is clear that overseas voters are seeking practical changes that would enable them to reliably cast their votes securely and more easily and reliably. The proposed new clause sets out methods for doing so, including secure downloading and printing of ballots and returning ballots to embassies and consulates. It is worth noting that such a system is already used in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain. I turn to new clause 7. Another part of the problem for overseas voters is that they are simply not aware that they can register to vote or of how they can do so. One option, discussed in the Committee evidence sessions, is to provide an opportunity at the passport renewal and application stage, when they could be given this information. When a UK citizen applies for or renews a passport, they already provide proof of identity, their overseas address and their last UK address: everything needed for voter registration. Voters should be simply prompted and given the option to register at that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot is not suggesting that they should be automatically registered, but given that the Bill seeks to roll out automatic voter registration and my hon. Friend has posed the question to the Government, providing an automatic moment to tell people they can register to vote and how to do so would be within the scope of the Bill and an opportunity the Bill could take. I move on to new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). New clause 8 and the associated amendment 3, which is consequential on the new clause and also tabled by my hon. Friend, would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on improving overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024–25 and its review of the general election. With over 3.5 million British citizens abroad eligible to vote, it is important for the Government to use this Bill as an opportunity to break down barriers to voting so that citizens can be fairly represented. In the last general election, fewer citizens abroad were registered to vote than in 2019, in spite of an historic expansion of eligibility to vote following the scrapping of the 10-year rule. I have already outlined in my comments on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot that ballots can end up arriving too late for overseas citizens to be able to cast their votes, and proxies can be problematic to arrange if they no longer have contacts here in the UK to cast votes for them. It is estimated that only 25% of citizens abroad know their rights and that they can vote, and only 48% of postal votes were returned; of course, the number varies slightly depending on which organisation we reference. I have already outlined that there are other countries with systems in place that enable their citizens overseas to cast their vote in an easier, secure and reliable way. So far it appears the Government have been unwilling to take the steps necessary to make things easier for overseas voters. The new clauses are designed to ensure that the Government take steps to investigate how to make overseas voting easier for our constituents. Can the Minister outline whether the Government will support any of the new clauses in the name of my colleagues? If not, can she outline how the Government intend to ensure that overseas voters are able to cast their ballot in a safe, secure and reliable way?

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 8 Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on proposals for facilitating overseas electors to vote in parliamentary elections. (2) The report must consider the feasibility of proposals for— (a) the use of United Kingdom Embassies, High Commissions or consulates as if they were a polling station asset out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983; (b) the digital transmission and printing of ballot papers; (c) voting by telephone; (d) secure electronic voting; (e) changes to deadlines and practices as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983 to enable earlier despatch of ballots for overseas voters; (f) informing overseas voters on early registration and voting options; (g) extended proxy voting arrangements for overseas voters; and (h) any other measures to improve the speed, accuracy and security of voting by overseas electors as the Secretary of State believes appropriate. (3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult— (a) overseas electors; (b) electoral administrators; (c) His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service; and (d) such other persons as the Secretary of State believe appropriate. (4) For the purpose of this section, an “overseas elector” is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.”.— (Zöe Franklin.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on proposals to improve overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024-6, Review of the 2024 general election. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his comments. The Rycroft report has come at a really important time. As a member of the Bill Committee, I look forward to working with the Government to ensure that all the recommendations are brought through, because they are incredibly important. I return to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) about the importance of a report relating to US interference in our democracy. What steps are the Government and the defending democracy taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign interference more generally before the Representation of the People Bill passes through the House?

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

  More

  Q It is interesting to hear you talk about how the Electoral Commission does not have the power it needs in order to act in this very challenging, complex and constantly evolving sphere. From your perspective, what are some of the key changes that would need to be in the Bill to enable us to have that protection and enable the Electoral Commission to keep on top of this? Alexander Browder: Overall, there should be more strict and rigorous requirements for crypto donations, if those are permissible. Specifically, political parties should be required to release the cryptocurrency wallets they receive donations from; they should be required to store the cryptocurrency in UK Financial Conduct Authority-registered companies; and any amount should be reportable. Not only that, but donations involving something called privacy coins should be stopped. A privacy coin is a recent development within the cryptocurrency space and is completely untrackable. One such example is Monero. Privacy coins should not be in the democratic process, because you are not able to verify the donor. Furthermore, laundering services like some I mentioned before—mixers—should not be allowed to be used for political donations, because they make it much harder for the Electoral Commission and political parties to investigate.

• 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.

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

  More

  Q I want to talk a little about automatic and automated registration. This question is for all members of the panel: do you think that there should be active promotion of British citizens living overseas joining the register? A couple of members of the panel have already touched upon that. I have a second part of the same question, which Colin Blackwell has already touched on, in relation to the Passport Office. When overseas UK nationals renew or apply for a passport, might it be a sensible approach to provide those overseas individuals with information about registering to vote? Colin Blackwell: Yes, in one word. That is really precisely what I was trying to say in my previous answer. I renewed a passport from overseas. I provided a local mobile phone number and an email, and there is a healthy two-way interaction: they tell me that my passport has been printed, that it is on its way and so on. There are plenty of opportunities within that interaction to mention it to the overseas citizen. They are already sending me something to ask whether I want to donate my organs, so why can’t they also send something that says, “Do you want to be on the electoral register? This is the link to do it”? Other Government Departments can also follow that. Whether to register or not is ultimately someone’s choice, but they should have the facts, they should have the link, and they should have the knowledge that they have the right to vote. Imogen Tyreman: I also agree. I think being prompted is very important generally, even in conversations with us. Everyone here is giving oral evidence as a member of a political party. We are aware that our right to vote came back, but speaking to our communities of Brits abroad and reaching out to friends and family, not everyone was aware. Some people were not aware that they had regained the right to vote. Renewing your passport is a basic starting point. I would not say it is the end goal, but it is the starting point for getting people back on the electoral register and able to exercise their democratic right in this country that they were given. Richard Williams: I echo all that. The only thing I would say is: why not take things a step further and design an automatic opt-in? There have been studies of automatic opt-ins for organ donation, and you get a much higher acceptance rate if the default is set to opt-in and people are manually asked whether they do not want to let their organs be donated. Why not do the same thing for being on the electoral register? Assume people do want to be on it, unless they do not. Of course, you can then differentiate between the limited and open register and the full register, but I think, at least for the limited one that stays confidential, this could be looked at to make things even easier. Jenny Shorten: Can I echo the point that was just made? If it is right that eligible voters in the UK automatically go on the register, why is it not right for British citizens eligible overseas to be treated in the same way? I think it is a very straightforward answer. It might have to be done by a different method, but the principle should be exactly the same.

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

  More

  Q On that note, I have tabled an amendment about that exact thing—section 106—which specifically asks for the Electoral Commission to be the repository. Do you think that having a centralised hub would be particularly helpful, because it would allow us to look at the data, identify where the issues are and act on that? Dr Garland: It is really important to be able to read across different data sets and see the picture overall. That also means that we need the data to be in a standardised format, coming from each political party. There are ways of doing it that enable parties to retain control of their own data, which is also important, so we need to get that balance right. Of course, anonymity and appropriate levels of disclosure are all really important in that respect.

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

  More

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

• 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.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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