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?

• 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—

• 28 Apr 2026 · Conflict in the Middle East: Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor for her answer. The tensions in the middle east are pushing up energy and food prices, adding further pressure to households who are already struggling due to the cost of living. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister warned this weekend that families face “eight-plus months” of difficulty ahead. With the school holidays approaching in both the May half-term and the summer, many low-income families in my constituency of Guildford are asking how they will get through the summer. When I visited Holy Trinity school in my constituency last week, the children raised concerns too, which shows how deep the anxiety about this conflict is. What concrete support will the Government provide to protect the most vulnerable households from further cost pressures in the months ahead, especially if this conflict continues into the summer holidays?

• 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?

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

  More

  Q Can I go on to the issue of online attacks on candidates, their families and people involved in elections? Social media platforms play a massive role in the distribution of things like misinformation, disinformation and deepfakes. Is there more that the Bill could do to put a requirement on social media platforms to act more swiftly to address those issues? Chris Morris: My one-word answer is yes, but let me explain it in various ways. Broadly speaking, it is not unreasonable for us to ask the most powerful companies in the world—who have enormous power over our information environment and, therefore, increasingly over how everyone in this country gets information—to take on a more responsible attitude, some of which we believe should be made statutory. As part of media and political literacy campaigns, for example, there could be education about why harassing candidates is not a good thing to do. Some of that behaviour comes from ignorance, and from people seeing how others behave on social media. One of the recommendations we have made, and it is in our written statement, is that there should be a statutory obligation for the big tech companies, the online platforms, to make sure they are fully involved in media and political literacy campaigns. They do some good things, but we have to recognise, and we have to be realistic, that in the end their bottom line is their share price. Regulating how information flows is difficult. At the moment, we are essentially allowing them to regulate themselves, and I think sensible regulation of these companies—we know there will be howls of protest—is exactly what the Members of this House should be doing. Azzurra Moores: Maybe I can quickly explain why we have gone for such a narrow scope in our recommendation on deepfakes. We recognise that deepfakes are a really complicated topic to regulate, and they need something far bigger than an elections Bill to regulate. Really, wholesale AI regulation is needed. While the section 106 recommendation does not put new requirements on platforms, it starts to test the bounds on how you would regulate political deepfakes, which we appreciate is a really complicated topic. It is a slow and steady approach to amending legislation, rather than coming in and making big mistakes straightaway. This would be a first step, but obviously there need to be conversations within Government about how we could go further on that as well.

• 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.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 10 Jul 2025 · Public Service Delivery · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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