Zöe Franklin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2026 · Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing this important debate. I want to keep my contribution brief and focus on the story of just one of my Guildford constituents—although I have had correspondence with many more—which I think really captures why the DVLA is in urgent need of reform. When someone reports a medical condition to the DVLA, they are doing it for the right reasons: they are complying with the law and putting the safety of their fellow road users ahead of their own convenience. But too often, the system does not respond in kind. My constituent is living with stage 4 lung cancer. Despite being asymptomatic, they responsibly surrendered their licence in August 2024. They did so without hesitation, because they understood their responsibilities and wanted to be a good citizen. Their consultant has since confirmed that they are medically fit to drive. On that basis, they applied to have their licence reinstated in July last year. When I spoke to them last week, nine months later, they were still waiting for a decision—nine months! During that time, they have submitted multiple complaints: one in January; one later that month; and, finally, one in March through the DVLA’s own direct complaints system, which promises a response within 10 days. Not one of those complaints has received a reply. That is not simply a backlog; it is a system that has lost sight of the fact that its administrative processes have real human consequences. While managing a life-limiting illness, my constituent has also had to manage months of uncertainty about when or even whether a decision will be made and the daily restrictions that come from living without a driving licence. As we have heard, that is not an isolated case. Across the country, constituents are waiting months for medical decisions, often with minimal communication. There is a clear pattern: straightforward cases move quickly, and complex cases—the ones that need the most care and judgment, which are often the most urgent because of the circumstances of the individual—wait the longest. My constituent had no symptoms that would disqualify them from driving, but they have been left in limbo for nine months without explanation. The DVLA’s target is to resolve most medical cases in 50 days, but even if the target was met consistently—we know it is not—we should really be asking whether 50 days is an acceptable length of time for someone’s independence to be put on hold. The impact is real: people cannot get to work, they miss medical appointments, they lose their independence, and they become isolated from support networks that they rely on. Thankfully, my constituent can use public transport, but in so many Members’ constituencies, particularly the rural ones, a driving licence is not a luxury but a lifeline. The strain on the system is only going to increase. The proposed introduction of eye testing for drivers over 70 may be sensible for road safety, but it will only increase the volume of medical assessments that we already know the DVLA is not coping with processing. How will it cope when it is already failing so many? Reform is not optional, and it is urgent for my constituent and for all our constituents who are contacting us on a daily basis. I am afraid that digitisation alone will not fix this. What we need alongside digitisation is far more basic: clear decision-making timelines, reliable communication with applicants, and better co-ordination between the DVLA and the NHS and other agencies so that medical evidence can be promptly assessed. I hope the Minister will be able to set out a clear timeline for reform so that I can reassure my constituents, and in particular the constituent I have mentioned today. If we ask people to follow the rules and they put other people before themselves in surrendering their licence, the state has a duty to respond promptly and proportionately.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that this is a multi-year settlement, which gives councils a greater degree of certainty and the ability to plan ahead. We have long called for that. However, a longer settlement on its own does not resolve the deep financial instability facing local government. The Minister is right to say that social care, SEND and homelessness costs are destabilising council finances—a direct result of years of Conservative neglect—but recognising the problem is not the same as resolving it. It will take us and council teams time to review the detail of the settlement and understand what it means in reality for local government. However, early conversations with local government colleagues have highlighted a concerning lack of clarity on the SEND debt. The settlement provides minimal information on how councils are to manage SEND costs until 2028, or how existing deficits will be resolved. Can the Minister provide a clear timeline for when councils will receive certainty on the SEND deficit? Without one, responsible financial planning is simply not possible. I also seek clarity on the issue of social care. Although the statement includes various measures to try to address the social care crisis, the reality is that that will be swept away by the rising scale of need and the costs of social care. When will the Government finally bring forward a fully funded, long-term plan for adult social care reform that ensures that local authority funding settlements are not undermined by the escalating costs of a social care system that is bankrupting councils and placing unsustainable pressure on the NHS?

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak in support of the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill. They remain true to our party’s tradition of empowering communities, upholding democratic accountability, protecting the environment and defending the role of local government at all levels. Our amendments, numbering around 120, exist because the legislation as drafted falls short of the Government’s own declared aim for meaningful devolution. My colleagues and I on this side of the House have found ourselves needing to strengthen provisions, close loopholes, and introduce safeguards just to ensure that power genuinely flows outwards to communities, rather than upwards to centralised mayoral offices. Before turning to the amendments, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for her work in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for her efforts in both the earlier stages of the Bill and in Committee. The volume, detail and quality of the amendments they presented and defended have improved the Bill and clearly reflect the seriousness with which Liberal Democrats approach devolution. As the MP for Guildford in Surrey, I feel that it would be remiss of me not to comment on what the Government have said about decisions on local reform being led by local people and local councils. I can state that that has not happened in Surrey. The Government have: overruled local people who indicated a strong preference for option three; ignored geography, natural place and communities; and clearly stated that the decision was led solely by the financial state of Surrey, which was created by a number of Conservative-led authorities. I will leave that thought there. As drafted, the Bill would allow the mayors of combined authorities and county combined authorities to appoint unelected commissioners over substantial areas of public service delivery, from transport to planning, economic regeneration and even aspects of social care. It is astonishing that a Bill claiming to devolve power begins by concentrating it in the hands of one individual, with the authority to outsource major public functions to people who have never faced a ballot box. This is not localism. It is not devolution. It is centralisation masquerading as reform. Let me be clear, this is not a minor administrative detail. It is the ability to hand over control of core public services that shape our constituents’ lives to someone who has not been elected, cannot be removed by the public, and whose appointment could be based on personal loyalty rather than competence. We have seen this in the past, with police and crime commissioners, where concerns have been raised about appointments of close associates or unelected political allies to influential roles. Even the perception of that is damaging to the public’s confidence in the role. It is extraordinary that the Government would open the door to repeating those mistakes on an even larger scale. Liberal Democrat amendment 85 would stop that from happening. It eliminates the ability to make those unaccountable appointments entirely. It guarantees that important public roles cannot be delegated to individuals chosen behind closed doors, safeguarding the integrity of devolution by ensuring power is exercised transparently and by those answerable to the public. If the Government insist on pressing ahead with this centralising model—this top-down, trust-us-we-know-best version of “localism”—then the bare minimum is democratic safeguards. That is where our new clause 14 comes in. It ensures that an elected representative must carry out any development or delivery of policy within a strategic authority’s remit. But let me be clear: new clause 14 is the fallback; amendment 85 is the safeguard. If the Government are genuinely trying to create democratic, community-led devolution, we must not allow unaccountable commissioners to be appointed to run major public services. Turning to environmental protections, I welcome the Government’s concession on air quality—it is a meaningful win for public health. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their work in Committee lobbying for its inclusion, and the Government for engaging so constructively and now including it in the Bill. But we are still looking for one crucial assurance from the Minister: will nitrogen dioxide be explicitly included in the provisions, not just general air quality? Nitrogen dioxide is one of the most harmful pollutants we face. It disproportionately affects children, older people and those with respiratory illnesses. I hope the Minister can offer that reassurance today. We also tabled amendment 75, which would require a review of the financial needs of local authorities in tackling health inequalities. Devolution without actual resources is not devolution, but rather the delegation of responsibility without the means to deliver. In my constituency of Guildford, for example, the difference in health outcomes between neighbourhoods just a short distance apart is stark. Life expectancy, rates of chronic illness and access to preventative services vary dramatically. Local authorities cannot hope to address these inequalities without the right resources, data and powers. Amendment 75 ensures that those needs are properly understood and resourced. I also want to take a moment to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has re-tabled important amendments on sports provision and the committee system. I thank her for doing so, and the Government for picking up the committee system amendment. Finally, regarding town and parish councils, for a Government who have repeatedly assured me and others of the importance they place on these levels of local government, the Bill is surprisingly silent on their vital role. We, as Liberal Democrats, have consistently proposed amendments throughout the Bill process to address that gap, safeguard their role, and ensure they are not overridden or abolished without genuine community approval. Parishes are often the tier of government closest to our constituents—strengthening them strengthens democracy—yet the Government have generally refused our amendments. Taken together, the Liberal Democrat amendments make the Bill stronger, fairer and more democratic. They turn a framework that risks re-centralising power into one that can, if implemented properly, deliver genuine community-led devolution by: protecting against the unaccountable concentration of power; ensuring environmental and public health commitments are meaningful; and giving local communities, right down to parish and town councils, the voice they deserve. We have already seen that when concerns are raised clearly and constructively, the Government can listen, as they did with the committee system and clean air commitments, but there is so much more to be done. If we want devolution that the public can trust and that empowers rather than bypasses communities, we must ensure robust safeguards are in place. Amendment 85 is absolutely central to that effort. It would ensure that public services cannot be handed to unelected appointees, and that accountability remains where it belongs—with the people elected by the people. I urge Members from across the House to support the amendments that I have spoken to—and, above all, to support amendment 85—so that the Bill delivers the democratic, transparent and community-led devolution that our constituents need.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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