Zöe Franklin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. We Liberal Democrats support the Flood Re scheme and the protection it provides, but we are concerned that the package still risks falling short in a few ways. We agree that it cannot be right for lower-income households to subsidise the most expensive properties. Targeting support more fairly is overdue, but fairness must also mean reducing costs at source, which means a far stronger focus on prevention. We are still spending billions reacting to floods rather than systematically reducing risk. Flood Re’s future must be tied more clearly to resilient homes, sustainable drainage, and a planning system that stops putting people in harm’s way in the first place. That includes progressing schemes such as Guildford’s flood alleviation scheme more quickly through greater Government support, which would protect homes and unlock sustainable brownfield development. Without doing this, we are merely rearranging who pays for failure. The proposals on flood performance certificates and Build Back Better are welcome, but they remain incremental. We need a step change—embedding resilience upgrades as standard, ensuring that insurers reward households that act, and bringing lenders fully into the framework. Serious gaps also remain: millions are excluded from Flood Re, including many leaseholders and those in homes built after 2009. If we are serious about fairness, those gaps must be addressed. Finally, the transition to a risk-reflective market by 2039 cannot simply mean a cliff edge and higher premiums for those most exposed. Reform is needed, but it must be matched by ambition. Fairness, resilience and prevention must go hand in hand.

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

  More

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

• 29 Jun 2026 · Child Poverty · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 3 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation found that weaknesses in risk assessment, information sharing and planning in domestic abuse cases are leaving victims at greater risk of harm and without consistent safeguarding across Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Will the Secretary of State set out what steps his Department will take to ensure that the changes identified in the report are implemented and that victims of domestic abuse receive effective support through the criminal justice system?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Just over two weeks ago, we were in this Chamber for a statement cancelling the mayoral elections in six areas. At the time, the Government assured us that they intended to go ahead with May 2026 elections, so it is deeply disappointing to be here again discussing cancellations and the prospect of people being denied their vote and their voice. I do wonder how voters and Members of this House can trust the Government on the topic of elections, given that they have gone back on their repeated assurances that elections would go ahead. In her statement, the Minister indicated that concerns had been raised about lack of capacity. With the Government’s timetable for reorganisation having been clearly set out in July, it seems strange that capacity issues are only just being highlighted. Will she clarify to the House the type of capacity issues that are being highlighted? Will she also say which tier of council will be the primary decision maker on whether an area has capacity issues? What will happen if district and county councils have differing views? Finally, the Minister will be aware that councils have already committed significant financial resources, not to mention staff hours, to planning for the May 2026 elections. Will she commit today to fully reimbursing councils for costs incurred in planning for 2026, if they end up having their elections cancelled?

• 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?

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

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of our fantastic parish and town councils, and I hope that Members from all parts of this House will support that new clause. We have tabled new clause 70 because neighbourhood planning only works if communities can afford to take part. Without support, neighbourhood planning becomes a slogan. With support, it becomes genuine grassroots devolution. We believe that new clause 70 would plug that gap and ensure that real community voices are heard. Finally, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to plug yet another gap that the Bill sadly leaves wide open, and we return to the theme of parish and town councils. Under the Bill, those could be sidelined, merged or absorbed without proper public consultation. New clause 41 closes that loophole by protecting parish and town councils from being swept aside in the rush to build bigger, centralised combined authorities. If the Government claim to trust communities, they must protect the governance closest to those communities, and new clause 41 delivers just that.

• 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 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. I wish to raise the case of my constituent whose 89-year-old father was subject to serious abuse through a lasting power of attorney. It took two years and significant legal costs to get the power of attorney removed through the Court of Protection. The father tragically died, homeless and penniless. Does the Minister believe that the current LPA protections are sufficient to prevent such abuse, and will the Government consider an urgent review and reform of the system?