Zöe Franklin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  The latest Home Office figures show that there were 106 religious hate crimes targeting Jewish people per 10,000 of the Jewish population—by far the highest rate, sadly, for any religious group. Behind these shocking figures are people who are changing the way they live, as we have heard in this morning’s debate, because they are frightened—frightened of being attacked, abused or intimidated simply for practising their faith. I see that in my own constituency of Guildford, which has a relatively small but growing Jewish community of around 450 residents, which rises to 600 during university term time. Members of the community have told me clearly that since the horrific attacks of 7 October, the tone has noticeably shifted in the community. Our local rabbi has received death threats and has even been physically assaulted in public. Jewish residents have faced verbal abuse, a swastika has been drawn at a local golf course, and a single Jewish mother had a rotten chicken thrown through her open window while she was with her five-year-old child, and those are not isolated incidents. What has stayed with me the most, though, is hearing that some local Jewish families have moved their mezuzah from the outside of their front door to the inside because they are frightened of being identified as Jewish. That is an extraordinary thing for anyone to feel they must do in Britain in 2026 to keep their family safe. It is why I believe our response must be about much more than simply reacting when another terrible thing happens. We need to step up, as community leaders and as Parliament. We need to ensure that Jewish communities are protected now, but we also need to tackle the hatred that makes that protection necessary in the first place. I welcome the Government’s additional £25 million for security following the attacks in Golders Green, bringing the total available to £58 million. I have seen how much that investment matters. The Guildford synagogue has had to spend thousands of pounds upgrading security, and our rabbi has had to spend money improving his own personal security. I refuse to accept that this is simply the way society is turning—that violence and intimidation is now being normalised. Will the Minister explain what long-term certainty the Government will provide for the Community Security Trust and for the security funding relied upon by synagogues, Jewish schools and community organisations? Protecting buildings is necessary, but it is not enough. We also have to ensure that our police and prosecutors can identify antisemitism and act when the law is broken. I want to be really clear on protest. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental in a liberal democracy, but there is no right to intimidate Jewish people, to glorify terrorism or to use protest as a cover for antisemitic hatred or incitement to violence. It should not be a difficult distinction for us to make as a society. We Liberal Democrats have called for mandatory antisemitism training for police officers policing demonstrations, as part of a statutory code for the policing of protests. That would also include stronger protections around places of worship, and place responsibilities on protest organisers to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment and intimidation. I really do think that those are practical steps that the Government should take seriously. Will the Minister consider introducing consistent antisemitism training for officers policing protests across the country? Will the Government also consider again how we protect synagogues and other places of worship from intimidating protests immediately outside them? The same applies when cases reach the justice system. I could go on, and I know that colleagues across this Chamber have raised a number of issues in relation to that point. I also want to note the gap between the official statistics and what Jewish residents say that they experience. I hear it in my own constituency of Guilford, and I am sure that colleagues hear the same. Many incidents are never reported to the police. Others happen in schools, universities and workplaces and are dealt with internally, which means that they simply disappear from the national picture. If we do not understand the scale of antisemitism, we cannot properly respond to it. We have talked this morning about the crucial issue of educating people to understand what is and what is not acceptable in our language. We have also heard about Sir David Bell’s review of antisemitism in schools. I have, sadly, heard too many stories in my own constituency and in neighbouring ones of children and young people facing antisemitism within their education setting. I am glad that Sir David Bell’s review is coming. Will the Minister commit to responding quickly to the review and its recommendations when it comes out? I want to end by sharing something positive, as many colleagues have done at the end of their speeches, too. I want to share the genuinely positive work happening in Guildford. I am glad that Surrey police have developed a stronger liaison relationship with our Jewish community. Guildford and Waverley councils, Surrey police, Jewish residents and local faith leaders have worked together on a hate-crime pledge. We have growing relationships between the Jewish community, the Reform Jewish community in Weybridge, and Woking mosque. Those relationships are crucial. They show that even at times of terrible conflict and division internationally, Jewish and Muslim communities here can continue to talk to one another, support one another and refuse to allow events overseas to divide neighbours at home. I was proud to stand with local faith leaders and civic leaders with the Guildford declaration of freedom of religion and belief. That work is crucial, and it brings me to the issue of inter-faith initiatives. Sadly, inter-faith funding has largely disappeared. Will the Government consider reinstating the crucial grassroots inter-faith funding, which is at the core of enabling positive cross-faith work? Ultimately, I do not want the measure of success for how the Jewish community is being protected to be about how many security guards we have funded or how many hate crimes have been recorded. I want Jewish families to feel comfortable putting their mezuzah back outside their front door. I want Jewish children to be able to talk about their faith openly, without worrying how other pupils will react. I want the Jewish community in my constituency of Guildford to be able to light the menorah on the high street without the need for armed police to make that possible. That requires proper security funding now, but it also requires better policing, better education, stronger enforcement online and investment in relationships that prevent hatred from growing in the first place. I think that everyone in this Chamber agrees that antisemitism has no place in our society. We should not accept Jewish people having to change how visibly Jewish they are in order to feel safe. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to set out more on the practical steps that the Government will take to help ensure that that is the reality.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  The death of Ann Widdecombe is shocking. I did not know her as an MP, but it has been wonderful listening to colleagues from across the House share some of their memories. She was clearly a formidable political leader. Of course, we will also remember her as an entertainer. My thoughts are with her family and friends at this incredibly difficult time. Her death is a devastating reminder of the problem that all of us elected Members and councillors face on a day-to-day basis while we try to serve the communities we love and have been elected to serve. It has come across very clearly in the Chamber that we all want and need to do more to protect each other and our democracy. I speak a lot to my councillors in Guildford and, as the Liberal Democrat local government spokesperson, to councillors across the country. The stories I hear are horrendous, whether it is parish council leaders or council leaders telling me about death threats. This is a democracy and elected representatives should not be experiencing that. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for what she has already set out, but could she also set out what actions the Government are taking to protect elected officials at all levels, in particular councillors and those who are served by Operation Ford? Can she confirm that more resources will be made available to Operation Ford, so that a consistent level of support can be provided across the country? I know that police officers and forces across the country want to do that, but I hear about varying levels of support.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his opening remarks, and the petitioners who brought the petition today. Public trust in our democracy is sadly at an all-time low due to broken manifesto commitments, resignations or just the perceived lack of accountability that has led to general political disillusion for so many. Every failure of standards and every perception that rules do not apply equally risks further damaging confidence in not only us as MPs but our democratic institutions. The petition was signed by over 200,000 people across the country, including 227 of my constituents in Guildford, and it asks a question that goes to the heart of our democracy: who is fit to stand for public office and how do we protect the institutions that make our democracy work? We Liberal Democrats believe that we should be working hard to restore public confidence in our democratic institutions. Those who have sought to undermine that confidence through political violence should face serious consequences. However, the question raised by the petition is not a simple one. Those who signed it are asking beyond whether someone convicted of terrorism offences should be able to stand for elected office; they are asking whether the system is serious about protecting itself. They are asking whether we understand what public office is for. The UK already disqualifies certain people with criminal convictions from holding elected office. Anyone sentenced to three months or more in prison is barred from serving on an English local authority for five years. Police and crime commissioner candidates are disqualified if they have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence. MPs serving prison sentences of more than a year are disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1981, so a framework is already in place. The question is whether it goes far enough for terrorism offences specifically. We do not think that it would be right to bar every person with any historic conviction from ever standing for office; that would be disproportionate and cut against the principle of rehabilitation. But terrorism and national security offences are different. They are, by definition, attacks on the institutions that the person may later seek to serve. It is reasonable for Parliament to treat them as a special case. Any new prohibition, however, must meet two tests. First, it must comply with the 1998 Human Rights Act. Restrictions on the right to stand for election must be proportionate and subject to proper legal safeguards. That is not a barrier to action; it is the framework that any workable law will have to fit within. Secondly, any prohibition must be consistent with the Good Friday Agreement. The constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland has held peace for a generation, and legislation drafted without regard to it could do real damage. That is a practical consideration, not a theoretical one, and I hope the Minister will address it directly. Within those tests, though, there is a clear route forward. The Elections Act 2022 already allows courts to issue disqualification orders, but only for five years. The Liberal Democrats support giving courts the power to issue longer disqualification orders, so that people who pose an ongoing threat to our democracy can be barred from public office for as long as that threat lasts. Currently, the Representation of the People Bill is making its way through Parliament. It provides a great opportunity for the Government to make changes to our electoral system. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has tabled an amendment that I fully support, which would prevent anyone convicted of offences relating to the promotion, incitement or use of political violence from making donations to political parties. If we agree that people who have used violence against our democracy should not sit in its chambers, we should also agree that they should not be funding the parties that do. I ask the Minister to look at that amendment seriously at the next stage of the Bill. There is a wider point about how nominations are handled. Returning officers currently have to accept nominations at face value. They cannot investigate allegations or reject a nomination because they think someone might be disqualified. As candidates self-declare their eligibility, the system depends on honesty. It is worth the Government asking whether that is still fit for purpose. Tackling extremism also requires more than legal disqualification. It requires the police and prosecutors to have the resources and training to prevent and prosecute hate crimes. It requires protective funding for places of worship, schools and community centres that have been the targets of attacks, and it requires all of us in public life to think very carefully about the rhetoric that we use and about the rhetoric that has too often been the precursor to violence. The Government currently have no plans to change the existing disqualification criteria. I hope that, having listened to the debate, the Minister will be willing to go further than that. Public trust is hard won and easily lost. On this issue, the Government can show that they take that trust seriously.