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.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Social Media: Dangerous Content · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State and the ministerial team for their positive engagement with me and colleagues across the House who have been working with bereaved families and the Molly Rose Foundation on the devastating impact of suicide forums. On the new crisis response protocol, my understanding is that it is primarily designed for large-scale public safety events. Can the Secretary of State advise on whether Ofcom will consider rapid response arrangements being expanded to cover cases where compelling evidence shows that content presents a risk for suicide, so that platforms are expected to act with the same urgency to protect individual lives?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent was repeatedly sexually abused by a family member, who received four concurrent 28-year prison sentences. He threatened to murder her during the trial. After serving about 10 years, he was transferred to the Netherlands, where he was released immediately. My constituent lives in fear of his returning to the UK and carrying out the threats that he made towards her. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this complex case, and will he commit to reviewing international prisoner transfer arrangements that have the practical effect of allowing dangerous offenders to be released far earlier than the UK courts intended?

• 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?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister spoke about exceptional financial support. I was interested to hear her say that we do not wish EFS to be normalised. I suggest that we are in circumstances in which it is normalised, given that so many councils require it and so many of them expect to have to use it. A lot of councils are struggling to balance their annual budgets on that basis.

• 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—

• 4 Jun 2026 · Victims: Right to Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Solicitor General for her previous answers. I have been contacted by constituents whose son was among the 79 British victims formally recognised in the Canadian proceedings against Kenneth Law. While families welcome that their loved ones have finally been acknowledged in court, many are devasted that there will be no prosecution in the UK, following the decision not to pursue extradition, particularly as they were informed only just before the decision was made public, leaving little time to process it. What assessment has the Solicitor General made of the potential merits of extending the victims’ right to review scheme to cases involving bereaved families affected by major cross-border prosecutions such as that one?

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

  More

  5. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the conflict in the middle east on the cost of living.

• 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?

• 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.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. We have fought for the amendment consistently because rural communities are indeed overlooked too often, and it would put them at the heart of the Bill. As I was saying, we support Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, which adds coastal communities to the list of strategic competences, so I am grateful to the Secretary of State for tabling it. Together, the changes ensure that rural and coastal areas are explicitly recognised in the framework of strategic authorities and will be taken into account when powers, funding and responsibilities are devolved. The changes ensure that such areas are explicitly recognised in all decision making. As my hon. Friend says, rural and coastal communities have too often felt overlooked, and their needs really need to be considered properly in the devolution process. We Liberal Democrats have long championed these communities, and many of my hon. Friends in this Chamber represent rural and coastal areas. We really welcome the constructive approach that the Government have taken in working with us, and I will continue to press for that spirit of collaboration as this Bill is implemented and, indeed, when further legislation on local government is introduced after the King’s Speech.

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

  More

  The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision not to insist on their disagreement with Lords amendment 2, which proposes the inclusion of rural affairs in the list of competences for strategic authorities.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  8. If his Department will review the adequacy of the treatment of redundancy payments by the Child Maintenance Service.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for this and previous answers on the CMS. I hear the Government saying “when time allows”, but this really is important for the families who have suffered for too many years. My constituent, for example, has successfully appealed at tribunal, with both the judge and the Child Maintenance Service agreeing that the parent’s declared income did not reflect their true earnings, and arrears were awarded. Yet after receiving a substantial redundancy payment and despite holding significant assets, including property and substantial pension investments, no maintenance is being paid, and enforcement has not taken place. Does the Minister accept that this exposes a gap in how redundancy payments are treated by the CMS and the wider enforcement framework, and will he urgently review both to ensure that children are not left without support and no longer suffer?

• 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.

• 23 Apr 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  I wish the House and you, Mr Speaker, a happy St George’s day. I welcome the fact that the Government are taking steps to improve and deepen our trading relationship with Europe, which is absolutely crucial to businesses right across my constituency, which have told me again and again of the challenges they face as a direct result of this flawed Brexit process. Could the Minister set out what plans he has to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny is given to anything relating to improving relations with the EU, given that we no longer have a Select Committee that deals directly with those issues?

• 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.

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

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. We saw how the previous Labour Government imposed the cabinet structure on councils up and down the country. True devolution puts the power of choice of local governance methods in the hands of local people and, therefore, an approach that does not allow local councils to change to that committee system is the wrong approach and is not devolution. The Government cannot simply claim to devolve power while denying local areas the ability to keep the system they have chosen or wish to choose. I ask the Minister to clarify whether councils will be able to stay as a committee system and whether she will consider allowing other councils to change to the committee system should the local council team and local people wish to do so. Lords amendment 37 would introduce a national strategy to support and expand parish and town councils. The Government say that that should be left entirely to local decision making, but this is not about removing local choice; it is about whether communities are even given the opportunity to understand what a parish council could mean. Without a national strategy, there is no direction, support or momentum to expand parish governance. I have seen the power of parish councils in my community and constituency. Parish councils give residents a direct voice. They ensure that development works with communities, not against them. At a time when councils are becoming larger and more distant, parish councils keep power close to the people. One of the most compelling things about parish councils is that, where they have a local neighbourhood plan, 25% of the community infrastructure levy goes directly to the local community. Outside parish councils, that figure drops to 15%, which is held centrally.

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

  More

  I could not agree more. Across the country, we can see that giving parish councils power and community assets allows them to look after those assets for the community. I am a massive advocate for that approach and for town and parish councils generally. One final area of Government reluctance on devolving power is around Lords amendment 41 on the agent of change principle. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music. I have seen in my own community the wonderful power that live music venues have to bring people together. The amendment is so crucial to protect community assets and live music venues. Can the Minister advise on whether the guidance that she mentioned will be statutory or non-statutory? We Liberal Democrats will vote to support our Lords colleagues. I want to end, in a spirit of positivity, on what we can do when we work collaboratively. Lords amendment 80, which my colleague Lord Foster of Bath co-sponsored with the Government, genuinely shows what we can do when we work across Benches to improve legislation. Good ideas do not belong to one side, and the amendment reflects that. I will end on my central point: the Bill asks us to believe that it delivers devolution, but devolution cannot simply mean the limited powers that Ministers are willing to relinquish, while so much remains controlled by Whitehall. If we do not trust local communities and their elected leaders with real authority, real decision making and real agency, we have not really devolved power at all. That is why these Lords amendments matter, and it is why we will oppose the Government’s attempts to defeat them.

• 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.

• 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 .