Zöe Franklin
MP for Guildford · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“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.”
“We Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution, because decisions are better made closer to the communities they affect, yet this Labour Government’s approach has been top-down Whitehall diktat from the very start.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 453 lines we hold for Zöe Franklin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“If they do not, could the Minister please outline how the Bill as drafted already covers candidates’ relatives and staff, or what the justification is for leaving such a gap?”
“Rather, where a bad actor is unsuccessful or unable to silence the candidate directly, they turn to the people around them. That can be partners, children or staff. We firmly believe that should not be deemed to be okay in the eyes of the law, and that it needs to be addressed. New clause 55 amends the Elections Act 2022 so that relatives and staff of candidates are a protected category for the purposes of hostility-based disqualification and related provisions, defining “relative” by reference to the Family Law Act 1996, and “staff” as people “employed by or working under the direction” of a candidate. Amendment 38 amends clause 71 of the Bill to include candidates’ relatives and staff in the list for the hostility aggravating factor. I hope that the Minister and the Government will support those important provisions.”
“It was very good to hear from the Minister setting out this group of clauses. The Liberal Democrats are very pleased it seeks to address the hostility towards those who administer our elections. As colleagues on the Conservative Benches and the Minister have outlined, they play such an important part in our democracy. Amendment 38 and new clause 55 in my name address the need for there also to be protection for the families and staff of candidates. I was a member of the Speaker’s Conference, and I would like to put it on record how pleased I am to see so many of its recommendations in the Bill. We considered in quite some depth the issue of abuse of candidates. The survey of MPs and their staff highlighted the nature of the abuse and intimidation they experience, and the sad reality that it is not limited to them.”
“I have already outlined that there are other countries with systems in place that enable their citizens overseas to cast their vote in an easier, secure and reliable way. So far it appears the Government have been unwilling to take the steps necessary to make things easier for overseas voters. The new clauses are designed to ensure that the Government take steps to investigate how to make overseas voting easier for our constituents. Can the Minister outline whether the Government will support any of the new clauses in the name of my colleagues? If not, can she outline how the Government intend to ensure that overseas voters are able to cast their ballot in a safe, secure and reliable way?”
“In the last general election, fewer citizens abroad were registered to vote than in 2019, in spite of an historic expansion of eligibility to vote following the scrapping of the 10-year rule. I have already outlined in my comments on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot that ballots can end up arriving too late for overseas citizens to be able to cast their votes, and proxies can be problematic to arrange if they no longer have contacts here in the UK to cast votes for them. It is estimated that only 25% of citizens abroad know their rights and that they can vote, and only 48% of postal votes were returned; of course, the number varies slightly depending on which organisation we reference.”
“I move on to new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). New clause 8 and the associated amendment 3, which is consequential on the new clause and also tabled by my hon. Friend, would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on improving overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024–25 and its review of the general election. With over 3.5 million British citizens abroad eligible to vote, it is important for the Government to use this Bill as an opportunity to break down barriers to voting so that citizens can be fairly represented.”
“One option, discussed in the Committee evidence sessions, is to provide an opportunity at the passport renewal and application stage, when they could be given this information. When a UK citizen applies for or renews a passport, they already provide proof of identity, their overseas address and their last UK address: everything needed for voter registration. Voters should be simply prompted and given the option to register at that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot is not suggesting that they should be automatically registered, but given that the Bill seeks to roll out automatic voter registration and my hon. Friend has posed the question to the Government, providing an automatic moment to tell people they can register to vote and how to do so would be within the scope of the Bill and an opportunity the Bill could take.”
“Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and other organisations—we took evidence on this during the Committee evidence sessions—it is clear that overseas voters are seeking practical changes that would enable them to reliably cast their votes securely and more easily and reliably. The proposed new clause sets out methods for doing so, including secure downloading and printing of ballots and returning ballots to embassies and consulates. It is worth noting that such a system is already used in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain. I turn to new clause 7. Another part of the problem for overseas voters is that they are simply not aware that they can register to vote or of how they can do so.”
“New clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), picks up on the 2024 voting reforms that expanded eligibility for around 1.4 million to 3.4 million people—yet of those individuals, only 191,000 overseas voters are registered. I suggest that that is not a lack of interest in democracy, but a failure of the system to make voting workable for those living abroad. What that means practically is that the UK is now near the bottom internationally for how effectively it enables our overseas citizens to vote. One of the core problems is postal voting, as it does not work reliably for those living overseas. According to the Electoral Commission, only 52% of overseas postal ballots arrive in time to be counted. Following conversations between my hon.”
“I thank the Minister for her comments, but I sadly remain unconvinced that we are addressing the significant problems that overseas voters are encountering when they seek to be involved with our democracy. They may live overseas, but they are still British citizens and deserve to be able to cast their vote. I will not press new clauses 6 and 7, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot, to a Division. However, I intend to press new clause 8 to a Division, if that is feasible, Dame Siobhain.”
“(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult— (a) overseas electors; (b) electoral administrators; (c) His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service; and (d) such other persons as the Secretary of State believe appropriate. (4) For the purpose of this section, an “overseas elector” is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.”.— (Zöe Franklin.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on proposals to improve overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024-6, Review of the 2024 general election. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.”
“(2) The report must consider the feasibility of proposals for— (a) the use of United Kingdom Embassies, High Commissions or consulates as if they were a polling station asset out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983; (b) the digital transmission and printing of ballot papers; (c) voting by telephone; (d) secure electronic voting; (e) changes to deadlines and practices as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983 to enable earlier despatch of ballots for overseas voters; (f) informing overseas voters on early registration and voting options; (g) extended proxy voting arrangements for overseas voters; and (h) any other measures to improve the speed, accuracy and security of voting by overseas electors as the Secretary of State believes appropriate.”
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 8 Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on proposals for facilitating overseas electors to vote in parliamentary elections.”
“New clause 54 calls for a royal commission to look at the evidence properly and make recommendations, which would allow for a level of independence and cross-party process. The current system allows single donors to give millions to a party, which raises legitimate questions about whose interests are being served. There are limited financial provisions on long campaigns; significant money is spent well before the official period begins and the limits do not catch that. The Liberal Democrats have long called for greater transparency in political spending; the real-time disclosure of donations, a cap on political donations and annual expenditure limits sits squarely within that agenda.”
“I do not wish to press the new clause to a vote, but I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it. With your permission, Sir Desmond, I will also speak to new clause 54, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove. The Committee has established that, unfortunately, public trust in political funding—and sometimes in democracy itself—is at a very low point. With donations in the millions from a handful of wealthy individuals, spending wars between parties and loopholes that undermine the spirit of the rules, there is a public perception that politics can be bought and that elections can be won through the donations of the few. I think we would all agree that that is not a place we want to be.”
“The new clause seeks to take a careful, balanced approach to the issue. It does not impose an arbitrary figure, but instead requires an independent, evidence-based review to recommend the level of the cap, considering economic considerations, democratic participation and political competition. It would place that decision firmly within a transparent and accountable process. Ultimately, elections should be decided by voters persuaded by the strength of arguments, the quality of ideas and the credibility of leadership—I do not think that any member of the Committee would disagree with that. They should not be about the scale of financial backing. If we allow money to operate without meaningful limits, we undermine the fundamental democratic principle that every voice should carry equal weight.”
“They question whether decisions are made in the public interest, or in the interests of those who can afford to make the largest contributions. That is unsustainable, and it undermines our democracy. My hon. Friend wishes to be clear that the new clause is not about stopping people supporting political parties; it is about drawing a reasonable line to ensure that no individual or organisation can dominate political funding simply because of the scale of their resources. There is also a clear issue with integrity and security. While there are rules on permissible donors, there remain loopholes that allow money to be routed through UK-registered companies and complex structures, which creates a real risk of foreign or opaque influence on our politics. A cap alone would not resolve that problem, but it would significantly limit its scale.”
“The new clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), goes to the heart of this basic question: who does our democracy serve—voters or those with the deepest pockets? It would introduce a cap on political donations from any one individual or entity each year, with that cap set following independent review and approved by Parliament. It would ensure that the level is kept under regular review so that it remains appropriate over time. At present, there is no upper limit on political donations in the UK, which is a striking gap in our system that allows vast sums to be given by a single donor, creating the risk of disproportionate influence by an individual. Already, too many people across the UK look at our politics and see a system that appears to be tilted towards those with wealth and access.”
“Again, I personally feel that this Bill gives the opportunity to enact that section of the Equality Act. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister whether she supports the amendment and, if she does not, when the Government will bring into force section 106 of the Equality Act.”
“This duty applies only so far as it is possible to publish characteristics while, of course, retaining the privacy of the people it is referencing. For a long time, we have as a nation talked about ensuring that that information is made available. In March 2026, the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) stated: “The Government is committed to commencing section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, requiring registered political parties to publish anonymised data relating to the diversity of their candidate selections…officials are currently exploring when and how to commence the provision under section 106.” She said that there would be an update “in due course”. That was then repeated in the House of Lords. That statement took place a while ago, yet we have not seen any movement as yet.”
“New clause 34 would require the Secretary of State to bring section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 into force within three months of Royal Assent. New clause 35 would place a duty in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which is the main law governing political parties, campaign finance, donations and so on, requiring the Electoral Commission to publish the information in an accessible form. It would also give Ministers the power to require registered political parties to publish anonymised information about the diversity of the people coming forward as candidates—for example, information about protected characteristics among applicants, selected candidates and elected candidates.”
“That change is supported by Elect Her, Centenary Action, the Jo Cox Foundation, Unlock Democracy, the Fawcett Society, the Disability Policy Centre and others. This Bill is the opportunity to right this wrong. I would welcome hearing whether the Minister agrees with the new clause. I hope that she will but if she does not, will she outline how the Government plan to support candidates with disabilities and to address this glaring disparity between the nations? We really must do better when it comes to representation of people with disabilities in our politics. The other new clauses are also important; they continue the theme of ensuring that our democracy is truly representative of the people we serve.”
“The House of Commons Library estimates that 25% of the UK population is disabled, with 24% of working adults stating that they are disabled. A truly representative parliamentary House would have 156 MPs indicating that they have a disability, yet only 12 declare themselves as having a disability—less than 2% of Parliament. According to the Local Government Association’s 2022 census, approximately 15% of local authority councillors in England declared a disability or long-term health condition. Essentially, we are consistently not returning a set of councillors or MPs that is truly representative of the people we seek to serve. In my view, that is a wrong that needs to be corrected. Establishing a new fund in England to provide that support is absolutely crucial.”
“In the 2022 Scottish local elections, 46 people got support from a similar fund available in Scotland; of those, 22 were elected. Based on those numbers, I would suggest that the types of funds that provide support make a tangible difference. However, the English fund was discontinued in 2020 and, although I understand the Government have indicated that they wish to do something about that, it has not yet been reinstated and an alternative has not been put forward. That leaves a distinct inequality between the different nations of Britain—Wales and Scotland both have funded schemes; England does not. Representation in politics is crucial, whether here in Parliament or in our council chambers across the country.”
“New clause 31 would require the Secretary of State to use regulations to ensure that the Electoral Commission established a fund to help disabled candidates meet additional disability-related campaign costs in England. Historically in England, the access to elected office fund and the EnAble fund provided funding for practical support and reasonable adjustments to remove barriers for disabled candidates standing for election. That could include help with communication, transport or personal assistance, not general campaign costs. The interim £250,000 EnAble fund was launched in 2018. It involved a two-stage approval process, with an independent panel of experts on disability as well as the political groups of the Local Government Association. In total, 41 candidates were awarded funding and 45% of those were elected.”
“One of the reasons why the new clauses had to be tabled is that, although the Government have said things on the public record, they have not shared what is happening behind the scenes. This is a matter of public interest. I will not press the new clauses to a vote, but I would appreciate it if the Minister came back on those queries.”
“I hear what the Minister is saying, and I am really pleased that the Government are undertaking that process, but what concerns me is that we go through sets of elections again and again without consistency across the nations. Some in our nations are supported to stand so that have a more representative democracy, while others—here in England—are not. I am willing to withdraw my new clause, but I would appreciate it if the Minister committed to sharing a timeline. More importantly, will she commit to making information more available publicly—certainly to organisations working in this space and MPs—about what is happening about a fund to support candidates with disabilities? The same applies to my new clauses about section 106 of the Equalities Act.”
“(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 .”
“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.”
“We need to recognise that the threat is real and urgent. Mis and disinformation and the concentration of power in the hands of too few are undermining public trust. The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove seeks to address that. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.”
“Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a voice in assessing the impact in devolved elections. The Government are already taking very welcome steps in the Bill to modernise elections, and we have the opportunity to make further reforms. One of the most powerful causes of disillusionment within politics is a sense that people’s votes just do not count—that they turn up on polling day and their voice simply disappears into a system that does not reflect it. We believe that any serious review of representativeness has to grapple with that, and that any Bill looking to reform our elections should consider how to change that perception and the voting system to better reflect what or who people are actually voting for. The Bill presents an opportunity for the Government, but we believe they are grasping it only in part.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. As has come up repeatedly in the Committee, trust in elections is in a very difficult place at the moment. As MPs, we really need to consider how we can address the lack of confidence that the public have in our political system and, frankly, in the voting system that is used and whether the results feel representative. While we continue to face a flood of foreign money and powerful actors working to undermine our social fabric and interfere in public life, we must make sure that we are improving the public’s confidence in the face of those threats. The requirement to consult the devolved Governments is essential, as this law would apply across all four nations, and trust deficits are not uniform.”
“May I take this opportunity to wish you a happy Easter, Mr Speaker? Under the previous Government, youth funding was reduced by approximately 70% and universal provision was impacted the most. Although we on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the youth strategy, I am very concerned that local government reorganisation will result in a continued reduction in youth provision in our communities. We need to remember that the voluntary sector so often picks up the pieces; I see that in my constituency. It does a brilliant job, but it should not be down to the sector alone. Will the Minister advise on what assessment has been made of the impact of local government reorganisation on youth provision in areas beyond the promised 50 Young Futures hubs?”
“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?”
“While the decisions announced for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk provide clarity—even if areas remain concerned about viability and sustainability—they fail to address those fundamental issues. In the case of Sussex, the Government have essentially dismissed the local proposals, and have instead chosen to consult on their own plans, leaving the county in another period of uncertainty. Does the Minister recognise that that approach undermines trust between national and local government? Has her Department fully assessed the financial consequences of the proposals for reorganisation in those areas and across the country? Will she commit to a cross-party piece of work, carried out with local leaders, on creating a fair, adequate and long-term funding settlement for councils?”
“It is deeply disappointing that this matter is being addressed today through an urgent question, and was not addressed yesterday through a proper statement from the Government. As I have said, the Liberal Democrats support devolution and reorganisation where that strengthens communities, but changes must be locally led, properly consulted on, adequately funded and never top-down. In recent months, I have spoken to local government leaders across the country, and their really clear and consistent message is, “First, trust us. Secondly, work with us to fix the broken local government funding system,” which is leaving councils struggling to meet rising costs and needs.”