Zöe Franklin
MP for Guildford · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“Q11. At Guilford’s probation hostel, experienced staff are being refused skilled worker visa sponsorship because their salaries fall below the Government threshold, despite earning over £42,000 when essential overtime is included.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Attorney General for her answer, but a constituent from Guildford has endured repeated delays to a domestic abuse prosecution. Causes included the Crown Prosecution Service failing to secure a barrister, and a trial collapsing after eight days as the proceedings had overrun and jurors could no longer continue, due to other com…”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Liberal Democrats have long championed our high streets, tourism and hospitality sectors. While we strongly support devolving economic powers, businesses are already struggling under mounting costs, a VAT rate higher than that of our international peers and the Government’s national insurance contributions hike.”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons13 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons13 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons13 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
473 held · 449 searchable for Zöe Franklin. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 9.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“The hon. Member raises an interesting point, which returns us to the theme that we need to allow local communities a say in their own destinies. I will leave it to my wonderful colleagues in local government to continue that thought. We Liberal Democrats remain concerned about the many gaps that we see in the Bill, and they are what our new clauses attempt to plug. Every single one is designed to strengthen the democratic, localist, community-led principles that Ministers say they support. With our new clauses, this English devolution Bill might finally seem to provide the devolution that the Government keep promising us. I urge Members across the House to support these vital amendments, and to give local democracy the respect, the voice and the power that it deserves.”
House of Commons25 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has been very interesting to hear the back and forth on this question. It is not just about East Sussex, of course; it is about all the councils up for reorganisation. Councils across the country that are due to have elections next year have received letters asking them whether they would consider cancelling them. Will the Minister set out the content of those letters, and will he stand with the Liberal Democrat by backing our amendments, which seek absolute assurances for councils across the country that are putting money into organising those elections?”
House of Commons24 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 85 is absolutely central to that effort. It would ensure that public services cannot be handed to unelected appointees, and that accountability remains where it belongs—with the people elected by the people. I urge Members from across the House to support the amendments that I have spoken to—and, above all, to support amendment 85—so that the Bill delivers the democratic, transparent and community-led devolution that our constituents need.”
House of Commons24 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Taken together, the Liberal Democrat amendments make the Bill stronger, fairer and more democratic. They turn a framework that risks re-centralising power into one that can, if implemented properly, deliver genuine community-led devolution by: protecting against the unaccountable concentration of power; ensuring environmental and public health commitments are meaningful; and giving local communities, right down to parish and town councils, the voice they deserve. We have already seen that when concerns are raised clearly and constructively, the Government can listen, as they did with the committee system and clean air commitments, but there is so much more to be done. If we want devolution that the public can trust and that empowers rather than bypasses communities, we must ensure robust safeguards are in place.”
House of Commons24 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has re-tabled important amendments on sports provision and the committee system. I thank her for doing so, and the Government for picking up the committee system amendment. Finally, regarding town and parish councils, for a Government who have repeatedly assured me and others of the importance they place on these levels of local government, the Bill is surprisingly silent on their vital role. We, as Liberal Democrats, have consistently proposed amendments throughout the Bill process to address that gap, safeguard their role, and ensure they are not overridden or abolished without genuine community approval. Parishes are often the tier of government closest to our constituents—strengthening them strengthens democracy—yet the Government have generally refused our amendments.”
House of Commons24 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope the Minister can offer that reassurance today. We also tabled amendment 75, which would require a review of the financial needs of local authorities in tackling health inequalities. Devolution without actual resources is not devolution, but rather the delegation of responsibility without the means to deliver. In my constituency of Guildford, for example, the difference in health outcomes between neighbourhoods just a short distance apart is stark. Life expectancy, rates of chronic illness and access to preventative services vary dramatically. Local authorities cannot hope to address these inequalities without the right resources, data and powers. Amendment 75 ensures that those needs are properly understood and resourced. I also want to take a moment to recognise the work of my hon.”
House of Commons24 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the Government are genuinely trying to create democratic, community-led devolution, we must not allow unaccountable commissioners to be appointed to run major public services. Turning to environmental protections, I welcome the Government’s concession on air quality—it is a meaningful win for public health. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their work in Committee lobbying for its inclusion, and the Government for engaging so constructively and now including it in the Bill. But we are still looking for one crucial assurance from the Minister: will nitrogen dioxide be explicitly included in the provisions, not just general air quality? Nitrogen dioxide is one of the most harmful pollutants we face. It disproportionately affects children, older people and those with respiratory illnesses.”
House of Commons24 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It eliminates the ability to make those unaccountable appointments entirely. It guarantees that important public roles cannot be delegated to individuals chosen behind closed doors, safeguarding the integrity of devolution by ensuring power is exercised transparently and by those answerable to the public. If the Government insist on pressing ahead with this centralising model—this top-down, trust-us-we-know-best version of “localism”—then the bare minimum is democratic safeguards. That is where our new clause 14 comes in. It ensures that an elected representative must carry out any development or delivery of policy within a strategic authority’s remit. But let me be clear: new clause 14 is the fallback; amendment 85 is the safeguard.”
House of Commons24 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is not devolution. It is centralisation masquerading as reform. Let me be clear, this is not a minor administrative detail. It is the ability to hand over control of core public services that shape our constituents’ lives to someone who has not been elected, cannot be removed by the public, and whose appointment could be based on personal loyalty rather than competence. We have seen this in the past, with police and crime commissioners, where concerns have been raised about appointments of close associates or unelected political allies to influential roles. Even the perception of that is damaging to the public’s confidence in the role. It is extraordinary that the Government would open the door to repeating those mistakes on an even larger scale. Liberal Democrat amendment 85 would stop that from happening.”
House of Commons24 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have: overruled local people who indicated a strong preference for option three; ignored geography, natural place and communities; and clearly stated that the decision was led solely by the financial state of Surrey, which was created by a number of Conservative-led authorities. I will leave that thought there. As drafted, the Bill would allow the mayors of combined authorities and county combined authorities to appoint unelected commissioners over substantial areas of public service delivery, from transport to planning, economic regeneration and even aspects of social care. It is astonishing that a Bill claiming to devolve power begins by concentrating it in the hands of one individual, with the authority to outsource major public functions to people who have never faced a ballot box. This is not localism.”
House of Commons24 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for her efforts in both the earlier stages of the Bill and in Committee. The volume, detail and quality of the amendments they presented and defended have improved the Bill and clearly reflect the seriousness with which Liberal Democrats approach devolution. As the MP for Guildford in Surrey, I feel that it would be remiss of me not to comment on what the Government have said about decisions on local reform being led by local people and local councils. I can state that that has not happened in Surrey.”
House of Commons24 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a privilege to speak in support of the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill. They remain true to our party’s tradition of empowering communities, upholding democratic accountability, protecting the environment and defending the role of local government at all levels. Our amendments, numbering around 120, exist because the legislation as drafted falls short of the Government’s own declared aim for meaningful devolution. My colleagues and I on this side of the House have found ourselves needing to strengthen provisions, close loopholes, and introduce safeguards just to ensure that power genuinely flows outwards to communities, rather than upwards to centralised mayoral offices. Before turning to the amendments, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for her work in Committee, and my hon.”
House of Commons24 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In my constituency, residents face the challenge of there being four different bus companies, with four different tickets available, potentially at four different prices. Different providers’ tickets are not interchangeable, even when residents are trying to get to one location. What are the Government doing to empower local councils to work with bus companies to create joined-up ticketing systems, which would make bus travel simpler and more affordable, and would encourage local people to use bus services?”
House of Commons20 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At official events, he stands as a spectator beside former colleagues as they proudly wear their medals, while he has nothing to show for his committed years of service and for the health, career and identity he lost in the line of duty. The creation of a dedicated injury in service medal would give men and women from the emergency services like Andrew the simple but powerful and important thanks and acknowledgment they deserve. To him and to all those injured in service, I say: thank you for your service. Like colleagues who have spoken today, I urge the Government to commit to creating this award. We must show men and women who have been injured in service that they will no longer be overlooked.”
House of Commons20 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I am pleased to speak today in support of the motion and my constituent, Andrew Barr, who is in the Gallery. Andrew served in the Metropolitan police as a detective constable from 2003 to 2019, and also volunteered with a search and rescue unit while off duty. He is among the many great servicepeople we are discussing today who have had their careers cut short by severe injuries sustained while protecting the public. He now lives with complex PTSD after years of assaults, road traffic fatalities and traumatic incidents—injuries that will remain with him for life—and yet, because those very injuries cut his career short, he was denied the long service and good conduct medal.”
House of Commons20 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), in part, for the debate today, which has enabled me to raise this part of the important conversation about penalties for offences arising from social media posts and user-to-user platforms.”
House of Commons17 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Online Safety Act creates strong penalties for encouraging suicide and serious self-harm—up to 14 years’ imprisonment and up to five years’ imprisonment respectively. Those penalties must not be weakened; they must be used, and they must be supported by regulators who treat the loss of life due to online harms with the urgency it demands. I have met too many parents, siblings, friends and loved ones whose lives have been shattered. Their message is simple: protect young people, target the real harms, and use the penalties to save lives. If proportionality is the principle, let it be proportional to harm, because our young people deserve a system that protects them, not one that leaves the deadliest corners of the internet untouched. I thank the hon.”
House of Commons17 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Had those warnings triggered action when they should have, many of those 133 people might still be with us today. Ofcom eventually opened a formal investigation under the Online Safety Act, but only in 2025—long after families had begun sounding the alarm. Its own letter acknowledges serious risks to UK users, including children, yet despite that Ofcom initially accepted a voluntary geoblock, which could be easily bypassed with a simple VPN. It took the discovery of a mirror site, and determined, unrelenting pressure from bereaved families, to escalate the case to priority. That goes to the heart of today’s debate: if we are examining how penalties are applied for offences arising from social media posts, we must ask why the quickest and toughest enforcement does not fall on those creating the greatest real-world harm.”
House of Commons17 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is not free speech, as the site moderators claim; it is the deliberate facilitation of harm—fatal harm. I first became aware of the foundation’s work when I met a local family who had lost their daughter, Hannah. She had been on that forum, where she found links to poisons and guidance on how to obtain them outside UK restrictions. Her father, Pete, warned me that harm is out there waiting to be found by teenagers. No parent should ever have to bury their child because of an unregulated user-to-user forum or social media. What makes this even harder to accept is how many missed chances there were to act. Coroners issued 65 prevention of future deaths reports to three Government bodies—65 formal warnings that the site and its content were putting people at risk.”
House of Commons17 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Nowhere is that clearer than in the case of unregulated suicide forums, which The Telegraph recently described as a terrifying online world where users share methods, encourage one another to die, and prey on the vulnerable. The Molly Rose Foundation, founded by bereaved parents after losing their daughter Molly, has exposed the scale of the threat. Its report “Missed chances, lost lives” links at least 133 UK deaths to a single pro-suicide forum that operates overseas. On that site, young people—many just teenagers—are encouraged, instructed and groomed into taking their own lives. The forum hosts detailed methods, promotes poisonous substances, shares advice on bypassing UK regulations and even enables suicide pacts between strangers, which facilitates the abuse of vulnerable women.”
House of Commons17 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Freedom of speech is a vital right, but it must end where harm to another begins. Online freedom cannot mean the freedom to exploit, to encourage self-harm or to destroy lives. I appreciate that I am taking the debate in a slightly off-piste direction, but this is relevant to the debate we are having today, because suicide forums and other user-to-user platforms are also part of what Ofcom counts as social media. If this debate is about the proportionality of penalties applied to offences arising from social media posts, we must address the stark reality that the most harmful content online is actually the least likely to attract enforcement.”
House of Commons17 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was interested to hear the Minister’s answers to the previous question, but true access to justice must include those still imprisoned under legal tests since ruled wrong, including many young people from marginalised communities convicted under joint enterprise. Will the Government consider adopting the review mechanism in my amendment to the Sentencing Bill, which would create a statutory process for a review of convictions so that they, too, can access justice?”
House of Commons11 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, and she and Alex’s mum are in the Gallery today. Some 11 years ago, Alex was convicted of murder after a 40-second altercation. He did not wield the weapon; he threw a phone and one punch, then ran. He was convicted under the now discredited doctrine of joint enterprise, which allowed juries to convict if a defendant merely foresaw what someone else might do. Two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that that interpretation had been wrong for more than 30 years. Foresight is not enough for guilt—intent must be present—yet Alex remains in prison, serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 19 years for a crime that he would not have been convicted of under today’s law.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Justice must be capable of learning from its mistakes. When the law evolves, it must reach back for those left behind. That is the principle behind new clauses 22 and 23, which I tabled. The new clauses would create a fair route for people still serving sentences under laws that have since been abolished or where the legal basis has materially changed. They would allow courts to review such cases so that punishment reflects the law as it stands today, not as it stood decades ago. At present, there is no clear mechanism for that to happen. Even when Parliament or the courts have recognised that a law was wrong, those affected have no way to benefit. Our system can acknowledge injustice, but it cannot yet fix it. We see that most clearly in the case of Alex Henry, whose sister is my constituent.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For Alex Henry, for the families in the Gallery today, and for everyone who is still serving a sentence under a law that our courts have already rejected, I urge all Members on both sides of the Committee and the Government to support new clauses 22 and 23.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Families across the country, including many in the Gallery, remember that promise; today’s Bill gives the Secretary of State and the Government the chance to make good on it. The new clauses provide a practical, proportionate and fair way to ensure that our justice system can correct itself when the law gets it wrong. As such, my ask today is for the Secretary of State and the Government to champion these clauses from the Government Benches. Work with me and campaigners to refine the detail if needed, but do not let the principle fall away, because the strength of our justice system lies not in its perfection, but in its capacity to put right its own mistakes.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would ensure that when the law evolves, we look back and ask what the changes mean for the people already affected. This is not just a moral necessity, but a practical one. We face a severe crisis in our prisons, which are overcrowded, understaffed and at breaking point. It makes no sense to fill cells with people serving sentences under laws that no longer reflect justice, while those who genuinely threaten public safety wait for space. We need prison places for those who are truly dangerous, not for those who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time under the wrong law. The Secretary of State for Justice has long recognised the injustice of joint enterprise. In 2021, he called it “shoddy law”, “outdated” and “backward”, and pledged to change it.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I place on record my gratitude for their courage and persistence in seeking justice. I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) for her support this afternoon. New clause 22 would allow people still serving sentences under laws that have materially changed to apply for a review. It would give courts discretion to resentence in line with the law as it now stands or to make any other order necessary in the interests of justice. This is not about reopening every case or granting automatic releases; it is about restoring fairness. New clause 23 would complement that by requiring the Secretary of State for Justice to review and report to Parliament on how changes in criminal law affect existing convictions and sentences.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is indeed a highly significant issue, which is why I have put forward the new clauses. Since his conviction, Alex has been diagnosed with autism, a condition that fundamentally affects how he perceives and reacts to social situations. That diagnosis raises serious questions about whether it was even fair to suggest that he could have foreseen a friend’s violent act, let alone intended it. Alex’s story is not unique. Many others—overwhelmingly young men, disproportionately from minority ethnic backgrounds—remain imprisoned under a doctrine that our highest court has disowned. I recognise today Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association—JENGbA—whose members have worked tirelessly for more than a decade to support families and campaign for reform. Many of them, and the families of those affected, are also here in the Gallery.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My new clause would deliver that. New clause 2 is focused, deliverable and urgently needed. It complements the Bill by ensuring that the rights it enshrines are backed by safe, well-staffed and properly regulated environments. Without it, we risk legislating for rights in theory while leaving patients unsafe in practice. By supporting it, we affirm that mental health care deserves the same national standards as any other branch of healthcare. I urge Members to support new clause 2 and make safety, dignity and accountability a permanent part of our mental health law, and I look forward to the debate in this House today.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although the Bill modernises detention criteria and patients’ rights, it does not explicitly require the Secretary of State to guarantee basic safety and staffing standards, and new clause 2 would fill that gap. Some may worry that it would be too prescriptive or add bureaucracy, but it would not replace local management; it would support it. It would build on the CQC’s role by ensuring that action is taken when failings persist, and it would turn inspection findings into a driver of national improvement. On cost, unsafe care is already expensive. It leads to readmissions, litigation, staff burnout and the loss of public trust. A national strategy would allow for smarter investment, preventing failures rather than paying for them later. We have had decades of guidance and reviews, but what we have not had is statutory accountability.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These are not just statistics; they represent real people who deserve better. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to publish a national strategy within 12 months to ensure that all mental health units meet or exceed “good” safety standards under the CQC framework, and to report annually to Parliament. It focuses on three key areas: recruitment, retention and training of staff; safe staffing levels and patient-to-staff ratios, especially during nights and peak times; and ongoing accountability through public reporting. The new clause would make patient safety a national obligation, not a postcode lottery. It is about responsibility and transparency.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Care Quality Commission has repeatedly raised concerns about the safety of mental health wards, citing staff shortages, poor infrastructure and environments that are unfit for therapeutic care. In 2023, the King’s Fund reported that 40% of NHS mental health providers were rated “requires improvement” or “inadequate” on safety—figures that would be intolerable elsewhere in the health system. The Health Services Safety Investigations Body has identified systematic risks in in-patient mental health care, including delayed responses to distress, inappropriate use of restraint and a lack of therapeutic staffing models. Perhaps most starkly, the British Medical Journal reported over 17,000 serious incidents in mental health services between April 2022 and March 2023. Each one was a moment when care went seriously wrong.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 2 seeks to change that by establishing a national strategy and annual reporting to ensure that every mental health unit is safe, well-staffed and fit for purpose. In my Guildford constituency, a family recently shared with me their experience of a loved one’s stay in a mental health facility. The unit was understaffed from the outset and wards were mixed in age and illness, with little therapeutic structure. There was no clear advocate or caseworker, and the family did not know whom to contact. They described a system that, in their words, “dishes out drugs without improving mental health or wellbeing.” The setting was so short-staffed that their loved one was able to self-harm—an unacceptable failure in any care setting. New clause 2 aims to prevent such failures from recurring.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am honoured to open today’s debate on Report and to have served in Committee, where it was clear that Members on both sides of the House shared a commitment to high-quality mental health care for those in crisis. I thank my colleagues who also served in Committee; it was an informative and moving discussion. It is that commitment to high-quality mental health care that underpins new clause 2. It addresses a critical issue: the inconsistency and inadequacy of care in mental health units across England. I am sure we have all heard distressing accounts of vulnerable individuals being placed in units that are understaffed, unsafe and ill equipped for recovery. Families entrust the system with their loved ones during moments of crisis, only to find that trust undermined—not by a lack of compassion, but by a lack of national direction.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(2) A service established under this section must provide— (a) support to unpaid carers when a patient for whom they provide care is— (i) awaiting admission to hospital for treatment under the Act; (ii) receiving treatment in hospital under the Act; (iii) set to be discharged from a hospital where they had been receiving treatment under this Act; (b) timely and accessible information regarding the discharge of the patient they care for, including details of— (i) the patient's discharge plan; and (ii) aftercare arrangements under section 117 of this Act; (c) support for unpaid carers to identify their own needs and connect to relevant local services for post-discharge support, including local authority adult social care services, general practitioners, and local carers' centres; (d) facilitation of effective communication and collaboration between unpaid carers and the patient's multidisciplinary clinical team regarding the discharge process; (e) assistance to unpaid carers in developing or updating a carer's support plan in the context of the patient's discharge, including guidance on— (i) their rights to assessment and support as carers (ii) their participation in education or employment; (iii) available counselling services; (iv) support in planning for emergencies in relation to the patient; (v) benefits for the carer and patient; and (vi) other forms of local support; and (f) services to ensure that the perspective of the unpaid carer, as a key provider of support, is considered during discharge planning, where appropriate and with due regard to patient confidentiality and consent.””— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require hospitals to establish a dedicated liaison service for the carers of patients detained under the Mental Health Act.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 26 Duty to establish carer liaison service “(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows. (2) In Part X (Miscellaneous and Supplementary), after section 133 insert— “133A Duty to establish carer liaison service (1) The managers of every hospital providing services under this Act must establish and maintain a dedicated carer liaison service.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In June, the Department made the welcome announcement of legislation to allow proxy voting and remote attendance, which will help to drive up the diversity of councillors across the country, but the Government have not yet set out a timeline. Will the Minister advise the House on when a timeline will be shared, and whether the Government have considered including the changes in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill?”
House of Commons13 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we want people to trust our fantastic police forces up and down the country, we need to look seriously at the current situation so that we can move to one where other forces review some of the most serious complaints.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate speech on behalf of his constituents on this difficult issue. As other Members have, I pay tribute to my police force, Surrey police. They do great work, but sadly things sometimes do go wrong. I have had to deal with a number of cases in my constituency office where the process has not worked in the way we would all like it to. People have gone to the police with complaints, only to find themselves in distress and unable to trust the outcomes because, in effect, the local force—although also in another case with the Met—has marked its own homework. The complaint has stayed with that force, which does not fill people with the confidence they need for their case. Does my hon. Friend agree that serious consideration is needed?”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are some tragic stories of horrendous errors with EHCPs in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly important that accountability is maintained in the system? If we cannot get it right now, how will we be able to—under the potential threat of EHCPs no longer existing—ensure that families and children are protected and get the support they need, and that the accountability of county councils and local authorities is maintained?”
House of Commons15 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Terrestrial television remains one of the last universal and accessible public services, and we should not dismantle that before every household has a real, affordable alternative.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Streaming offers flexibility and choice for those who can afford it, but it needs to complement, not replace, terrestrial broadcasting. That is why Ofcom has recommended a hybrid model combining digital, terrestrial and IPTV to give guaranteed universality and resilience. I ask the Minister: who will bear the burden of the annual cost of switching off terrestrial television? Will it be taxpayers, the vulnerable or both? How will the Government preserve emergency broadcasting if the network is dismantled? Does the Minister acknowledge that abandoning terrestrial TV risks widening the digital divide, raising household costs and potentially weakening our national resilience?”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Research shows that 96% of people trust the information that they receive on terrestrial TV. In this age of misinformation, that is not a luxury; it is a necessity in a healthy democracy and civic society. Broadcast television is a shared civic space where the nation comes together, whether it is for the coronation, the Olympics, the “Gavin and Stacey” finale or the women’s Euros, which reached more than 22 million on the BBC alone. Terrestrial broadcasting is not just about culture. It underpins our critical national infrastructure, supporting radio, emergency alerts and communication during crises. Are we comfortable discarding such resilience in our world, which is sadly encountering growing global instability and increasing informational interference from hostile foreign Governments? I am not arguing against digital innovation.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need to be clear about the cost of the switchover. Terrestrial television currently accounts for just 3% of the licence fee. By contrast, switching entirely to internet-only delivery could cost £2.1 billion up front and £1 billion annually. I want to ask the Minister who is fronting those costs. For the 4.3 million households who rely exclusively on terrestrial TV, it could mean an extra £218 per year simply to access content that today is free to air. All this comes at a time when one in four households already struggles to afford their communication services, and when millions have had to cancel broadband contracts to make ends meet during the cost of living crisis. Once again, the switchover has risks. I think we can all agree that in the current world, terrestrial TV has an important role as a trusted source of information.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Supporters of the switch-off argue that most homes will have gigabit broadband by the 2030s, but of course theoretical access does not guarantee adoption by households. Around 13 million to 19 million adults are estimated to be living in digital poverty, and the switchover risks pushing more households into such poverty. We know that it is not just older people and people living in rural communities who do not have or will not be able to access digital television. We also know that one in five children is affected by digital poverty, which can have a huge impact on their educational outcomes. So I really am concerned that the proposed switch-off risks extending the digital divide, with unequal access to entertainment and educational resources, as well as to unbiased news.”
House of Commons4 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope that we have the restorative recess that we all need, particularly those of us who have spent our first year in this place. I say an enormous thank you to all the staff across the House, whether they work for us or help to make the House function. Without them, we would not be able to serve our residents in the way we do. I wish everyone a very good recess.”
House of Commons22 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why I am pushing for a new train station in Guildford, and I am calling for the Government’s support to make that happen. Guildford’s residents have been waiting for more than a decade for a decision on that. Given the major housing development taking place locally, the appetite among local businesses and residents for greener ways to travel, and the Government’s commitment to rail travel, I say simply that now is the time. Let this summer recess not be a pause in our work but a call to action for when we return. Let us deliver the cleaner air, safer streets and low-carbon transport systems that communities are calling for. If we do not act, we are not just failing future generations; we are failing this one.”
House of Commons22 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On that point, the evidence already shows that insulating and retrofitting homes could slash energy demand by the equivalent of six nuclear power stations. It could cut household bills by a quarter, save the NHS £1.5 billion a year, and prevent nearly 10,000 deaths caused by cold and damp housing annually. This is not just an environmental policy; it is a health and cost of living policy, too. I say to colleagues across the House that if residents are that engaged and schoolchildren are that active, what excuse do we have not to act with a level of urgency matching theirs? I will end by highlighting one of the most visible ways in which we can lead: by supporting sustainable transport. Residents are asking for better, greener transport options. They want joined-up infrastructure that serves people, not just cars.”
House of Commons22 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Zero Carbon, in work with the Water Rangers and the River Wey Trust, regularly tests our precious waterways to monitor sewage pollution. Nearly 500 residents are trained in citizen science, nine water-testing hubs are now active, and a new community water lab has been opened, in partnership with the University of Surrey in my constituency. That is proof that local people are not just waiting for change; they are making it. But they should not have to do it alone. They tell me that they want the Government to match their urgency. They want visible leadership on nature protection, tougher laws to stop sewage polluting our rivers, green spaces protected from poor planning decisions and support to make their homes warmer and cheaper to run.”
House of Commons22 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗