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 7 of 10.
“If we are serious about reform, which I believe the Government are given the content of the Bill, then the new clause would ensure serious scrutiny and accountability. I turn to new clause 18. Eating disorders are complex, often misunderstood and frequently mismanaged in the mental health system. Too many patients face delayed interventions, inappropriate detention or a lack of tailored care, particularly when their condition does not fit into a narrow clinical threshold. The Bill introduces reforms to detention criteria, treatment decisions and care planning, but we must ensure that the changes actually work for people with eating disorders.”
“New clause 15 calls for an independent review of whether the legislation achieves one of its core aims: reducing unnecessary detention under the Mental Health Act. People with learning disabilities and autistic people are still far too often detained in hospital settings, sometimes for months or years, despite clear evidence that community-based support would be more effective and humane. The Bill’s provisions—including those on grounds for detention, care and treatment planning and aftercare—are supposed to address that, but if we do not review their impact, there is a risk that they remain warm words without real change. The new clause would ensure that the Government must review how well the new law is working, in particular for those most vulnerable to inappropriate detention, and then act on that evidence within a year.”
“(2) After section 19 (transfer of patients), insert— ‘ 19A Transfer of patients: out of area placements (1) The Secretary of State must reduce to zero, within five years of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, the number of patients transferred to a hospital outside of the area in which the patient is ordinarily resident. (2) The Secretary of State must publish, within six months of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, a report to outline how the duty under this section will be met, including how provision for treatment under this Act will be increased.’”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require the transfer of patients to hospitals outside of their area to be reduced to zero within 5 years, and for the Secretary of State to produce a report on how this will be achieved. Brought up, and read the First time .”
“I thank the Minister for his comments; it was really helpful to hear about how he sees the timings in our new clause fitting with the ongoing work to implement the Mental Health Act and the commissioning of the independent review. I am concerned about his comment that the work will be dependent on funding. I hope that the funding for the important independent review will be ensured. However, on the basis of the Minister’s comments, I am happy not to press any of the new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 16 Transfer of patients: out of area placements “(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.”
“Stonewall’s “LGBT in Britain—Health” report revealed deeply concerning findings: almost one in four LGBT individuals had heard discriminatory or negative remarks about them from healthcare staff, one in eight had experienced unequal treatment, one in 10 had been outed without their consent in healthcare settings, and one in seven had avoided treatment altogether for fear of discrimination. That is unacceptable anywhere in our health system, but it is especially alarming in mental health settings, where patients are already in distress and often detained, and may not be in a position to advocate for themselves.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 19 would require the Secretary of State to report on mental health outcomes for LGBT patients detained or treated under the Mental Health Act 1983, and to publish clear guidance to improve staff training, patient safety and inclusive care for that group. We all deserve appropriate support when experiencing poor mental health, and that support must be fair and respectful, no matter whether the patient identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Members of the LGBT community should have confidence that they will be treated with dignity and should not face unequal or inappropriate treatment because of who they are. Unfortunately, we know that that is not always the reality.”
“(3) Following publication of the strategy, a report on implementation progress must be laid before Parliament annually. (4) For the purposes of this section, a ‘relevant mental health unit’ is a facility used for treatment under this Act.”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy, followed by an annual progress report, on how the Government will ensure that all mental health units used for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 are rated “good” or above by the CQC. Brought up, and read the First time .”
“New Clause 22 National strategy on mental health units “(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows. (2) In Part VIII (Miscellaneous Functions of Local Authorities and the Secretary of State), after section 118, insert— ‘ 118A National strategy on mental health units (1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of the Mental Health Act 2025, publish a national strategy to set out how the Government will ensure that all relevant mental health units meet or exceed ‘good’ safety standards as assessed by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). (2) A strategy issued under this section must address the following matters— (a) recruitment, retention and training of mental health staff, (b) patient-to-staff ratios, and (c) safe staffing levels during crises and night shifts.”
“I thank the Minister for his comments, for the recognition that individuals in the LGBT community clearly have concerns about the way that mental health care is provided, and for the commitment to addressing those. I hope that at some point he will be able to advise on the timeline for looking to resolve the issue of the unreliability of data; it is crucial that we have accurate data in order to ensure good outcomes and improvements in mental health care. However, in the light of the Minister’s comments and commitment on the issue, we will not press the new clause, although I look forward to observing closely, as this Bill continues through the House, how it will address the current inequalities for the LGBT+ community. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Recovery is often long, fragile and dependent on support at home, yet families and carers—the people holding things together day in, day out—are often left behind with little or no guidance. This clause seeks to change that: it would ensure that carers are given clear information about the patient’s condition and recovery journey, supported in helping to prevent relapse and readmission, linked to relevant support systems, including housing and social care, and provided with a route to raise concerns if they believe that someone is at risk in future.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak to new clause 21, which would place a clear statutory duty on integrated care boards to offer advice and support to families or carers of patients receiving aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act. I thank the Minister for his comments about the new clause. I acknowledge what he says about the statutory guidance and code of practice, but I hear from far too many patients and their families living in my constituency of Guildford that advice and support is often not being provided and that authorities are falling short. This new clause is rooted in a very simple principle: good mental health care does not end at the point of discharge.”
“Importantly, the new clause sets out a process whereby, if a family member wants to raise a concern, the team must consider whether that individual should be added to the register of persons at risk of detention under part II of the Mental Health Act. We believe that this is a sensible, joined-up approach to prevention, spotting risks early and acting before a crisis point is reached. Finally, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish national guidance and ensure consistency and clarity across the system. We often speak of carers as the invisible workforce of our NHS. The new clause would make their contribution visible by recognising their role and giving them the information and support they need to fulfil it well.”
“The hon. Member makes a really good point. There is definitely a place for ensuring that we work on this further to make sure that it covers that. I will come on to that later, if she will allow me. We know that early intervention is key. We know that families, carers and those around an individual are often the first to spot the warning signs, and that they need to feel empowered, not sidelined. I hear time and again, as I am sure hon. Members across this Committee Room have heard, from people who have been left out of the discharge planning for their loved ones. They say that they have received no clear information and that they feel unsupported and unable to fully support their loved one when they return home.”
“Members with an interest in the issue, so that he can hear our constituents’ experiences of where the current guidance is clearly not working, and ensure that appropriate additions are made to the supporting documents for the Bill to address the concerns that we have raised in the new clause. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Taiwo Owatemi.)”
“In my final comments, I was going to say to the Minister that, having considered the points he set out in his opening statement in relation to this clause, I am prepared not to press the new clause. I appreciate that some of the information already exists in the Bill and in the existing documentation to which the shadow Minister referred. I also acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock, that some aspects around consent must be dug into. However, I ask the Minister to work with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester and other hon.”
“He has mentioned a number of documents coming forward that start to address these issues, but as I have expressed, clearly the guidance already exists but it has not been adhered to in all cases, so we would like to see the timeline.”
“The new clause would require statutory guidance for integrated care boards, local authorities and providers, covering essential components, such as clear pathways and timelines, joint working across services, early identification of those needing transition support, and updates to care plans that reflect changing needs. We believe that the new clause is clear, proportionate and achievable. It asks for a plan and for consultation and guidance that can support more stable, person-centred care at a critical point in a young person’s life. The Minister has indicated that he will not support the new clause. If he is unwilling to do so, my request is that he sets out how the Government will ensure the issues around transitioning between child and adult mental health services are addressed—particularly a clear timeline.”
“New clause 20 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to report within 18 months how to improve transitions between in-patient settings for children and young people and those for adults. I heard a particularly distressing case in my constituency recently, where an individual turned 18 and almost the next day was placed in an adult mental health setting. It was completely inappropriate for that individual, and no real transition work had been done. I appreciate that the Minister says that there is clear guidance, but that guidance has clearly not been adhered to at all times.”
“That is a systematic failure. The new clause sets a clear goal: reduce the number of children detained on adult wards to zero within five years. It would also require the Secretary of State to publish within six months a concrete plan of how this will be achieved, including how children’s mental health services will be expanded. It is a question of not just capacity but political will. I urge the Committee to support the new clause if we press it to a Division. I say to the Minister that we are still looking for timelines. We need to protect young people from going into inappropriate adult mental health settings, as I have heard too often from residents in my constituency.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the Minister for his comments on new clause 17, but I will speak to it briefly along with new clause 20, and then consider not pressing it later. New clause 17 aims to end the harmful and inappropriate practice of detaining children on adult mental health wards. We know that children in mental health crises are among the most vulnerable in our care system. Placing them in an adult ward is not only developmentally inappropriate; it risks causing further trauma and harm. The practice continues not because it is clinically justified but because of a lack of specialist child and adolescent mental health provision. Despite the existing statutory guidance under section 131A of the Mental Health Act, hundreds of children are still admitted to adult settings each year.”
“I thank the Solicitor General for her answer. In the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment defining sex in the Equality Act 2010 as strictly biological, and public comments from the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggesting trans individuals may not be entitled to privacy protections under article 8, what steps are the Solicitor General and her office taking to ensure that domestic law remains fully aligned with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights, particularly articles 3, 8 and 14? Do the Government intend to clarify or consolidate domestic equality law and the ECHR obligations, to avoid growing legal divergence?”
“A constituent contacted me specifically about the digital inclusion action plan, explaining that because of his voice disability, spasmodic dysphonia, he struggles to access essential services such as banking, because automated phone systems could not understand his voice. There is often no clear way of bypassing those systems, and alternatives like webchat are slow and ineffective. This is a growing issue for many people with communication disabilities. What steps is the Minister taking, with Cabinet colleagues, to ensure that services remain accessible, and will the issue be addressed through the action plan?”
“I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 6, page 13, line 6, at end insert— “(c) after subsection (6) insert— ‘(6A) Any person subject to a community treatment order must be informed orally and in writing at the time of the making of the order of their right to an independent mental health advocate under section 130A of this Act.’” The amendment would ensure that people who are to be subject to a community treatment order would receive information about their right to advocacy.”
“People in this situation are in acute mental distress, so the idea that they must actively seek out information on advocacy seems an unfair burden that will make the welcome provisions around mental health advocates far less effective. We also need to be aware that CTOs have consistently been shown to be a point of disparity in care for black and minority ethnic groups. Clearly pointing towards an advocate may help to alleviate that and ensure that the patient is adequately supported on leaving the hospital. Is the Minister satisfied that people subject to CTOs will have adequate access to advocacy under the Bill? Is he satisfied that information on rights to mental health advocates will be clear enough? My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are concerned that the answer to those questions is no, which is why we tabled the amendment.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Our amendment would ensure that people who are subject to community treatment orders receive information about their right to advocacy. People under CTOs should not miss out on advocacy because they were not aware. CTOs can have a significant impact on how people are able to live their lives, and ensuring that those who are subject to them are effectively represented is crucial. I am delighted that advocacy is a crucial part of the Bill, but this seems something of an oversight. Not being aware of mental health advocacy could lead to a damaging lack of autonomy and voice for an individual. This simple change would ensure that people receive the support to which they are entitled.”
“I thank the Minister for his comments on our amendment 11 and the clarification regarding the fact that the Bill covers a lot of the issues we raised in that amendment. I am therefore willing to withdraw our amendment. On Government amendment 30, I am grateful to the hon. Members for Hinckley and Bosworth and for Farnham and Bordon for their comments on the Government’s request to remove subsection (3). It is good to have consensus on these Benches on the important issues included in it. While I do appreciate the comments from the Minister about how he believes that the Bill covers these issues, I do feel that the subsection needs to remain and I would therefore like to vote on the Government amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave, withdrawn.”
“It is not hard to imagine how traumatic it must be for an under-16 to refuse treatment when they fully understand and object to it, yet be overridden because no one is quite sure how to assess their competency robustly. We believe that, at the very least, we owe it to young people to ensure that our legal framework is coherent, fair and protective of their rights. The new clause would allow the Government to lead that conversation in a measured and consultative way. A statutory review would bring much-needed evidence and direction to a complex but critical issue. I am disappointed that the Minister will not consider the new clause, but I will withdraw it for expediency. However, it has been good to hear the commitment from the Minister to consulting on and reviewing this issue.”
“I rise to speak in favour of new clause 5, which would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review into whether the statutory competency test for under-16s would be expedited under the Mental Health Act. It has been great to hear so many contributions from colleagues on the Committee about the challenges that young people face when discussing their mental health and wellbeing and being involved in decision making around their health. As my colleague Baroness Tyler noted in the Lords, and as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth noted in his early comments, the consistency with which Gillick competency is interpreted in the case of young people is a bit of a grey area. That is the key reason why we have tabled this new clause. We want young people to be empowered to be involved with decisions around their mental health.”
“I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 21, page 30, line 28, at end insert— “(ab) containing steps to alleviate social and financial stressors contributing to the patient’s risk of requiring detention in future; and”. This amendment would require social and financial stressors be addressed in care and treatment plans.”
“Those experiencing mental ill health are three times more likely to be behind on at least one key payment—such as rent, energy bills or credit cards—compared with those without mental health problems. Social stressors are likely to be even more severe for people from racially diverse communities and the LGBT community, and disabled people. Including these stressors in care plans will help to address disproportionate detention rates and support more equitable care.”
“I hope the Committee will forgive me if I take some time to address the various amendments in this group. Amendment 48 would ensure that care and treatment plans do not stop at clinical intervention and address the underlying social and financial stressors that contribute to the cycle of poor mental health, and crucially, to avoidable future detention under the Mental Health Act. We know that treatment is not just medication and monitoring. For many, the tipping point for crisis is social and financial stressors. The relationship between debt and mental health has been well documented. Nearly half of those behind on their bills experience mental health problems.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interjection, and I thank the Committee for considering these amendments. I hope the Government will either consider agreeing to them or give me an overview of how they will already be addressed in the detail of the Bill.”
“I thank the Minister for going in detail through the points raised in our amendments. It is good to hear how each of them is being addressed through the code of practice and in the Bill. I am reassured, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)”
“(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the exercise of functions under this section, and integrated care boards must have regard to this guidance.” This amendment would require integrated care boards to establish and maintain appropriate crisis accommodation specifically designed for people with autism or learning disability as one of its duties in relation to registers of people at risk of detention.”
“(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘appropriate crisis accommodation’ means accommodation which— (a) is designed to meet the specific needs of people with autism or learning disability during periods of acute mental health crisis; (b) is staffed by persons with specialist training in supporting people with autism or a learning disability; (c) maintains appropriate staffing ratios determined by guidance issued by the Secretary of State; and (d) provides a safe alternative to detention under section 136 of this Act.”
“I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 4, page 9, line 38, at end insert— “ 125ZF Registers: duty to maintain crisis accommodation (1) In exercising its functions under section 125E, an integrated care board must seek to ensure that there is appropriate crisis accommodation for people with autism or a learning disability within its area.”
“Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, would establish an accelerated implementation timeline of services related to autism and learning disabilities, by again requiring them to be implemented within two years. I reiterate what we heard in the Chamber, which I am sure we will all hear in our inboxes and in conversations with our residents: it is crucial that we implement these changes at pace; otherwise, we risk failing individuals with autism and learning disabilities further.”
“Currently, just over 2,000 autistic people and people with learning disabilities are detained in mental health hospitals who are being let down by the system. The Government have sadly already missed the targets, and we cannot afford to wait another decade—people’s lives are too important. In fact, the UN Human Rights Committee has called on the UK to end the detention of people with disabilities based solely on their disability. Every day that we wait means more people at risk of tragic outcomes. As I said, the amendment would establish a two-year deadline, and it recognises that these are some of the most urgent reforms in the Bill. I ask the Government to consider them as a priority. Finally, amendment 24, which was also tabled by my hon.”
“We cannot continue with such a situation, given the significant implications when things go wrong. Through those amendments, we are asking for an assessment, because there is currently no systematic assessment of whether services match demand, which is crucial to ensuring that the Bill is workable in the long term. It is also acknowledged that it may take 10 years to fully implement the Bill and to ensure that additional clinical and judicial staff are trained. Amendment 21 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. It would establish an accelerated implementation timeline for provisions related to autism and learning disabilities, requiring those provisions to be fully implemented within two years.”
“Too many of us will have seen how inadequate community services make detention and in-patient care much more likely, which is worse for the person detained, far more costly and unsustainable in the long term. Our amendments place duties on the integrated care board at the local level, and the Secretary of State at the national level, to be transparent about gaps in provision and to take steps to eliminate them. Amendment 22 would require an integrated care board to conduct an assessment of the availability and adequacy of the relevant services within its area for people with autism or learning disabilities who have specified risk factors for detention, and to set out a plan to respond to those findings. There is currently an absence of suitable placements, with over 100 places that were contacted having no single bed available.”
“We have already referenced today how important training is when it comes to protecting those who are in crisis and who need support. Finally, it would provide for safe, alternative detention under section 136, preventing situations such as that experienced by the hon. Friend’s constituent, where a vulnerable person is held in inappropriate emergency settings for extended periods. Amendments 10 and 22 are both designed to ensure that there are sufficient resources for people with autism or learning disabilities. On amendment 10, it is crucial that community services are properly resourced to meet the needs of people with autism and learning disabilities.”
“The crisis provision created in Cambridgeshire after my hon. Friend’s constituent Declan passed away was operating at 90% capacity before funding was withdrawn. When we hear Declan’s story, we realise the severe implications behind the amendment and why it is being put forward. We must also recognise that there has been a significant increase in section 136 use over the past 10 years. Many of the suites being used are outdated, unable to keep up with demand and unfit for purpose. The amendment would therefore make appropriate crisis accommodation a statutory duty, and I hope all Members would agree that there is a desperate need for such accommodation, specifically for autistic people and those with learning disabilities. It would also require there to be specialist training for staff.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), and I am sure many in this room will remember his passionate speech about his constituent Declan Morrison, who has inspired many of these amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his help with my notes. Amendment 20 would require integrated care boards to establish and maintain appropriate crisis accommodation specifically designed for people with autism and learning disability, as one its duties in relation to registers of people at risk of detention. Currently, just over 2,000 people with autism or learning disabilities are detained in mental health hospitals for an average of five years. Over half of delayed discharges are due to a lack of suitable housing or accommodation.”
“It would require co-production with families and people with lived experience, with which Conservative colleagues have already said that they agree. That would include mandatory training in de-escalation techniques and alternatives to restraint; create consistent national standards, rather than the unfortunate postcode lottery; and address fundamental staff knowledge gaps that contribute to inappropriate treatment. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment, which would enable us to ensure that those providing crucial mental health support to those in crisis have the appropriate training to prevent tragedies like the loss of Declan.”
“I acknowledge that enormous numbers of incredible professionals work with individuals who are in crisis, but when such tragedies happen, we need to reflect on whether training is sufficient. Across mental health hospitals, places of safety and crisis accommodation, training is crucial to ensuring good outcomes for those in crisis. Some 92% of people with learning disabilities or autism in hospitals are detained under the Mental Health Act, yet many staff lack specialist understanding. Research shows that training is most effective when it is developed with people with lived experience. The amendment would ensure that all staff working with autistic people and people with learning disabilities receive specialist training.”
“It would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on minimum training standards for staff working with people with autism or learning disabilities in mental health settings, and would require that the training be co-produced with people with lived experience and their families. I suggest to all colleagues on the Committee, particularly those who heard my hon. Friend’s passionate speech on Second Reading, that we need to reflect and learn from the tragic story of his constituent Declan, in which insufficient training sadly contributed to Declan’s death. Autistic people in hospitals risk being subject to unnecessary restraint, over-medication and solitary confinement. That raises real concerns about whether there is sufficient training available to staff working with them.”
“(3) The Secretary of State must publish guidance about the standards set out in regulations under subsection (1). (4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on minimum training standards for staff working with people with autism or learning disabilities in mental health settings and require that training be co-produced with people with lived experience and their families. Amendment 25 was, again, tabled by my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire.”
“I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 4, page 10, line 5, at end insert— “ 125FA Training standards (1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about training standards for responsible bodies and individuals working with people with autism or a learning disability in— (a) mental health hospitals; (b) places of safety designated under sections 135 or 136 of this Act; (c) crisis accommodation; and (d) such other settings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must— (a) specify minimum training requirements; (b) require training to be co-produced with people with autism or learning disability and their families or carers; (c) require regular refresher training; and (d) include training on de-escalation techniques and alternatives to restraint.”
“Having had a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, I can say that we will withdraw the amendment. However, we hope that the Minister will ensure that the provisions addressing the need for training in such situations will come soon, and with a timeline, so that all members of the Committee understand when we will see the statutory guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn . Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Similarly, the nominated person, whether that is a friend, a mother, a sibling, or another parent, often has care of the patient; they know the whole person better than any NHS institution, and will often have a far fuller understanding of the patient’s history.”