Representation of the People Bill

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate on such an important Bill that represents a long-overdue modernisation of our democratic framework, but the Government should be in no doubt that we Liberal Democrats will push them to go further, faster. For decades, my party has campaigned for young people’s voices to be properly recognised, so I am delighted to see the voting age finally lowered to 16. This change will enfranchise around 1.7 million 16 and 17-year-olds, giving them a say in decisions that shape their future.

Since becoming MP for Guildford, I have visited many schools across my constituency and spoken with young people whose thoughtful, informed questions make it abundantly clear that they are more than ready to participate in our democracy. While some may argue that 16 and 17-year-olds lack world awareness, I fundamentally disagree. With pre-registration from age 14, and with the right safeguards, we can build lifelong democratic habits and help close the participation gap.

We Liberal Democrats also welcome measures in the Bill that protect our democracy from the corrupting influence of dark money. The new “know your donor” requirements and tighter rules on corporate and unincorporated association donations are essential to prevent foreign interference and restore trust in how politics is funded. We will call for further important changes to strengthen the Bill in this area.

However, the Bill misses a vital opportunity to fix our broken electoral system. First past the post is unfair, outdated and increasingly indefensible.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that we need a radical reset of democracy in our country to reinvigorate trust, which has recently been lost? We need to cap big donations, bring in fair votes, and abolish the ludicrous voter ID scheme from the last Government.

[Zöe Franklin]

I wholeheartedly agree. I urge the Government to listen to the 60% of the public who want a fairer voting system, including members of their own party, and take very seriously the case for proportional representation.

I declare my interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference on the security of MPs, candidates and elections, and I welcome the inclusion of our recommendations in the Bill. We live in a time when abuse and threats deter talented people, particularly those from under-represented backgrounds, from standing for public office. I am pleased that the Bill will better protect candidates and their families, but we must go further. We need to update section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to explicitly criminalise the use of AI and deepfakes to smear candidates. Technology is moving rapidly, and those intent on undermining our democracy are moving with it, so we must future-proof this legislation.

Looking across this House, I can see that we have made real progress in reflecting the diversity of the communities that we serve, but there is still far to go. The Bill is an opportunity to enact section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires political parties to publish diversity data. It has long been a Liberal Democrat commitment, and I pay tribute to organisations such as Centenary Action that have campaigned tirelessly for such transparency.

I urge the Government to reinstate the access to elected office fund in England, which was scrapped in 2020. The Bill claims to support disabled candidates, yet it offers no financial mechanism to make that a reality. Wales and Scotland already provide such support, so why not England?

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an important point about the accessibility of elections for disabled candidates and voters. Disability charities have made the point that there is some way to go in ensuring that our elections are truly accessible for disabled people. Does she agree that it is important that the Bill does that?

[Zöe Franklin]

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to do more to ensure that everyone is able to take part in voting, particularly those with visual impairments.

It is an anomaly that Wales and Scotland offer support for accessing elected office, but England does not. Why does England not have that fund? We must ensure that people with disabilities are not prevented from standing to represent their communities.

I am pleased that I will be serving on the Bill Committee, and I look forward to working constructively with the Government to strengthen the Bill so that our democracy is truly safe, fair and representative of all.

Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 General Committees

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Thank you, Sir Roger; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the Minister for her introductory remarks and echo her thanks to all those across Surrey who have been involved in the transitional work, whether they are officers or elected members.

The Liberal Democrats recognise that local government reorganisation is needed to make it easier for people to interact with their councils; how many of us have listened to the understandable frustration of residents who want to complain about the bin collections and the potholes, only to find they have two separate councils to contact? It is also, more seriously, the only realistic way to address the significant financial issues that councils across the country face after years of Conservative underfunding of local government.

Nowhere is the difficult reality of council finances clearer than in Surrey, where previous Conservative administrations presided over Woking’s reaching £2.5 billion of debt and Spelthorne’s reaching £1.05 billion.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Forgive me, but we have to point out that the Liberal Democrats were part of the coalition that started austerity in 2010.

[Zöe Franklin]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I was referencing specifically the debt of Woking and Spelthorne, which were under Conservative administrations.

As I was saying, we understand why the Government decided to push Surrey to go first with reorganisation. However, we and local government colleagues in Surrey are deeply concerned by the speed at which the process has been pushed through, and the lack of meaningful consultation with residents.

The decision to push ahead with a two-council model was taken in spite of residents saying quite clearly, in response to a survey, that they would prefer a three-council model, and the district councils setting out clearly that that would not be significantly more expensive and would, in fact, better represent communities and place. Local government reorganisation and devolution should be about strengthening local communities. I know that the Government want to do that—they set it out very clearly when this was originally announced by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner)—and yet I am afraid to say that the decision to have two councils and the double-speed process seem to be more about central cost savings than the people of Surrey.

Of course, central cost savings are not enough to rebalance Surrey’s finances. Even with an unprecedented bailout for Woking, for which we are grateful—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Woking will mention it—the new West Surrey council, created by the draft order, is likely to start life with somewhere between £3 billion and £4.5 billion of unresolved debt, not to mention a potentially significant structural funding gap. East Surrey may face lower unresolved debt, but it will equally have a potentially significant funding gap. Ultimately, who pays the price for that? Residents, through both council tax and, potentially, the services they receive. I want to emphasise that it is vital that the Government provide sustained and adequate funding to ensure that reorganisation strengthens councils rather than destabilising them.

Turning specifically to the draft order, although Surrey’s reorganisation is the first in the Government’s devolution programme, it is not the first county to ever go through this process, so it is interesting that the Government have diverged from the precedents set in previous examples such as Cheshire and Cumbria. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister to what extent her Department considered those previous local government reorganisation precedents when deciding on the Surrey joint committee model. What specific factors led to it diverging from those precedents, or was the decision primarily shaped by central Government’s evolving policy on reorganisation?

On the formation of the two new councils, I am sure the Minister will agree that clear, vision-led leadership that puts local people first and seeks to work collaboratively and effectively with officers and political leaders involved in the creation of those authorities is absolutely crucial to a smooth transition. Article 15 of the draft order requires the formation of an implementation team led by the county council’s chief executive. Will the Minister advise what statutory or practical considerations led to the decision that that leadership must sit with the county council’s chief executive, rather than a mutually or jointly appointed lead?

What representations did the Minister’s Department seek from councils across Surrey to shape its thinking, and can that information be shared with Surrey MPs and existing council leaders? I am also interested to understand from the Minister whether there were specific risks that the Department was seeking to mitigate by mandating county-level leadership for the implementation team, particularly given the scale of service disaggregation required.

While reorganisation in Surrey is designed to create single-tier local government through the formation of East Surrey and West Surrey councils, I am glad that the draft order allows for the retention of parish councils. As the MP for Guildford, I have seen the very clear benefit of that hyper-local tier of local councils, which provide passionate, publicly accountable community leadership and deliver high-quality services and innovative ideas alongside local people.

It has therefore been disappointing that, as far as I know, there has been very limited assistance from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the formation of new town and parish councils to cover the areas that do not already have them. I understand that the draft order makes provision for community boards, but I am sceptical that they would provide a similar level of community benefit or accountability that parish or town councils do, so I am very interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.

Speaking of accountability, will the Minister provide some clarity on the council vacancies that will arise after 30 September this year? My reading of the draft order is that no by-elections can take place after this date, unless the number of councillors on the district or county council they are a member of drops below a third of the total number of councillors—for example, in Guildford, that would be 16 councillors. Given that the new councils will not form formally until 1 April 2027, surely if significant numbers of vacancies arise, that will leave residents technically without full representation. Does the Minister believe that is democratically appropriate?

Before I close, I have two last queries to raise with the Minister. First, will she set out the timeline of the remaining steps for the draft order to come into place formally, including the date she expects it to come into force? Secondly—I recognise that this is something the Minister may wish to take away and write to me on—can she advise what considerations have been made to review the Surrey Act 1985 in the light of the changes taking place through the draft order and the associated reorganisation of Surrey into East Surrey and West Surrey?

In conclusion, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches recognise the need for reorganisation. We do not oppose the draft order, but we urge the Minister and the Department to work closely with colleagues and officers across all tiers of local government in Surrey to ensure that they have the necessary funding and transition support so that local people see improvements to services where they are needed and council set-ups that put the needs of residents at the centre in both culture and service delivery and that are financially resilient for the future.

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 General Committees

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I will keep this brief. I was grateful that the Minister recognised that this issue must be set in its wider context: businesses are struggling. I regularly have conversations with businesses in my constituency and we are getting to the point where the situation could be a closure notice for many, as was mentioned earlier. The Liberal Democrats are particularly concerned that the Government promised to permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, but have failed to use the full powers they gave themselves to deliver support.

We are also concerned about transparency and accountability. Despite repeated parliamentary questions, the Government have not published clear, sector-specific data on the impact of the revaluation, even though the Valuation Office Agency has confirmed that such data was shared with the Treasury. That lack of transparency makes it so much harder for Members to assess what the revaluation really means for their constituencies. That is ever so important where industries, such as hospitality, are a major part of their local economy. We have argued for practical targeted support and we have called for an emergency VAT cut for hospitality, accommodation and attractions. We have also raised concerns about the cumulative impact of alcohol duty and national insurance rises.

Ultimately, we believe the measure set out in this statutory instrument do not go far enough to address the scale of the challenge facing businesses in places like my constituency, but voting against it would be voting against any transitional support at all, so for that reason, while I cannot support it, I will not oppose it. I will abstain and we will continue, as a party, to press the Government to recognise the pressures facing town centres and to take urgent action to protect pubs and jobs. I do push the Government, however, because they need to do more and they need to do what they have promised.

Local Elections: Cancellation

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I find it really interesting that this urgent question comes from the Conservative party, which sought to cancel local elections this year and last year in Surrey. [Interruption.] Given the professed concern for democracy of the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), I hope that he will commit to supporting Lord Pack’s amendment in the House of Lords, removing the Secretary of State’s power to change the timing of local elections—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I want to hear what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has to say, as do all our constituents.

[Zöe Franklin]

That said, the Labour party is the main offender in cancelling elections, and it appears to be running scared from the ballot box rather than trusting voters. Does the Minister accept that cancelling elections risks setting a dangerous precedent that elections become optional when they are inconvenient to those in power? What message does it send to residents about the value of local government if their right to vote can be so easily set aside? Democracy is a right, not a matter of convenience.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for powering through, despite commentary from the Opposition Front Bench. She asks about the importance of democracy. It is, of course, very important. The vast majority of elections are going ahead next year. A huge number of people will be voting. It is important that that principle is stuck to. We will take the decisions based on the evidence and the precedent I set out in response to other Members.

Local Government Reorganisation

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Just over two weeks ago, we were in this Chamber for a statement cancelling the mayoral elections in six areas. At the time, the Government assured us that they intended to go ahead with May 2026 elections, so it is deeply disappointing to be here again discussing cancellations and the prospect of people being denied their vote and their voice. I do wonder how voters and Members of this House can trust the Government on the topic of elections, given that they have gone back on their repeated assurances that elections would go ahead.

In her statement, the Minister indicated that concerns had been raised about lack of capacity. With the Government’s timetable for reorganisation having been clearly set out in July, it seems strange that capacity issues are only just being highlighted. Will she clarify to the House the type of capacity issues that are being highlighted? Will she also say which tier of council will be the primary decision maker on whether an area has capacity issues? What will happen if district and county councils have differing views?

Finally, the Minister will be aware that councils have already committed significant financial resources, not to mention staff hours, to planning for the May 2026 elections. Will she commit today to fully reimbursing councils for costs incurred in planning for 2026, if they end up having their elections cancelled?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I will not respond again to those to which I have already responded. As I mentioned, the majority of the English electorate will get to vote in the elections in 2026 that are not affected by reorganisation. There are other elections going on and, as I said, this does not apply to the majority of councils undergoing reorganisation, either.

A number of councils have raised capacity issues, demand on limited resources and the challenge of getting the transition process right. They have shared details with us, which is why we are writing to them to ask their view formally. We will get on with this process as quickly as we can.

Local Government Finance

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that this is a multi-year settlement, which gives councils a greater degree of certainty and the ability to plan ahead. We have long called for that. However, a longer settlement on its own does not resolve the deep financial instability facing local government. The Minister is right to say that social care, SEND and homelessness costs are destabilising council finances—a direct result of years of Conservative neglect—but recognising the problem is not the same as resolving it.

It will take us and council teams time to review the detail of the settlement and understand what it means in reality for local government. However, early conversations with local government colleagues have highlighted a concerning lack of clarity on the SEND debt. The settlement provides minimal information on how councils are to manage SEND costs until 2028, or how existing deficits will be resolved. Can the Minister provide a clear timeline for when councils will receive certainty on the SEND deficit? Without one, responsible financial planning is simply not possible.

I also seek clarity on the issue of social care. Although the statement includes various measures to try to address the social care crisis, the reality is that that will be swept away by the rising scale of need and the costs of social care. When will the Government finally bring forward a fully funded, long-term plan for adult social care reform that ensures that local authority funding settlements are not undermined by the escalating costs of a social care system that is bankrupting councils and placing unsustainable pressure on the NHS?

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Lady mentions multi-year settlements alone not being the answer—no, but they do help. That relates to her two other points on SEND and social care, because multi-year settlements allow councils to plan properly and undertake commissioning activities over a longer period of time. That was our objective, which we have achieved with this. She asked for more details on SEND. I mentioned in my statement that local authorities will not be expected to fund costs from general funds once the statutory override ends in 2028. We will have more to say on that throughout this settlement process.

The hon. Lady asked about adult social care. Significant reform is needed there, but I do not think that anybody could say that we have not done anything. We are building a national care service, backed by about £4.5 billion of additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement. I will never forget visiting care homes after they had got through the hell of covid. All that we do on social care has to back those people who did the most when our country needed them.

Electoral Resilience

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

First, I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the content of his statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the statement and the decision to establish an independent review. This is a serious issue that clearly demands action, and we will follow the review closely.

Public trust in politics is dangerously low. Polling consistently shows only 9% to 12% of the public trust politicians, which should seriously worry every Member of this House. Restoring trust must begin with integrity and transparency. People need confidence that the information shaping our political debate is accurate. Trust also relies on fairness. Every vote must count equally, and that requires a fair and credible electoral system. Finally, and most relevant to today, trust depends on transparency about political finance. Voters should know who funds our politics, and should trust that wealthy individuals, corporations or foreign interests cannot buy influence or access.

With that in mind, will the Government accept that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals now wield disproportionate influence over British politics? That includes overseas donors, which raises serious questions about foreign interference. In a recent Westminster Hall debate, Members from across the House spoke out about this strongly. Finally, will the Secretary of State commit to donation caps, which are supported by voters across every major party?

[Steve Reed]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the review. We have now had that support from all sides of the House, and that is appreciated. It is very important that the House of Commons stands united against the potential threats to our democracy from hostile foreign state actors. Our democracy is one of the most precious things we have, and it is important that we all work together across the Chamber to protect it. We are not targeting any particular states or individuals with this review; we are looking to confirm that the safeguards that protect our democracy from inappropriate or malign foreign financial interference are robust enough. I look forward to Philip Rycroft’s findings when we have them towards the end of March.

Local Elections

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Thank you for granting this incredibly important urgent question, Mr Speaker. I am sure colleagues from across the House will have been as shocked as I was to read in the media last night that the four priority strategic areas have had their elections cancelled and postponed until 2028, especially given the reassurances to the House that have been referenced by other hon. Members. Will the Minister explain why, yet again, information about election cancellations has been announced to the press and council chief executives ahead of MPs? Why have the Government chosen to cancel these important elections, which are a fundamental part of our democracy, and then told the media, not Parliament, first?

Will the Minister provide clarity on funding for local authorities, about which I am very concerned? The Government have repeatedly spoken about the importance of mayoral strategic authorities to unlocking investment and funding for authorities. Why are the Government limiting investment funding for the next two years, releasing only one third at a time, when local and upper tier authority leaders have already agreed the share of priorities? If mayors must work collaboratively with other local authority leaders and there is consensus on where investment is needed, why will the Government not release the funding now? Why will they hold that back by delaying the elections? Those authorities need the money now, so will the Government provide reassurance?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me be very clear: it was not us who briefed the media. We cannot control what other parties do—we always want to update the House, as well as local authorities. It is incredibly, incredibly important to be very clear that this is not about the cancellation of elections—[Interruption.] These are inaugural elections that are subject to a statutory instrument being laid and they are subject to consent. For all the reasons that I have set out, at the moment the Government are minded to have those elections in 2028, and we will work with the local authorities that are impacted to get consent to do that.

On the fundamental point about investment, we are as committed to investment as the hon. Lady. That is why we have announced £200 million for those areas over the next 30 years. We are urging all areas to produce their investment pipeline, because we want to see things happening on the ground. We have committed to a third, but we will continue to work with areas to ensure that if they have viable investment propositions, the Government are walking hand in hand and side by side with them to unlock that. It is good for the areas, but fundamentally it is good for the growth of the economy and for national Government.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I am inclined to the view that there are two separate issues here. He will have heard my earlier comments about statements being made to this House first and how deeply regrettable it is when statements are made to the media ahead of being announced to the House. However, with specific reference to the Minister’s comments yesterday, I believe they would far better be addressed as a point of debate. I am sure the shadow Minister will want to raise that later on in this afternoon’s debate.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Today I will continue to highlight our concerns on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Labour Government spend a great deal of time telling the country that they are putting power back into the hands of communities and say they are on the side of local leaders and delivering locally led renewal, but when we examine the powers that the Bill actually grants, it is clear very quickly that they risk doing the opposite.

Through this Bill, power is being snatched upwards and away from local voices. It strengthens combined authorities and concentrates power with a statutory authority mayor at the expense of constituent, unitary, parish and town councils. It enables key planning decisions to bypass local authorities and gives Ministers sweeping powers to redraw governance arrangements without genuine local engagement. Local leaders, parish councillors and residents see that, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches certainly see that.

If we are to empower our communities, as this Government promise, this legislation needs to be improved. That is what we seek to do with the amendments we bring forward today, just as we did yesterday. Let me begin with our primary measure, new clause 17. The Government really cannot keep coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that they want locally led delivery while creating legislation that puts responsibilities on councils without giving them money or support to do the job. That just does not add up. The truth is that without even considering devolution, councils are currently not funded properly. Every single one, regardless of political leadership, is under unprecedented strain, and many are on the brink of effective bankruptcy. Some have declared section 114 notices, and others are warning that they may not last the financial year. Even more are raiding reserves, cutting services to the bone and desperately firefighting rising demand in social care, temporary accommodation and children’s services.

Instead of addressing this crisis with the urgent, national level of investment for which local government was calling out for years under the Conservatives and now this Government, the Government seem committed to perpetuating this problem, albeit now with a different approach of giving to one council by taking from another. We see that clearly in the rather inaptly named fair funding review, which does not increase funding from central Government, but simply redistributes an already insufficient pot. It is a winless exercise dressed up as equality.

Council leaders from across the political spectrum are all deeply worried that this Bill is a continuation of that same approach. It asks councils to do more, take on more and deliver more, all without serious new funding models, and nowhere is that clearer than in west Surrey. This Government have imposed a new local governance model that local leaders have warned will be financially unstable and structurally incoherent. Instead of listening to local authority leaders and residents, the Government pressed ahead with a structure that groups multiple councils facing extreme financial pressure—the legacy of current and former Conservative Administrations—leaving the new West Surrey council with roughly five times the debt of neighbouring East Surrey council.

What is the Government’s answer to the question of how West Surrey council is to manage its significant debt and financial instability? Their answer is that West Surrey should pool its budgets, sell its assets and harmonise council tax. They may as well have suggested tackling the debt with hopes and prayers. We simply cannot redistribute a crisis. We cannot create a strong structure on foundations that are already breaking under debt, demand and chronic underfunding, and that is exactly why our new clause 17 is so vital. If we ignore local leaders and refuse to fund local government properly, we do not empower councils; we set them up to fail. I call on MPs from across this House to back new clause 17 and back our local councils.

Funding alone is not enough; devolution relies on democratic legitimacy. That brings me to new clause 35, which would safeguard the integrity of local democracy by ensuring that residents could hold their leaders to account at the ballot box. Our new clause would ensure that when Government restructure local governance, shift power or redraw boundaries, they must explicitly consider the impact on local elections.

In Surrey this year, as in many places, we have seen clearly what happens when elections are cancelled or postponed. The failing Conservative Administration has been allowed to remain in office not because residents have endorsed them, but because the Government and the local Conservative leadership came together to deny residents their chance to remove them. Based on local by-election results, it is clear that the Administration would have been removed, had the elections taken place in May.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We have a lot of speakers this afternoon. If Members make long interventions, we will simply not get through everybody.

[Zöe Franklin]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of our fantastic parish and town councils, and I hope that Members from all parts of this House will support that new clause.

We have tabled new clause 70 because neighbourhood planning only works if communities can afford to take part. Without support, neighbourhood planning becomes a slogan. With support, it becomes genuine grassroots devolution. We believe that new clause 70 would plug that gap and ensure that real community voices are heard.

Finally, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to plug yet another gap that the Bill sadly leaves wide open, and we return to the theme of parish and town councils. Under the Bill, those could be sidelined, merged or absorbed without proper public consultation. New clause 41 closes that loophole by protecting parish and town councils from being swept aside in the rush to build bigger, centralised combined authorities. If the Government claim to trust communities, they must protect the governance closest to those communities, and new clause 41 delivers just that.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I like a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying, because I believe in communities, towns and villages being properly represented. However, names are important, too. Does she, as a Surrey MP, agree that instead of east Surrey and west Surrey, perhaps west Surrey and south Middlesex would be the correct name for the new authority, because of the area that is traditionally part of the county of Middlesex?

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin]

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.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 83, which stands in my name. I thank colleagues for their support for the new clause. I also sincerely thank the Minister and her team for their consistent engagement with me on this landmark piece of legislation—a Bill that will be game-changing for my constituents.

Before I speak to my new clause, which would forge a fairer, safer and better regulated private hire vehicle sector, I want to express my full support for the steps that the Government are taking by introducing national minimum standards. We need to rebuild confidence in a system that so many view as broken. This is about giving local leaders power to decide which drivers operate in their areas, and, most crucially, it is about the safety and wellbeing of passengers and drivers.

Let me deal first with the problem we face. Many Members will have heard from constituents who have raised legitimate concerns that the taxis or private hire vehicles that they see operating in their local areas are actually licensed hundreds of miles away. That is because since 2015 operators have been permitted to contract bookings to another vehicle that could be licensed in a different area. It has coincided with the meteoric rise of national operators such as Uber and Bolt, which are permitted to be licensed in multiple areas. The stark absence of any regulation has led to certain local authorities becoming, as the GMB union has put it,

“a licence factory…creaking at the seams”.

No example underscores that more vividly than the activities of City of Wolverhampton Council. In the first five months of last year alone, the council granted more than 8,500 new taxi licences, which is 30 times more than any other licensing authority in the midlands. This has a real and tangible impact across the whole country. Indeed, in Greater Manchester nearly half of all private hire vehicles are now licensed by local authorities outside its 10 councils, and the city region’s “out of area” figure of more than 12,000 has risen sharply from just under 7,000 in 2023. In my own borough of Rochdale, about 40% of private hire vehicles and taxis are licensed out of area.

This is not just an issue of public perception; it is also about safety and enforcement. For as long as the status quo persists and scores of vehicles are operating out of area, far from the authority that licensed them in the first instance, there will remain a deficit in terms of accountability when incidents take place.

Let me add a caveat by saying, unequivocally, that the vast majority of drivers are law-abiding people. They are integral to our economy and to our society as a whole, and I have been delighted to engage with a great number of them since being elected to this place. However, situations arise in which enforcement becomes necessary, and at present licensing authorities such as my own are unable to take action because of the proliferation of out-of-area operation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

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?

[Steve Reed]

It does not surprise me that the Conservatives do not understand consultation, but it does surprise me that it is also difficult for the Liberal Democrats. We are engaging with the councils that will be affected. There is precedence for this where elections would result in only a very short term in office. Our intention, and my preference, is for the elections to go ahead. We want to cut the cost of politics, simplify decision making for local people, and deliver stronger economic growth and better public services in every part of the country.