Budget Resolutions

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s recognition that economic growth cannot be driven solely from Whitehall and that local leaders and communities must have a greater say in shaping their future. The Liberal Democrats have long argued that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people they affect. We support genuine devolution, greater fiscal autonomy for local government and the empowerment of communities to shape their own future. The real question before us today, however, is whether this Budget will actually deliver the Government’s ambition of good growth in every postcode.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that rural economies rely on transport. In my constituency, colleges have had to cut their hours because the bus does not come late enough and employers have had to put on their own buses in order to get shift workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that for rural economies to thrive, we really need to look at transport?

[Zöe Franklin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need that support to ensure that people can get from where they live in rural constituencies to other areas for work and education.

Growth is measured not by the number of new governance structures we create, but by whether people can find an affordable home, access GP appointments, travel to work, start a business and build a secure future in the place that they call home. For the Liberal Democrats, this Budget must meet three tests: democratic consent, sustainable local government finances and tangible improvements in everyday lives.

The first test is democratic consent. Devolution should bring power closer to communities. We should be careful not to mistake devolution for decentralisation. Power removed from Whitehall but concentrated in a single regional office, such as a mayor, is not necessarily power shared with local communities.

In Surrey, the home of my Guildford constituency, that distinction is becoming increasingly apparent. The Budget confirmed that the Government are in the final stages of agreeing arrangements for a mayoral strategic authority in Surrey, despite Ministers previously assuring the House that no area would be forced into a mayoral model. What has changed? There has been no vote of the councils that will have to operate within this structure, and residents have not been given an opportunity to express a view on what model they want. In fact, the bulk of the discussions appear to have been had with Surrey county council—a council that will be defunct in just six months—rather than the new east and west unitaries. How can the Government claim to be bringing power closer to communities when those same communities have had so little say?

Of course, a mayor is democratically elected, but representing an entire county or region is very different to representing a specific town, village or ward. Local councillors understand the character, challenges and priorities of the communities they serve; they are often the first people residents turn to when problems arise. I ask the Minister what meaningful influence locally elected leaders will retain and how the voices of villages and rural communities will be protected under the new arrangements. Devolution should not be forced on communities; it should happen with them.

My second test is whether the Budget delivers sustainable local government finances. The Budget contains announcements on strategic authorities, borrowing powers, business rates retention and new fiscal freedoms. Some of those measures may prove beneficial, but we must not confuse devolution with funding reform. Local government’s central challenge is not governance but financial sustainability. While Ministers talk enthusiastically about new structures and powers, councils across England face profound financial pressure. The Local Government Association has warned of a billion-pound funding gap over the coming years. Against that backdrop, many councils are struggling simply to maintain core services.

To return to my area of Surrey, the six councils coming together to form West Surrey will inherit £4.5 billion of debt while simultaneously facing rising demand for adult social care, children’s services and support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. My concern is about how implementing measures without funding reform solves any of those problems. How does the new governance structure address historical debt? How does it ease pressure on social care budgets? How does it help councils meet rising demand for frontline services?

The Budget includes a £1.5 billion borrowing facility for the strategic authorities. While borrowing may help investment, it is no substitute for financial stability. We must learn lessons from councils such as Woking, where serious financial failures—failures caused by previous Conservative administrations—have left residents paying the price. Nowhere is the gap between structural reform and real-life outcomes clearer than in special educational needs.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is right to talk about local government finances. My local council of Harlow faced 70% cuts to core funding made by the Conservative Government, but does she recognise that when the Lib Dems were in coalition Government the funding was cut by nearly 30%? Does she also recognise that the Labour Government are introducing multi-year funding for local councils, which council leaders and officers in Harlow have been crying out for for a long time?

[Zöe Franklin]

I think we need to recognise that we are looking forward. Multi-year settlements are a positive step, but there is still ultimately no fix for local government finances, which is causing enormous problems for local councils.

Returning to the issue of SEND, families do not lie awake worrying about governance models. They worry about whether their child will receive the support they need, about delays to assessments and about whether an education, health and care plan will be delivered in time. I welcome the Government’s commitment to cover 90% of eligible historical high needs deficits accrued by March, but uncertainty remains about whether deficits accumulated in subsequent years will also be covered. This Budget also does not provide the scale of additional adult social care funding needed to address rising demand.

Finally on local government finance, I want to address business rates. I welcome the principle that more locally generated revenue should remain in local areas. Giving councils a stronger stake in local economic success is sensible. However, retaining more revenue does not necessarily mean receiving more funding. The reality is that councils only benefit from the share of business rates that they are allowed to retain. If a national policy decision reduces revenues, local government must be appropriately compensated. We must ensure that areas with fewer opportunities for growth are not left behind. Rural communities in particular should not find themselves disadvantaged by a system that increasingly relies on locally generated revenue. On my second test, the jury very much remains out.

My third test is whether the Budget will deliver tangible improvements to people’s lives. Good growth should mean growth that people can actually see and feel. It means a young family being able to afford a home and people being able to secure a GP appointment. It means reliable public transport and thriving town centres. It means ensuring that infrastructure arrives alongside development, rather than the reality we see, which is that the infrastructure arrives years afterwards.

My constituency of Guildford is home to a strong local economy, world-leading innovation and enormous potential, but beneath that prosperity, families are struggling with housing costs, children are growing up in poverty, and residents are frustrated by pressures on local services and infrastructure. That experience is not unique; it is being felt across the country.

If the Government genuinely want growth in every postcode, investment must translate into improvements. That means ensuring that the delivery of infrastructure comes with housing development, because people will support the development if they can see it. It also means growth beyond our major cities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) mentioned, it has to include our rural communities. Our high streets, of course, must also be central to that vision of growth.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats believe that genuine devolution must mean more than transferring powers from Whitehall to an equally centralised regional mayor. We want decisions to be taken closer to communities, and we want growth that reaches every community. The Government recognise those things, but there is still so far to go. We want to see tangible change for our residents.

Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

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. Without support, an overnight levy risks looking less like genuine devolution and more like another short-term tax grab. If Ministers hand local mayors and foundation strategic authorities the power to introduce levies, they must bring forward vital sector relief—an emergency 5p VAT cut, relief from NICs and so forth—and must not reduce local government funding as a result. Can the Minister confirm when this House will see full details of the levy? Specifically, will Ministers implement a cap and sector support to protect local tourism and hospitality?

[Jim McMahon]

There is no expectation that councils will see a cut in the way that the hon. Lady explains—I am not quite sure what the rationale is for that. This is a new levy that local areas can choose to bring in, but it is down to local leaders in both our mayoral strategic authorities and our foundation strategic authorities, working with their local councils, to determine if they want to do that, how they want to approach it, if they want to carry out a proper consultation and to set out where the spending and investment will follow. That is not central Government telling places what to do. It is time that we stop pretending that England is somehow one place and that one size can fit all. Devolution, if it matters, must mean that local leaders can make the right choice for their area.

Local Government Reorganisation

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of her statement. I have almost lost track of the number of times I have stood in this Chamber and warned the Government about problems with their local government reorganisation plans—yet here I am again. It appears that the Government have finally listened, but they have done so too late and the damage has already been done. Thousands of residents have been denied their right to vote over the course of this process, because of plans that many of us in this Chamber warned were on a very uncertain legal footing. Councils have poured enormous amounts of time, effort and money into proposals they were repeatedly assured were legally sound, only to discover that they are now being abandoned. The abortive costs are likely to be substantial. Worse still, a number of authorities were relying on reorganisation as part of a strategy to address serious financial concerns. Those councils are now being left in limbo.

In my own area of Surrey, councils were forced down a reorganisation route that now appears to be effectively abandoned by the Government and questionable on a legal basis. Will the Secretary of State commit to meeting Surrey MPs and the new authority leaders to discuss how our county can avoid the risks and uncertainty that the Government say have prompted this decision elsewhere? The Government need to acknowledge the significant democratic harm caused by this episode and take responsibility for it, including by issuing an apology, so will the Secretary of State set out clearly what happens next for communities and local authorities left in limbo by today’s announcement? Will she also publish the legal advice so that Parliament and the affected communities can understand what went wrong with the original process?

[Angela Rayner]

I have set out already that I want to be able to review these decisions to ensure myself that they are the right ones, and I think that is the correct course of action. Respecting the court process means that the way to do this is to withdraw and consider afresh. It is a long-standing principle that the Government do not publish or comment on legal advice. The review will consider implications for the timetable, as the hon. Lady mentioned. Local elections scheduled to take place to existing councils in May 2027 will go ahead unless we are in a position to hold elections to new unitary councils at that point. The review does not include reorganisation of Surrey, where councillors have been elected and new councils go live from 1 April.

Oral Answers to Questions

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place alongside her team. Guildford borough council’s latest green-belt assessment found that 92% of its green belt now meets the Government’s grey belt definition, and its assessed housing need has been doubled by the Government from 562 to 1,168 homes a year. That has left many of my residents worried about the loss of green spaces, about unsustainable development without appropriate infrastructure and about the loss of the distinctive historic character of their villages.

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential impact of planning policy on green-belt land in my constituency, which falls within the Guildford borough area? Can she outline what steps her Government will take to protect green spaces for communities by ensuring that developers are directed towards genuine brownfield sites first, rather than development being concentrated on land around Guildford that was previously protected by the green belt?

[Angela Rayner]

What we have been doing is making sure we are strengthening and clarifying the rules around the release of grey belt, but brownfield has to be first. We are also strengthening policy provisions to support local authorities in planning for green space at a strategic level, to ensure that green space is available and that we have the housing and infrastructure people need, but brownfield has to be used first. I encourage the hon. Lady to work with her local authority to look at its local plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s indication that newly formed local authorities will not be forced to have a strategic mayor in order to benefit from devolution. However, the key to success will be ensuring real fiscal devolution to support and deliver services and economic growth for residents. Will the Minister set out how the Department will ensure that for non-mayoral strategic authorities, including the emerging foundation strategic authority in Surrey, where my constituency is based? How will she ensure that our area receives the financial resources to make meaningful funding decisions at a regional level, including by accessing funding streams currently available only to mayoral strategic authorities?

[Sally Jameson]

Our ambition is to ensure that everywhere in England has or is in the process of establishing a strategic authority by the end of 2027, and that strategic authorities are in place everywhere by the end of 2028. It is right that we will not impose mayors on areas that do not want one, but we consider directly accountable mayors the strongest form of governance, which is why they have a different set of available powers and money. I would be happy to discuss that further with the hon. Lady. We will be setting out more information about our plans for devolution in the coming months.

Representation of the People Bill

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It was an absolute privilege to serve on the Bill Committee for this legislation and, before that, on the Speaker’s Conference, many of whose recommendations have appeared in the Bill. I am particularly pleased to see the Government adopt the long-held Liberal Democrat policy of extending the right to vote for 16 and 17-year-olds. Giving young people a say in the decisions that shape their lives and their futures is long overdue, and I am glad that we will see it become reality. I agree with many colleagues to whom I have spoken about this issue. When I speak to young people about politics, I see so much awareness, and so much desire to be able to contribute to the political debate and have agency over their votes and their future.

I am pleased to have tabled new clause 2, as well as the other new clauses that stand in my name. I thank the organisations that have worked with me on my people-focused proposals, particularly Centenary Action and Elect Her. However, I am disappointed that the Government have continued to fail to act on the access to elected office fund, and on some of the concerns about personal safety that I have sought to raise in a range of amendments. In respect of the access to elected office fund, I have to ask the Government what we are waiting for. Back in June last year, they announced a working group to develop a new fund. When we debated the issue in Committee before the recess we were told that work was ongoing, and when I met the Minister who was then in charge of the Bill, I was again assured that the new fund was being developed.

We are not reinventing the wheel here. An access to elected office fund has existed in England before, and equivalent schemes are operating now in both Wales and Scotland. Why does England need an entirely new fund, rewritten from scratch, that is taking over a year to create? We know what this support is for, we know the difference that it can make, and we know that disabled candidates continue to face additional costs simply to participate equally in our democracy. The Bill is precisely the vehicle to put that right. Rather than forming another working group, commissioning another review, or offering another reassurance that something will eventually happen in due course, I urge the Government to support new clause 37 and reinstate the fund in statutory form. Warm words do not pay for accessible transport, personal assistance or an interpreter. Disabled candidates need practical support and certainty. We want our elected representatives to be truly representative of our communities.

The same frustration applies to the personal safety of those who participate in our democracy. Before the summer recess, after the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe, the Home Secretary addressed the issue in the Chamber with great seriousness. I was grateful when she assured the House that she would look at amendments to the Bill with colleagues across Government, and would consider what further action was needed to protect people in our democracy. Sadly, however, I have not been able to spot the those commitments in the Bill, and it is also disappointing that we did not hear more about this aspect of the Bill from the Minister in her opening speech.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for speaking about the security of candidates. That is the motivation behind my new clause 81, which would automatically make all candidates’ addresses anonymous. Does she agree that we need to take further steps to ensure that all candidates feel secure and able to stand for public office at all levels?

[Zöe Franklin]

I could not agree more. We have seen the difference that such a change has made at a local government level, where councillors’ home addresses are no longer in the public domain, and I certainly think it should be the same for all candidates.

Returning to my point about the safety of candidates and those in elected office, I have tabled amendment 1 and new clause 6 to extend the existing protections beyond the candidates themselves and to their staff and families. Sadly, threats and intimidation do not stop at the candidate. Campaign staff are on the doorstep with us and run our campaign offices, often late into the evening, and our families can find themselves targeted simply because of the public role that we choose to take on. We must do everything we can to protect candidates and all those who serve in our democracy at every level.

If the Government take these issues seriously, they will support both of my amendments and commit to continually review the threats to candidates, to work with organisations such as the Local Government Association and to listen to the plethora of councillors at every single level—from town and parish, right up to unitary—who are telling terrible stories of death threats and attacks on their homes. We have to address these issues, because we must ensure not only that candidates are kept safe, but that our democracy is kept safe. It is a rapidly changing political environment, and we all have a responsibility to address it.

I really hope that the Government and the new Cabinet will act on these issues as the Bill progresses, and it will be deeply disappointing if this opportunity to implement change through the access to elected office fund, or through something of a different name that does the same thing, were not put into the Bill. If the Government will not act on these issues in this Chamber, we will continue, with our Liberal Democrat colleagues and others in the other place, to ensure that these important protections for equality and safety become a reality.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on her appointment as the Minister for Democracy. I thank her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for the work that she and the brilliant officials in the Department did on this very important Bill, and I thank the Minister for tabling the Government amendments. I had the privilege of serving as her predecessor’s predecessor and working on the strategy that formed this important Bill.

This is a significant piece of legislation, and the proposal to bring forward votes at 16 is important, radical and necessary. It is right that we give young people the right to vote when they can participate in other areas of life, and when they get the vote, political parties will absolutely pay much greater attention to their interests. I would like to see whether those who oppose this particular change go and canvass for the votes of 16 and 17-year-olds when they have the vote. We certainly will, because we believe that it is important to encourage participation from an early age.

This Bill introduces important changes to tackle harassment and intimidation and to move towards automated voting, and it picks up on the important findings from the Rycroft review. This significant piece of legislation has been improved as it has gone through its different stages, and today marks another opportunity for my hon. Friend the new Minister to take on board some of the suggestions that have been made in the form of the amendments.

I express my support for new clause 34, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which would beef up our resistance to cryptoassets flooding our political system. I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurances that we are moving in the right direction, but we need to go further, as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee also pointed out. For reasons that are well documented, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill has said, the Bill must include digital tokens and meme coins accepted into crypto-wallets, as defined by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

My right hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work and provided an analysis to warn about the dangers of cryptoassets being used to drench our democracy with malign messages, fuelling populist hate and misinformation. We are seeing that play out in our streets and our communities at the moment. I do not think that I am allowed to make a plug for his excellent book on populism, but he has outlined that £200 million has already been spent in the UK on promoting division and undermining our democracy. That is terrifying. We need to put a stop to it, and that is why this Bill needs to go further. Nothing less than a full ban on crypto donations will do, and I hope that Ministers consider doing this now rather than coming back later.

I have seen the ability of the enormously talented group of civil servants to move at pace in amending legislation and being more and more ambitious over time in making this Bill much more significant—from the time I started working on it to the end of the period when the strategy was published and subsequently. Where there is a will, there will be a way. In the interests of moving away from the incremental changes to which the new Prime Minister has committed, I hope that we can get this done in one go. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to be bold and to get this done now.

Furthermore, I support new clauses 41, 47, 82 and 83, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), which seek to tackle online harms and online hate in the context of elections and deepfakes, especially videos purporting to depict politicians and candidates. This has become more and more dangerous and serious. In the 2024 election, only a handful of candidates were depicted in AI-driven deepfake images, which were already presenting disinformation and causing damage to candidates’ election chances. Now, these have become more and more sophisticated, more and more problematic and, at worst, damaging and dangerous. It means that the elector often cannot see the distinction between a real image of a candidate and a deepfake-created image.

Now—don’t get me wrong—I have seen some of those deepfakes, and some of them are quite entertaining. The problem is that the ones that are filled with poison and hate can do deep damage to the reputation of candidates. That is very damaging and is moving very fast. When citizens look at such material, we are asking a lot of them. We are asking them to make a distinction between what is real and what is fake in the context of social media, which is heavily funded with billions of pounds by tech companies. Ordinary citizens have to compete with that, and it is not feasible. 

That is why it is really important that we make those changes. As I have said, when I worked on the election strategy that was the foundation for this Bill, it was challenging to get the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to do more. I therefore hope that those Ministers can work with my hon. Friend the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith and her Department to include the changes that are needed in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central, so that we can get this done in one go, rather than waste time while damage is done at the speed of lightning in the form of deepfake and disinformation spreading, which is infecting our democracy and forcing candidates and elected representatives out of politics.

Increasingly, too many Members of Parliament, candidates who did not make it here and those in local government and other areas of public life are asking: how is it going to be at the next election? As well as trying to keep ourselves safe, how do we protect our reputations when lies are spreading at breakneck speed? What is the point, and how do we protect our families when these lies are being spread online? How do we compete with that as candidates? How do we protect our protected characteristics? People of colour and people from minority faiths are particularly targeted, and women—female candidates—are being subjected to a scale of misogyny and hatred using deepfake and disinformation on a scale and at a level that I never thought I would see in my lifetime.

Local Government Reorganisation

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

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. Councils have been undermined, residents have been barely consulted, and communities have been left in the dark about the future of local services, all while councils continue to face significant financial pressure.

With the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) expected to saunter into No. 10 within days, I am deeply concerned that Members of this House, councils and residents have no clarity about the approach to local government reorganisation that he will take, whether the parameters will change, and whether future local elections will be cancelled yet again. What discussions has the Minister had with the right hon. Member for Makerfield about his plans for reorganisation, and will she commit to no further local elections being cancelled?

[Alison McGovern]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson asks me what conversations I have had with my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield; I am afraid that they have been mainly about Everton and Liverpool football club. [Hon. Members: “Resign!”] Indeed.

The work of this Government to secure devolution and reshape local government, so that we can grow our economy, build homes and serve our constituents properly, has been thought through carefully and is proceeding in line with the timetable. I am sure that all of us in this House, whatever our views, want that to succeed.

Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his opening remarks, and the petitioners who brought the petition today.

Public trust in our democracy is sadly at an all-time low due to broken manifesto commitments, resignations or just the perceived lack of accountability that has led to general political disillusion for so many. Every failure of standards and every perception that rules do not apply equally risks further damaging confidence in not only us as MPs but our democratic institutions.

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? We Liberal Democrats believe that we should be working hard to restore public confidence in our democratic institutions. Those who have sought to undermine that confidence through political violence should face serious consequences.

However, the question raised by the petition is not a simple one. Those who signed it are asking beyond whether someone convicted of terrorism offences should be able to stand for elected office; they are asking whether the system is serious about protecting itself. They are asking whether we understand what public office is for. 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. MPs serving prison sentences of more than a year are disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1981, so a framework is already in place. The question is whether it goes far enough for terrorism offences specifically.

We do not think that it would be right to bar every person with any historic conviction from ever standing for office; that would be disproportionate and cut against the principle of rehabilitation. But terrorism and national security offences are different. They are, by definition, attacks on the institutions that the person may later seek to serve. It is reasonable for Parliament to treat them as a special case.

Any new prohibition, however, must meet two tests. First, it must comply with the 1998 Human Rights Act. Restrictions on the right to stand for election must be proportionate and subject to proper legal safeguards. That is not a barrier to action; it is the framework that any workable law will have to fit within. Secondly, any prohibition must be consistent with the Good Friday Agreement. The constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland has held peace for a generation, and legislation drafted without regard to it could do real damage. That is a practical consideration, not a theoretical one, and I hope the Minister will address it directly.

Within those tests, though, there is a clear route forward. The Elections Act 2022 already allows courts to issue disqualification orders, but only for five years. The Liberal Democrats support giving courts the power to issue longer disqualification orders, so that people who pose an ongoing threat to our democracy can be barred from public office for as long as that threat lasts.

Currently, the Representation of the People Bill is making its way through Parliament. It provides a great opportunity for the Government to make changes to our electoral system. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has tabled an amendment that I fully support, which would prevent anyone convicted of offences relating to the promotion, incitement or use of political violence from making donations to political parties. 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. Returning officers currently have to accept nominations at face value. They cannot investigate allegations or reject a nomination because they think someone might be disqualified. As candidates self-declare their eligibility, the system depends on honesty. It is worth the Government asking whether that is still fit for purpose.

Tackling extremism also requires more than legal disqualification. It requires the police and prosecutors to have the resources and training to prevent and prosecute hate crimes. It requires protective funding for places of worship, schools and community centres that have been the targets of attacks, and it requires all of us in public life to think very carefully about the rhetoric that we use and about the rhetoric that has too often been the precursor to violence.

The Government currently have no plans to change the existing disqualification criteria. I hope that, having listened to the debate, the Minister will be willing to go further than that. Public trust is hard won and easily lost. On this issue, the Government can show that they take that trust seriously.

Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 General Committees

[Alison McGovern]

I will do so in a moment.

The shadow Minister makes a very reasonable point on councils in receipt of exceptional financial support and the disposal of assets. He knows that the number of councils in EFS is a great concern of mine. We liaise with those local authorities week in, week out to do all we can to support them. It serves none of us to have exceptional financial support become normalised, and we are in touch with them.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne and the hon. Lady in a moment once I finish responding to the shadow Minister.

On arm’s length management organisations and academies, this depends on the specifics of the contract and the transfer that has taken place. Again, we are working actively with councils. On the value of sites and the issue that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned with developers being able to garner extra value from their sites, we have provided councils with checklists and much information about things that they should be wary of. Nevertheless, I thank him for raising it. I will double check that it is on the checklist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

You are very generous, Mr Vickers. The hon. Member knows that I am sympathetic; it is a matter for the authorities themselves, of course, but he makes a good case.

[Zöe Franklin]

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

Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 General Committees

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

We Liberal Democrats are pleased by the reversion to SV and are grateful to the Government for it. We would have liked them to go further and introduce the alternative vote system, but, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned, such discussions have already been had in full.

Before I end by saying that we will support the Government, let me ask the Minister whether the Government will make an order about police and crime commissioner elections in time to ensure that the surprise such election in Norfolk—because there has been a recent resignation—can take place under the SV system. The Government have established that that is a much fairer system so, given that we are making this shift, it seems wrong for that unexpected PCC election to take place under the old system, potentially wasting £2 million of expenses for an election under a system that the Government have admitted is unfair.

The Liberal Democrats will support the draft order. In future, however, we would like to see change go further, and we will continue to press for that.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

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

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

Too often, rural communities such as mine in Wiltshire have been overlooked by successive Governments and treated as an afterthought rather than as places with distinct needs, challenges and enormous potential. Decisions are far too often made on urban assumptions, leaving rural areas struggling with weak transport and fewer services. Does my hon. Friend agree that by embedding rural affairs at the heart of strategic authorities, the Lords amendment will ensure that rural communities are no longer overlooked or left behind?

[Zöe Franklin]

My hon. Friend is right. We have fought for the amendment consistently because rural communities are indeed overlooked too often, and it would put them at the heart of the Bill.

As I was saying, we support Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, which adds coastal communities to the list of strategic competences, so I am grateful to the Secretary of State for tabling it. Together, the changes ensure that rural and coastal areas are explicitly recognised in the framework of strategic authorities and will be taken into account when powers, funding and responsibilities are devolved. The changes ensure that such areas are explicitly recognised in all decision making.

As my hon. Friend says, rural and coastal communities have too often felt overlooked, and their needs really need to be considered properly in the devolution process. We Liberal Democrats have long championed these communities, and many of my hon. Friends in this Chamber represent rural and coastal areas. We really welcome the constructive approach that the Government have taken in working with us, and I will continue to press for that spirit of collaboration as this Bill is implemented and, indeed, when further legislation on local government is introduced after the King’s Speech.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Many people in my constituency are very nervous about how local government reorganisation will impact them, and they worry that it could lead to a top-down style of devolution, which entirely misses the point of making decisions locally. The Government’s backing down on Lords amendment 2 will provide some reassurance to rural and coastal communities, like those in my patch, that the governance of rural and coastal affairs will be meaningfully devolved to local leaders. Will my hon. Friend join me in celebrating the Government’s acceptance of the Liberal Democrats’ calls to add both rural and coastal affairs as competences required of a strategic mayoral authority following LGR?

[Zöe Franklin]

I am happy to thank the Government for agreeing to put that on the face of the Bill.

I turn now to the issue of brownfield development. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches continue to believe that development must follow a clear principle of brownfield first—not green belt by default, and certainly not the vague concept of grey belt. From experience in my constituency, I know how important that principle is in practice. Brownfield first is not an abstract planning preference; it is how we protect the precious green spaces that communities value most.

Across Guildford, we have brownfield sites that currently cannot be developed because of severe flooding constraints. With the right flood alleviation investment, including support from the Government, these sites could come forward for housing and regeneration; without that support, pressure inevitably shifts on to surrounding green spaces. Ministers have talked a lot about embedding environmental considerations across their programme, but it is difficult to reconcile that with continued resistance to practical, deliverable measures. If we are serious about sustainable growth, we must support councils to reuse land responsibly, not force them to make false choices between meeting housing need and protecting the environment.

I set out my party’s position on local authority governance last week, but as the Government are again seeking to reject the Lords amendment on this issue, it bears repeating. We Liberal Democrats do not believe that compelling local authorities to change governance arrangements that were chosen democratically by the communities they serve is devolution; that is direction from central Government, dressed up as localism. Ministers are demanding that councils give up systems that work for them—not because local people have called for change, but because Whitehall prefers a different model. That fundamentally undermines the principle that this Bill claims to advocate. Devolution is about trust, and devolution without choice is not devolution at all.

We continue to differ from the Government on whether this Bill really does deliver devolution, but I hope that Ministers will see today not as the end of the conversation but as the beginning of a more ambitious programme, building on what I imagine will be set out in the King’s Speech. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches stand ready and look forward to working constructively with the Government to achieve real devolution.

Local government is the bedrock of our democracy. It shapes the daily lives of our constituents, often more directly than this House does. If we are serious about renewing trust in our democratic institutions, we must start there—by trusting communities, respecting their choices and giving them a real voice over the decisions that affect their lives. This is the test of true devolution, and it is one that we still must strive to meet.