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.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is a privilege to speak in support of the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill. They remain true to our party’s tradition of empowering communities, upholding democratic accountability, protecting the environment and defending the role of local government at all levels. Our amendments, numbering around 120, exist because the legislation as drafted falls short of the Government’s own declared aim for meaningful devolution. My colleagues and I on this side of the House have found ourselves needing to strengthen provisions, close loopholes, and introduce safeguards just to ensure that power genuinely flows outwards to communities, rather than upwards to centralised mayoral offices.

Before turning to the amendments, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for her work in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for her efforts in both the earlier stages of the Bill and in Committee. The volume, detail and quality of the amendments they presented and defended have improved the Bill and clearly reflect the seriousness with which Liberal Democrats approach devolution.

As the MP for Guildford in Surrey, I feel that it would be remiss of me not to comment on what the Government have said about decisions on local reform being led by local people and local councils. I can state that that has not happened in Surrey. The Government have: overruled local people who indicated a strong preference for option three; ignored geography, natural place and communities; and clearly stated that the decision was led solely by the financial state of Surrey, which was created by a number of Conservative-led authorities. I will leave that thought there.

As drafted, the Bill would allow the mayors of combined authorities and county combined authorities to appoint unelected commissioners over substantial areas of public service delivery, from transport to planning, economic regeneration and even aspects of social care. It is astonishing that a Bill claiming to devolve power begins by concentrating it in the hands of one individual, with the authority to outsource major public functions to people who have never faced a ballot box. This is not localism. It is not devolution. It is centralisation masquerading as reform.

Let me be clear, this is not a minor administrative detail. It is the ability to hand over control of core public services that shape our constituents’ lives to someone who has not been elected, cannot be removed by the public, and whose appointment could be based on personal loyalty rather than competence. We have seen this in the past, with police and crime commissioners, where concerns have been raised about appointments of close associates or unelected political allies to influential roles. Even the perception of that is damaging to the public’s confidence in the role. It is extraordinary that the Government would open the door to repeating those mistakes on an even larger scale.

Liberal Democrat amendment 85 would stop that from happening. It eliminates the ability to make those unaccountable appointments entirely. It guarantees that important public roles cannot be delegated to individuals chosen behind closed doors, safeguarding the integrity of devolution by ensuring power is exercised transparently and by those answerable to the public. If the Government insist on pressing ahead with this centralising model—this top-down, trust-us-we-know-best version of “localism”—then the bare minimum is democratic safeguards.

That is where our new clause 14 comes in. It ensures that an elected representative must carry out any development or delivery of policy within a strategic authority’s remit. But let me be clear: new clause 14 is the fallback; amendment 85 is the safeguard. If the Government are genuinely trying to create democratic, community-led devolution, we must not allow unaccountable commissioners to be appointed to run major public services.

Turning to environmental protections, I welcome the Government’s concession on air quality—it is a meaningful win for public health. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their work in Committee lobbying for its inclusion, and the Government for engaging so constructively and now including it in the Bill. But we are still looking for one crucial assurance from the Minister: will nitrogen dioxide be explicitly included in the provisions, not just general air quality? Nitrogen dioxide is one of the most harmful pollutants we face. It disproportionately affects children, older people and those with respiratory illnesses. I hope the Minister can offer that reassurance today.

We also tabled amendment 75, which would require a review of the financial needs of local authorities in tackling health inequalities. Devolution without actual resources is not devolution, but rather the delegation of responsibility without the means to deliver. In my constituency of Guildford, for example, the difference in health outcomes between neighbourhoods just a short distance apart is stark. Life expectancy, rates of chronic illness and access to preventative services vary dramatically. Local authorities cannot hope to address these inequalities without the right resources, data and powers. Amendment 75 ensures that those needs are properly understood and resourced.

I also want to take a moment to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has re-tabled important amendments on sports provision and the committee system. I thank her for doing so, and the Government for picking up the committee system amendment.

Finally, regarding town and parish councils, for a Government who have repeatedly assured me and others of the importance they place on these levels of local government, the Bill is surprisingly silent on their vital role. We, as Liberal Democrats, have consistently proposed amendments throughout the Bill process to address that gap, safeguard their role, and ensure they are not overridden or abolished without genuine community approval. Parishes are often the tier of government closest to our constituents—strengthening them strengthens democracy—yet the Government have generally refused our amendments.

Taken together, the Liberal Democrat amendments make the Bill stronger, fairer and more democratic. They turn a framework that risks re-centralising power into one that can, if implemented properly, deliver genuine community-led devolution by: protecting against the unaccountable concentration of power; ensuring environmental and public health commitments are meaningful; and giving local communities, right down to parish and town councils, the voice they deserve. We have already seen that when concerns are raised clearly and constructively, the Government can listen, as they did with the committee system and clean air commitments, but there is so much more to be done.

If we want devolution that the public can trust and that empowers rather than bypasses communities, we must ensure robust safeguards are in place. Amendment 85 is absolutely central to that effort. It would ensure that public services cannot be handed to unelected appointees, and that accountability remains where it belongs—with the people elected by the people. I urge Members from across the House to support the amendments that I have spoken to—and, above all, to support amendment 85—so that the Bill delivers the democratic, transparent and community-led devolution that our constituents need.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak to Government new clause 44 and new schedule 2. These provisions give powers to the Mayor of London to establish a pilot to set up a strategic licensing policy statement, which would cover sections 4 and 5 of the Licensing Act 2003. In summary, that is the sale by retail of alcohol, a licence for the “provision of regulated entertainment” under schedule 1 of the 2003 Act, and

“The provision of late night refreshment licences”—

within the meaning of schedule 2 of the 2003 Act.

I am proud to represent a borough that has some of the best licensed premises in the country. In Shoreditch, Dalston and elsewhere, we have some of the best restaurants in the world. I visited Counter 71 in Shoreditch a little while ago, and they told me how they had hit social media in Japan, which had led to a lot of visitors. If the Minister ever wants to do any outreach on licensing, she is welcome to come to my borough, where she will get the best of the best. But there are also people who chance it and try it on, so it is important that we have licensing rules that local authorities can enforce properly—and that they have the money to do so.

In Hackney, the hospitality industry is a growth area, boosting the economy in the way that the Chancellor wants to see. It is also facing pressures, as all Members will know from their own constituencies. There is a well-worn route on licensing in Hackney that is well understood. We need to support the licensing process, and ensure that there are fees available to cover the costs, while also supporting businesses and ensuring that they can do this with relative ease when they play by the rules—and if they do not play by the rules, ensure that enforcement kicks in.

It is important to lie this Bill alongside the joint industry and Government taskforce, which reported to the Department for Business and Trade on, I think, 6 November. That taskforce and its report plays into some of the proposals that are outlined in the Bill. Some of the concerns that we have in Hackney—I know other inner-London MPs share some of these—are around the potential impacts on pavement licences, which are important to support businesses that want to grow.

In covid, when there was a proposal to rapidly increase pavement licences—later solidified by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023—we learnt that there could be real issues without the proper involvement of the community, police and licensing authorities. In that case, it was a rushed process—28 days—to change the rules in the Highways Act 1980 to allow licences to the same level as were provided for internal spaces. It was an unholy alliance of inner-London MPs that managed to eventually get that ameliorated in the Lords. That legislation was done at pace during covid; we have more time to think about it now. But new clause 22 and new schedule 2 have both been tabled at quite late notice.

The length of licences is also an issue, because if licences are allowed to run on too long it can be very complicated to rescind them—it can take 12 months. Although a licence that needs a regular fee, which can be rolled over relatively easily, is a cost on the business, overall, it can be a low fee if the business behaves well. There are measures that many boroughs have introduced to ensure that those that play by the rules are treated fairly.

Although not directly related to the Bill, fees could be part of the wider debate on licensing. Some fees are very low. Temporary events notices, for example, are still £21 each; that would be £37 if they had been uprated. That is still low—barely an hour of an officer’s time. There are examples in Hackney of some licensed premises regularly putting in for temporary events notices.

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

In June, the Department made the welcome announcement of legislation to allow proxy voting and remote attendance, which will help to drive up the diversity of councillors across the country, but the Government have not yet set out a timeline. Will the Minister advise the House on when a timeline will be shared, and whether the Government have considered including the changes in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

The Government are committed to an election Bill, which will be coming in due course—very shortly, I imagine—and I am sure the hon. Member will be able to explore those issues further at that time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

My hon. Friend brings real expertise, and I listened carefully to what he had to say. We will consider those issues through the schools White Paper later this autumn. The curriculum and assessment review is also under way, and it is considering all aspects of how we can make sure that young people have access to a broad and rich curriculum. In addition, we know that poverty is a real barrier for so many children, and that is why I am delighted that this Labour Government are expanding free school meals eligibility, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

3. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help reduce digital exclusion for people with communication disabilities.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

The digital inclusion action plan, published in February, sets out plans to widen access to devices, drive digital upskilling, break down barriers to participation and support people in their own communities. The plan highlights disabled people as one of five priority groups more likely to be digitally excluded, and the focus is therefore on them in particular.

[Zöe Franklin]

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?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Lady has raised some interesting points. The action plan outlines five initial actions, including the establishment of an ambitious digital inclusion innovation fund. I do not know whether some of those ideas could be used to address the concern that the hon. Lady has raised, but we do want to be ambitious in all this. In the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, published a couple of months ago, we talked about assistive tech and the possibility of making it more widely available; maybe there are solutions there that could be taken forward. I would be interested to talk to the hon. Lady about what more we might do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister is chairing an interdepartmental taskforce on homelessness and rough sleeping. A key part of our work is ensuring that we support victims of domestic abuse and violence. As I stated, we have already allocated funding to local authorities, and we will continue to work across Government to tackle the root causes of homelessness as well as violence against women.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Victims of domestic violence urgently need safe and stable accommodation. However, councils have no obligation to offer like-for-like housing. Too often, the duty is discharged by suggesting private rentals, which are frequently unaffordable or unsuitable for those on low incomes. That creates a significant barrier for many victims; it even places them in a situation where they choose not to leave, because they cannot have the housing that they need. Will the Minister further explain how she is taking steps to ensure that victims are offered genuinely safe, appropriate and affordable housing? Will she consider strengthening the statutory duty on councils to better support those fleeing domestic abuse?

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Member will be aware that there is a massive housing shortage and that there are challenges around supported housing. We need to ensure, as we are doing, that victims of domestic violence get the support they need, which is why we provided the additional uplift of £30 million, to a total of £160 million. We are working across Government to tackle the root causes of violence against women, within which work economic and housing support are crucial. I look forward to working with her and others on this very important agenda.

English Devolution and Local Government

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely. I am hopeful that Lancashire will have a mayor by 2026. We will continue to work with local leaders across Lancashire to deliver that, so that my hon. Friend can continue to be proud of his local area and the contribution that it makes to all people of Lancashire, as I am sure Mr Speaker is as well.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

When I speak to residents across Guildford, they raise again and again their fear of the impact of debt, and the particular financial problems that we have in Surrey. Local organisations have raised again and again their worries about how those problems will affect their bottom line, and the funds that they need to serve residents when councils no longer provide services. Will the Minister agree to meet all Surrey MPs to discuss how the Government will address the issues of Surrey’s finances? So far, we have not been involved in those conversations.

[Angela Rayner]

We understand the impact of debt on Surrey, which is why it is in the priority programme. I am happy for the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution to meet the hon. Member and others on this issue. We recognise the difficulty in Surrey, and want to make sure that people across the whole of England can benefit from reorganisation, including her constituents.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Member makes a very reasonable point. We need to be clear that our supply chains in this country are free from slave labour. That is a matter for Government procurement rules, and I understand that measures on that will come to the House in due course.

As I was saying, I understand the developers’ motives and why some will push back, but developers know what we all know, which is that the technology already exists and that implementing the measures in the sunshine Bill will be relatively straightforward for them. Solar panel technology has been available for many years and the construction industry is accustomed to working with it. Mandating installation at the construction stage is logical; it removes the burden from homeowners, and places the responsibility with the developer.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the Bill to the House. It is so important that it almost feels like a no-brainer. Many of my residents share with me their frustration about trying to navigate the process of installing solar panels. There are questions about which provider to go with, how it works, and all the technical details. Does he agree that not only does the Bill have an environmental benefit, but it will—as he has started to explain—take that burden from residents and empower them? They will benefit from lower bills without all the faff.

[Max Wilkinson]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. As she knows, the Bill includes a recommendation to set an industry standard, so that consumers can have confidence in what they are buying. Not only is the burden removed from homeowners and responsibility placed with developer, but the Bill creates an efficiency saving in human resources and materials. It is an entirely logical step to take. Installing solar panels on roofs while the houses are being built is at least 10% cheaper than retrofitting.

There will be issues around cost, which Members might raise in interventions or in speeches, but Government estimates put the cost of mandatory solar panels on all new homes at around £5,200 per home. That sounds like a lot of money in isolation, but the average cost of a new build in the final quarter of 2024 was far in excess of £400,000, so we are talking about little more than 1% of the price of a new build home. That is next to nothing in the context of a monthly mortgage repayment, if we take the figure in raw form, and it would be offset by lower bills.

This Bill would mandate that all new homes are built with solar generation technology covering the roof space—a minimum of 40% of the equivalent of the building’s ground-floor area.

New Housing: Environmental Standards

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) for bringing forward this important debate, and for her extensive speech, which was full of sensible suggestions and thoughts. I thank the Minister for his attendance.

Heating our homes is one of the most pressing issues facing the UK right now. The cost of living crisis has sped up the urgent need to improve the environmental standards of our homes to keep people warm and stop people having to choose between heating and eating.

For far too long, households across Britain have been forced to make impossible choices: heating their homes or putting food on the table. It is a disgrace that in one of the world’s wealthiest nations, millions are living in cold, damp homes that are too expensive to heat and are harmful to their health. Developers are not meeting the environmental standards we need for a sustainable future. That is unacceptable.

The Liberal Democrat manifesto said that all new homes need to be zero-carbon and fitted with solar panels. That rooftop revolution would make use of the vast dead space on roofs across the country, generating clean energy right where it is needed. Yet developers continue to submit plans that ignore these opportunities, and homeowners are the ones who pay the price. In my own constituency of Guildford, a developer recently submitted plans for news homes, without including heat pumps. That is bonkers. We know that there will be no new gas boilers in newly built homes after 2025, so why are developers continuing to insist on submitting plans with gas boilers?

All new homes will require alternative heating systems such as heat pumps. By allowing developers to cut corners today, we are passing the costs of upgrading homes on to future homeowners, who then face the high costs of retrofitting—not to mention the ongoing burden of high energy bills.

Developers need to take responsibility, and this House must put the onus on them to do so. Developers are putting homeowners in the position of having to foot the bill for improvements that should have been made when the buildings were first built. Building for the future is not an option; it should be a requirement. We need to incentivise developers to act now, but we must also back up those incentives with strong legislation to ensure that new homes meet zero-carbon standards.

This about more than just the build cost; we need to consider the lifetime cost of these homes. How efficient are they for homeowners over time? For example, a house might be cheaper for the developer if it is built to lower standards, but if it is inefficient, the homeowner is left paying high energy bills for years. Making improvements at the building stage—for example, installing solar panels and domestic energy storage, and ensuring that the home has proper insultation—means that the fear of opening energy bills becomes a thing of the past.

The Liberal Democrats have shared our plan for a fairer deal on new homes and heating. We want homes that do not make people sick, where heating bills are not thought of with fear, and we want every new home to be built to the highest environmental standards. We have two key policies that we encourage the Minister, and his colleagues in the Labour Government, to consider seriously. The first is our 10-year energy upgrade programme, which will begin with free insulation and heat pumps for those on low incomes, and then ensure that every new home is built to zero-carbon standards. We, as Members of this House, know that local authorities play an integral role in our society, so let us give them the power to deliver that, ensuring that it is rolled out efficiently and where it is needed most. Councillors and local residents understand local need, so if there is local need, let Parliament make it work for local residents.

That raises the question of why we are discussing this, when it should have been sorted out many years ago. Conservative failure in government has left households high and dry during a cost of living crisis. Families are struggling to pay their bills, and, instead of support, they are met with rising energy costs and poor-quality housing. Britain’s “warm homes” infrastructure has dry rot, and this plan will cut it out.

The evidence is clear: UK homes are among the least energy-efficient in Europe, with some of the oldest housing stock on the continent. Nearly 40% of our homes were built before 1946, compared to 21% in Italy and just 11% in Spain. Many of our homes are expensive to heat, and inefficient at that. This is not just a financial burden or an environmental issue; it is a public health crisis. The NHS spends an estimated £1.4 billion every year treating illnesses related to living in cold or damp homes, with wider societal costs reaching a staggering £15.4 billion. By upgrading homes with free insulation for low-income households, we can ensure that no one must choose between a warm house and a full stomach. By installing heat pumps and making homes zero-carbon, we will not only reduce emissions but make our homes greener, fairer and more affordable to live in.

The second idea that we encourage Labour colleagues to get behind is getting landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of their properties. We would require landlords to upgrade it to EPC C or above by 2028, because British tenants are living in housing that is making them ill. It is unacceptable that 35% of fuel-poor households are in the private rented sector, where more than 1 million people struggle with fuel poverty, and an ever-increasing number of private renters live with dangerous mould and damp. I am ashamed to say that that is also causing children to die each year. Inaction from the previous Conservative Government has left people trapped in homes that are harmful and costly to heat. It is appalling that last year, more than 8,000 new homes were built in England with an EPC rating below band C. That cannot be allowed to continue, and I strongly advise the Government to remember the promises they made on it while electioneering earlier this year.

Our plans for landlords are a fair and green message: under Liberal Democrat proposals, Parliament would be able to ensure that children and vulnerable families did not have to suffer because of poor housing standards. We want legislation that requires landlords to upgrade properties to EPC grade C or above, and we want homes to be built with higher EPC ratings from the start. Let me be clear: these measures are about not just improving homes, but restoring dignity and health to those who live in them. Alongside these proposals, we want social tariffs, and we need to decouple electricity prices from wholesale gas. We need to address the fact that we are building homes that do not meet environmental standards that look to the future instead of the past.

We have a cost of living crisis and a climate emergency, and we need to invest in a future where homes are energy-efficient, affordable to heat and zero carbon. Given that the Government intend to remove winter fuel payments to pensioners, it is all the more pertinent that we insulate people’s homes from the very start to prevent them from struggling with their bills and to prevent elderly people from freezing during the winter. If we had insulated homes when they were built, as we are advocating, perhaps we would not have needed this debate. We should ensure that everyone’s home is warm. These changes would make a real difference to people’s lives by lowering energy costs, improving public health and tackling the climate crisis head-on.

It is time we delivered homes fit for the future and homes for the heatless, supporting those who are struggling to make ends meet. It is time, through our environmental standards for the building of new homes, to make our isles greener, fairer and thriving for everyone. I emphasise that, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, we must think about the long-term cost of the homes that we build, not the cost of building them today.

Building Safety and Resilience

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on their excellent maiden speeches, which gave a real flavour of their constituencies and their constituents.

Today’s debate highlights once again the wider issues of building safety and poverty. The safety of the buildings that house people and their families should not be subject to their economic status, and we must work together across the House to level the playing field to provide safety for all in this country. There is clearly much work to be done to achieve this, and I am grateful to the Minister for noting that we will have an opportunity to further discuss this issue at a future date.

It is with immense pride that I can say that in July, on my third attempt, I was elected to represent the residents of the Guildford constituency, the place that has been my home for the past 25 years. In my speech at the count following my election, I made a commitment to my residents that I will be an MP for everyone in my constituency, including those whose voices have gone unheard for too long. I reiterate that promise today.

I first stood for elected office in 2008, driven by a love for my community and a deep frustration that my area of Bellfields and Slyfield was being failed by the Conservatives. I dedicated myself to helping those at risk of losing their homes, working on community projects and being the voice of my community fighting for change in the council chamber. Some 16 years later, I am here in this Chamber because of my frustration following 14 years of Conservative failure that has, once again, left communities across Guildford and the whole country struggling.

I am also here because the people of Guildford felt that too. They said, “Enough is enough”, and felt that I could be their voice for change in this great Chamber. I am honoured by the trust they have placed in me. We are here as MPs to serve our residents, our constituencies and our country. I hope that will always be at the forefront of our minds as we fulfil our work as MPs, and particularly as we speak in this Chamber and as we vote.

Speaking of service, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank my predecessors, Angela Richardson, Anne Milton and Sir Paul Beresford, part of whose former constituency is now part of the constituency of Guildford. Angela and Anne served Guildford, its residents and businesses with determination for 14 years. I thank them on behalf of our constituents.

Now, on to my wonderful constituency. Guildford is an ancient town. The earliest human activity in the area was in the mesolithic era and it is mentioned in Alfred the Great’s will from 880 AD. The name Guildford means golden ford, which comes from the golden banks at the river crossing below St Catherine’s chapel, but that was not the only golden watermark in this election. In June, we saw a golden tide of Liberal Democrat MPs, with 72 elected across the country, including six of us in Surrey. This victory is a message of change for our country and I am very much looking forward to working with my fellow Lib Dem MPs, particularly on the issues of special educational needs and disabilities and Thames Water.

As an MP, I am especially committed to addressing the cost of living crisis that continues to push too many people into poverty, trapped by a crisis not of their own making. We must lift people out of hardship, ensuring that everyone has access to the services they need, without draining their pockets. I am sure that colleagues throughout the Chamber will agree that the fact that over 3 million people across the UK rely on Trussell Trust food banks alone in 2023-24 is a disgrace. It is a blight on our country and it must end.

Guildford is not only a historical town but a modern hub of innovation, often referred to as the Hollywood of the computer gaming industry, and home to many high-tech businesses at the cutting edge of envirotech, defence, space and more. Our town is a tech hub that draws on the legacy of our constituency: Ada Lovelace, the mother of computing, lived at Horsley Towers in my constituency for many years, and Alan Turing, whose genius continues to be honoured through the Alan Turing Institute at my alma mater, the University of Surrey, had his childhood home in Guildford.

My constituency is also blessed with breathtaking natural beauty, from the stunning RHS Wisley to the Surrey hills and our many National Trust properties, including the River Wey navigation, which the National Trust also manages. As MP, I am committed to balancing the continued evolution and success of my town and surrounding villages with protecting the natural beauty of my constituency for generations to come.

That is why I will be championing in the House the cause of cleaning up our rivers. The River Wey, which flows through the heart of Guildford town and through the villages to the east of my constituency, has been the lifeblood of Guildford for centuries. It is central to Guildford’s identity, its history, residents’ leisure time and its future. The levels of pollution being recorded in our river month after month are disgusting, and that is impacting the health of nature, animals and residents. It is time to clean up our rivers and bring to an end the stories I hear too often on the doorsteps, about residents becoming unwell after going in the water. As one example, I met the coach of a children’s cricket team earlier this year who shared how, in 2023, his young team went for an end of season celebratory dip in the River Wey. Every single one of those children became ill after going in the river.

I will end with two final thoughts. The first comes from my time studying music at the University of Surrey. It taught me the importance of harmony, both in art and in life. It is my sincere hope that together in this Chamber, over the coming years, we can create a symphony of voices, change the divisive rhetoric of the last few years and restore public trust in politics and politicians. If we do not, I worry about the future we leave for future generations.

Finally, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my friends and family, particularly my husband, Chris, and my sons, Reuben and Josh, who have supported me every step of the journey to this place and continue to walk it with me. Without their love, encouragement and occasional campaigning skills I would not be here today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Oliver Ryan to make his maiden speech.