Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what her expected timeline is for publishing the Schools White Paper including the SEND reform package.
Answered by Georgia Gould - Minister of State (Education)
The department will publish the Schools White Paper early this year. It will set out our proposed reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system, underpinned by our belief that high standards and inclusion are two sides of the same coin.
To ensure these reforms are as effective as possible, and building on conversations to date, we launched a public engagement campaign spanning every region of the country. This put families at the heart of plans to create a reformed SEND system that will stand the test of time.
As part of this campaign, I have hosted regional face-to-face events across the country, run in partnership with the Council for Disabled Children. The department also set up a number of online events, including a panel of experts, in discussions covering the department’s five principles of reform. Further details can be found at: https://consult.education.gov.uk/send-reform-national-conversation/.
The experiences and insights shared during these engagement opportunities will be vital in ensuring that our proposals effectively deliver meaningful reforms for families.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, when he will publish the Community Cohesion Strategy.
Answered by Miatta Fahnbulleh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
The Department published its Pride in Place Strategy in September 2025, setting out this government‘s plan to create safer, healthier neighbourhoods where communities can thrive. It sets out how we will deliver a step change in how we support communities across the country and provide long-term funding to the most doubly disadvantaged areas.
As part of this, the Strategy announced the expansion of the Pride in Place Programme – this will provide up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade to 244 places across the UK. Funding will be made available to improve community cohesion.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of safeguarding practices on requiring parents to seek retrospective court remedies.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps he is taking to prevent enforcement correspondence being issued by the Child Maintenance Service where maintenance has been paid early but outside the Service’s payment window.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
Correspondence issued by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) referencing enforcement action as being considered should only be issued if a customer has missed payments due and has fallen into arrears.
CMS is currently reviewing its processes to ensure that this principle is consistently applied and that such correspondence is not issued where payments have been made.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has considered introducing a requirement for automatic judicial oversight within a fixed timeframe where state bodies facilitate a significant change in a child’s living arrangements as part of safeguarding practice.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether national guidance permits (a) police forces and (b) local authority Children’s Services to facilitate a material change in a child’s place of residence without prior court authorisation where one parent with parental responsibility has refused consent.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.
There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.
Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.
The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps her Department is taking to address period poverty and ensure affordable access to menstrual products.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government recognises the importance of women and girls being able to access the care they need for their reproductive health, including period products.
We know that poverty doesn’t recognise gender, and that women and girls may suffer given the cost of period products. However, we know that period poverty reflects wider cost-of-living pressures, which is why the Government is tackling the root causes of poverty, through measures to make work pay, boosting the living wage, and investing in public services, so no one has to go without the essentials.
There are a number of schemes across the Government which ensure that those who are most vulnerable can access the products they need. The Department for Education’s Period Products scheme launched in 2020 and provides free period products to girls and women in their place of study so that nobody misses out on education because of their period. Similarly, all women and girls being cared for by the National Health Service are entitled to be given, upon request, appropriate period products free of charge.
We are also taking steps to ensure that products are as affordable as possible, as the tax on period products has been zero-rated since 2021, and in 2023 this was extended to include reusable period underwear.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment her Department has made of the potential impact on safety from overcrowding on Great Western Railway services, including where planned rolling stock capacity is reduced due to engineering works overrunning; and what steps her Department is taking to address those risks before Great Western Railway enters public ownership, including through its contractual and oversight arrangements.
Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The Department for Transport has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of increasing the biodiversity net gain de minimis threshold from 0.1 hectares to 0.5 hectares on nature recovery.
Answered by Mary Creagh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The Government recently consulted on options to improve the way Biodiversity Net Gain works for small, medium and brownfield development. This included potential changes to the de minimis exemption threshold, which currently sits at 25 square metres. Since then, the Government has announced its intention to introduce a new area-based exemption set at 0.2 hectares to reduce costs for smaller development while maintaining nature recovery at scale. A full consultation response and impact assessment will be published in due course.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what data his Department holds on the number of healthcare professionals with specialist training in Parkinson’s disease; and whether he considers current data collection sufficient to support workforce planning for Parkinson’s services.
Answered by Ashley Dalton - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department does not collect centralised data on the number of clinicians with specific expertise in Parkinson’s disease. This is because decisions about the staffing, skill mix, and service models required to meet local population needs are made by individual National Health Service trusts and integrated care boards. These organisations are responsible for planning and commissioning services in their areas, and they determine the level of specialist expertise needed within their multidisciplinary teams. As a result, information on specialist Parkinson’s roles is held locally rather than recorded in national workforce datasets.
However, we do hold data for the wider specialties central to Parkinson’s care. As of October 2025, there were 2,004 full‑time equivalent doctors in neurology and 6,324 in geriatric medicine working in NHS trusts and other organisations in England. These specialties include clinicians who provide care to people with Parkinson’s.
We continue to work with NHS England through programmes such as the Neurology Transformation Programme and Getting It Right First Time to support improvements in access to specialist care. The Department has also established a United Kingdom‑wide Neuro Forum, which brings together the Government, the NHS, the devolved administrations, and neurological alliances across the four nations to share best practice and address system-wide challenges, including workforce needs for conditions such as Parkinson’s.