Liberal Democrats MP for Guildford since (elected). An MP continuously since .
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
205
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
8
As currently published
Declared while sitting for Lib Dem
£9,692.86
6 of 8 entries state an amount
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lib Dem | MP | Guildford | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Parliament's party history for this member: Liberal Democrat ( – present).
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
| Date | Category | Entry | Declared value | Sitting for | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| date registered | 2. Donations and support | Ian Branagan - £1,000.00 | £1,000 | Lib Dem | Register record |
| date registered | 2. Donations and support | Ian Branagan - £1,500.00 | £1,500 | Lib Dem | Register record |
| 8. Miscellaneous | Vice President of the Local Government Association. This is an unpaid role. | — | Lib Dem | Register record | |
| date registered | 2. Donations and support | Chris Franklin - £2,500.00 | £2,500 | Lib Dem | Register record |
| 8. Miscellaneous | Vice President of the Local Government Association. This is an unpaid role. | — | Lib Dem | Register record | |
| date registered | 2. Donations and support | Margaret Sharp - £2,000.00 | £2,000 | Lib Dem | Register record |
| 3. Gifts, UK sources | National Liberal Club - £1,140.00 | £1,140 | Lib Dem | Register record | |
| 3. Gifts, UK sources | National Liberal Club - £1,552.86 | £1,552.86 | Lib Dem | Register record |
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, after “strategic” insert “and local”. <em>This amendment expands the general duty of the ORR so that it must consider and avoid adverse impacts on local roads, as well as the strategic road network.</em>
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Clause 1 obliges the Office of Rail and Road only to “have regard to…avoiding adverse impacts for the strategic road network”. That creates severe statutory asymmetry that will potentially leave council-maintained local roads completely unprotected. The amendment would correct that omission by elevating local road protection to an equal statutory footing, requiring the regulator to actively evaluate and mitigate traffic displacement, road surface wear, and congestion on local surrounding roads caused by potential toll avoidance. Surrounding A roads and B roads managed by local highways authorities face accelerated asphalt degradation when heavy commuter and freight traffic diverts from tolled highways and creates potentially massive uncompensated repair backlogs for local council tax payers. We all know the challenges that our local roads face under our local highways authorities.<span id="71" class="column-number" data-column-number="71"></span> Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, cautioned the Committee that drivers faced with a toll will naturally choose local, free alternatives, creating negative traffic impacts across adjacent networks. That must be taken into account. The evidence of Ralph Smyth, from the Transport Action Network, highlighted that creating private toll infrastructure without a statutory duty to protect adjacent road networks breaks the integrated transport planning and leaves local highways authorities without recourse. Why does clause 1(3)(b) explicitly protect National Highways’ strategic network from adverse impacts while leaving local council roads to absorb the traffic gridlock and financial fallout of toll evasion and avoidance? Will the Minister accept amendment 37 to ensure that the regulator has an explicit statutory duty to protect local communities and local highways authorities from toll diversion impacts? I intend to push the amendment to a Division.
I thank the Minister for his comments. However, I remain unconvinced about local authorities not having that statutory duty, so I wish to press the amendment to a Division. <em>Question put</em>, That the amendment be made.
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.
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 <span id="626" class="column-number" data-column-number="626"></span>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.
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.<span id="628" class="column-number" data-column-number="628"></span> 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.
<Question HRSContentId="{C172C8C1-26BA-4E7B-9258-164EE895C762}">Q11. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{D81FBB1A-4CAC-47B8-8A5D-530318A6CCBF}"></QuestionText>At Guilford’s probation hostel, experienced staff are being refused skilled worker visa sponsorship because their salaries fall below the Government threshold, despite earning over £42,000 when essential overtime is included. I understand from local probation management that this could affect hundreds of staff across the 104 probation hostels in England and Wales at a time when probation services are already under huge pressure from the Government’s early release scheme. The Government have made special visa provision for prison officers, so why not for probation staff, who also protect the public? Will the Prime Minister review these rules urgently before experienced probation staff are lost from the service, which is already stretched to breaking point?</Question>
<Question HRSContentId="{807B5B21-DC30-48C9-B258-7DD4D37934E2}">5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{8E4B1F1E-7D28-42BF-A07B-35A6A9530741}">What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in ensuring access to justice for victims of crime.</QuestionText> </Question>
I thank the Attorney General for her answer, but a constituent from Guildford has endured repeated delays to a domestic abuse prosecution. Causes included the Crown Prosecution Service failing to secure a barrister, and a trial collapsing after eight days as the proceedings had overrun and jurors could no longer continue, due to other commitments. She now faces the prospect of waiting for justice until June 2028, almost five years after her husband’s arrest. By then, there is a real risk that crucial evidence will have been lost. Does the Attorney General recognise that administrative failures like these undermine victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system? What accountability is there when CPS failings cause such devastating delays?
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?
Held . Recorded result: LD Gain. Majority 8,429. 48,294 votes cast from an electorate of 70,662. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zöe Franklin | Liberal Democrat | 22,937 | 47.5% |
| Angela Richardson | Conservative | 14,508 | 30.0% |
| Dennis Saunders | Reform UK | 4,395 | 9.1% |
| Sarah Gillinson | Labour | 3,931 | 8.1% |
| Sam Peters | Green Party | 2,268 | 4.7% |
| John Morris | The Peace Party - Non-violence, Justice, Environment | 255 | 0.5% |
| Seat | Dates |
|---|---|
| GuildfordElected 1 time | – present |
| Post | Dates |
|---|---|
| Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Local Government)Opposition Department | – present |
| Committee | Dates |
|---|---|
| Highways (Financing) Bill | – present |
| Representation of the People Bill | – |
| Mental Health Bill [HL] | – |
| Court of Referees | – present |
| Crown Estate Bill [HL] | – |
| Speaker's Conference (2024) | – present |
| Ecclesiastical Committee | – present |
| Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee | – |
| Constituency | Date |
|---|---|
| Guildford | |
| Guildford |
Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site
Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .