Marie Goldman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Briefly, the Liberal Democrats are supportive of this statutory instrument. We wanted to make the case that having fairness in the system through legal means is all very well, but the problem is that if there are not enough duty providers to provide legal advice, it is almost pointless; we are not actually serving justice because we are not allowing people to get the support that they need, even though they are legally entitled to it. We need to ensure that the wider system is fair and that people have the ability to access the support that they are legally entitled to.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s recently announced social media ban for under-16s will play an important role in tackling violence against women and girls and the online spread of misogyny, but social media bans by themselves are not enough. While we welcome steps to address online harm, the Government’s proscriptive approach simply will not be enough. New platforms and apps will continue to spring up, and the Government are in danger of being a dangerously outpaced competitor in an online game of whack-a-mole. Alongside legislation, we urgently need to give our parents, teachers and schools the tools that they need to ensure that when children come across harmful or inappropriate content, they are equipped to recognise and challenge it, and are ultimately kept safe from it. Will the Minister work with her colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that teachers have the resources and support in the curriculum to cover that?

• 18 Jun 2026 · Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent .

• 18 Jun 2026 · Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  It is deeply disheartening that, a year on from Baroness Casey’s audit, the Government have not made greater progress. The victims have already been failed once; they must not be failed again. Previous inquiries have produced more than 800 recommendations, most of which have not been implemented. We see this over and over again across Departments: inquiry launched, recommendations produced and accepted by the Government, and then nothing—while victims continue to suffer. I wholeheartedly support the independent inquiry into grooming gangs, but it must not become an excuse to delay implementing the changes that we already know are needed. Will the Minister set out a clear timeline for implementing all Baroness Casey’s recommendations in full, and make clear to every organisation with a duty to safeguard children that the hundreds of recommendations from previous inquiries are not “nice to haves” but must be implemented at pace and without further delay?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. After the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, the Government’s job was to give people, businesses and organisations clear, workable guidance. The code is instead unworkable, exclusionary and expensive for businesses. As the Minister knows, the Government must ensure that they meet the legal obligations placed on them by the public sector equality duty. That requires the Minister to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct, to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not, and to foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not. Yet the Government’s own equality impact assessment identifies disproportionate harm to those with protected characteristics, and a failure to set out how that harm will be addressed. Can the Minister really say, hand on heart, that she believes the guidance does that? The impact assessment notes how the guidance will likely impact women who are not trans, yet do not meet cultural and social expectations around what a woman should look like. There have already been stories of women with mastectomies being challenged when accessing women-only spaces because they do not look like women. Has the Minister truly considered that? For trans, non-binary and intersex people, the code operates from a position of exclusion. It risks driving those small minorities away from public life, as leading mental health charities have since warned. The guidance conflicts with our core British values of tolerance, decency, respect for individual liberty and the rule of law. That is why I urge the Minister to withdraw it and to accept that this issue needs to be resolved by Parliament as law makers. To achieve that, I beg the Minister to adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal to appoint a joint committee of cross-party MPs and peers, to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, taking evidence from all communities who have been impacted, in order to propose amendments or new legislation that it sees as necessary to ensure that existing rights are protected. If we work together we can fix this; sowing division will not.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  As Member of Parliament for Chelmsford, I am proud to represent a city with a breadth of businesses, industries and educational institutions that do so much to support people from all backgrounds into employment. On today’s theme of getting Britain working again, over recent months I have held several roundtables with local small businesses, from independent restaurants that serve as important community spaces to local shops that provide high-quality, high street based alternatives to major multinationals. Those businesses face many challenges, but I am concerned that the Government’s proposed solutions outlined in the King’s Speech fall far short of where we need to be. At the end of last month, I hosted a roundtable with Chelmsford businesses in the construction industry. I must declare an interest here, because I have for many years run small businesses in construction, working as a specialist subcontractor. We have been through good times and bad times. I know that the often incredibly tight margins are difficult for the industry to work with, and I know the huge temptation for main contractors, desperate to win work, to overpromise and underdeliver. Some of the most unscrupulous contractors rely on putting their subcontractors out of business at the end of a contract through non-payment, delayed payment or ridiculously long retention clauses, hoping that avoiding paying a subbie will keep the main contractor afloat. I welcome the proposed introduction of legislation to tackle late payments and hope that, in so doing, the Government will listen to all those across the industry, at all levels, to understand the imperatives and the complexities of this matter. The construction industry is essential to our economy and our lives. The sector creates, sustains and draws on an enormous range of trades and skills. Far from being just about getting muddy and cold on a building site, the industry requires highly skilled engineers, surveyors, planners and logistics experts. It needs administrators and accountants alongside plumbers, brickies and sparkies. The industry is critical to the functioning of our country, from ensuring that we build enough homes to maintaining and expanding critical transport infrastructure. However, owners and representatives from the companies that I met highlighted the significant decrease in young people entering the construction workforce, as well as the overall proportion of women in the sector being extremely low, at around 16%. The industry is already working hard to tackle that, but businesses cannot do it alone. Let me highlight one specific example raised with me, which goes to the very heart of the theme of “getting Britain working again”: getting young people to site. If we want young people to take up careers in construction—and we surely do—we need them to not just learn the skills and gain essential knowledge through further education courses, but get hands-on, practical experience on building sites. I know that that is more of a challenge, but the industry wants and needs that. Time and again, I have heard businesses tell me that there is simply no substitute for a young person learning alongside a master craftsman or craftswoman and learning the tricks of the trade that allow them to adapt to the unpredictability of the myriad issues that come up on real sites, rather than in the theoretical world of a classroom. The problem is that these young people cannot get there. Building sites tend not to be conveniently located along a bus route or next to a train station. Indeed, by definition a “new site” is often in an entirely new, undeveloped area. The work is creating the infrastructure that will be used in the future, but in the meantime how do we get young people to the sites? Many of them are too young to even hold a driving licence. If they do not drive, they are reliant on getting a lift, but it is very difficult for businesses to provide that lift, due to safeguarding rules for under-18s. That inevitably generates inequality, as only those who can afford to take taxis or have a parent available to take them can do so, with others being left behind. I am in no way saying that we should scrap safeguarding, but this is the kind of practical issue that businesses tell me directly they need help with—perhaps in the form of grant funding for transport for young apprentices or those on work experience. We also need to start earlier in inspiring young people to consider a career in the construction industry, and this is where education must play a key role. How can children choose a career if they do not have a wide view of what is available to them? At this point, I will highlight the fabulous work done in my constituency by Chelmsford city council, which for many years—under Liberal Democrat leadership—has been running a skills festival every summer for pupils in year 8. It is called a festival, because that is exactly what it looks and feels like, but instead of the marquees and tents being filled with musicians or stalls selling merchandise and pop culture paraphernalia, they are packed with interactive stands from local businesses and other organisations based in Chelmsford and Essex. They usually have hands-on activities for 12 and 13 year-olds and hopefully encourage them to consider choosing GCSEs in the coming months that fit well with what they see in front of them—in year 8 they will not yet have chosen their GCSEs. However, this is about not just broadening the horizons of children, but strengthening and deepening the knowledge of their teachers and schools about what is out there, so that they can support the children going forward. The feedback from Chelmsford’s “Skills Fest”, as it is known, is fabulous, with many parents commenting afterwards that they have never seen their child so “brimming with enthusiasm” for something. That is a direct quote from a parent; their child was so enthusiastic about town planning, which they had never considered before. It is pretty inspirational to hear that. This kind of inspirational, collaborative and innovative activity is the sort of thing that I would like to see and suggest that we need to see right across the country, learning from Chelmsford’s example and experience. In short, if we want to get Britain working again, it can never start too early, and it must start with supporting children. Indeed, it is these practical solutions that would offer young people from diverse backgrounds the opportunities to experience and begin successful, challenging and meaningful careers in crucial sectors such as construction. Let me turn quickly to the issue of health. It is clear that we cannot get Britain working again if we cannot get Britain healthy again. On that subject, I am afraid that I continue to be dismayed by the state of Broomfield hospital, which is just outside my constituency but serves as Chelmsford’s main healthcare facility. I have held numerous roundtables and surgeries with staff and patients alike to hear from them directly about the challenges facing the Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust, of which the hospital forms a part. That is easily one of the most concerning issues to local residents, myself included. Like everyone else, I want to ensure that my friends and family know that they can trust the trust if the worst happens. That is why I was genuinely pleased in March, when the Health Secretary announced that our trust was being placed into an intensive recovery programme to ensure that swift action was taken to address its many challenges. However, almost two months on, I received word yesterday that the trust is yet to receive any details on what the recovery programme even entails. It is almost unbelievable that a programme labelled “intensive” and announced in March to begin last month has given precisely zero details about what it means, even to the management of one of the five trusts singled out as desperately in need of support. Unfortunately, that is entirely symptomatic of a Government approach that has led to the rather precarious position that the Prime Minister finds himself in today—or possibly even worse. There are promises of swift delivery, meaningful change and competent leadership, then a failure to do any of those things. Healthcare is essential to every one of us. Staff in the NHS do exhausting, incredible work and are definitely to be commended, but they cannot be expected to turn failing trusts around if the Government cannot begin to describe to them how they want to help them, what they want them to do or how they will be supported in doing so. Our NHS and my constituents deserve and need far better. I ask the Health Secretary—whoever that turns out to be in the weeks and months ahead—to communicate urgently the programme’s details with the relevant trusts, such as Mid and South Essex, so that work can begin right now. Let me turn briefly to other matters. The previous King’s Speech promised a draft Bill to ban conversion therapy, but that did not happen. Here we are again, with a promise in yesterday’s King’s Speech, as has been mentioned by other hon. Members across the House, for “a draft Bill to ban abusive conversion practices.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 13 May 2026; Vol. 856, c. 3.] As a slight aside, I know that I have spent quite a bit of time talking about the construction industry and I am now talking about conversion practices, but I want to be very clear that these two issues are very different. It was a bit strange to hear cladding remediation and conversion practices lumped into the same sentence in the King’s Speech. I wonder whether there was a bit of confusion in the Government about how wildly different those two issues are—we are not talking about converting buildings. Then again, perhaps that highlights the scale of the challenge and why the Government have not prioritised this matter; perhaps they truly do not understand the issue. I must remind the Government that we have heard time and again of the impact that abusive conversion practices have on the LGBT+ community. Indeed, it was Theresa May’s Government in 2018 who first proposed such a Bill, yet here we are, almost a decade later, without even a draft in front of us. As other hon. Members have done, I ask the Government what assurances they can give that such a Bill will finally come forward, given that it has been promised before but did not happen. The LGBT+ community must not again be told to wait until the end of this Session only to see another promise broken. The Government must publish a trans-inclusive Bill to ban conversion practices as a matter of urgency. The Government recognise a lot of the challenges that face our country, and I do not doubt their desire to improve people’s lives, but they either refuse to carry out the appropriate solutions or are too timid to make an argument for the bold change that our country has been crying out for, even if it is sometimes controversial. We are fortunate to live in an amazing country. We have wonderful people, world-class skills and expertise, globally admired institutions and businesses, a deep history built on the principles of fairness, tolerance and inclusivity, and enormous potential to lead the world in so many ways—politically, economically and morally. However, we need to do more than just recognise that it is not currently working for everyone; we need real, workable, practical and pragmatic ideas that can and must be implemented at pace. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches want this Government to make positive changes. It matters for us and our constituents that they do that, so I encourage them to listen to the calls of Liberal Democrat Members, who are willing to work together to achieve the positive changes that we need to reduce inequality, increase economic security, and ultimately see off the politics of hatred and grievance.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  Nobody, and certainly nobody in my party, would argue that we should not pay the lowest-paid more, but businesses in my Chelmsford constituency tell me—I am pretty sure this happens across the country—that the issue is the knock-on effect on the differential. When businesses pay the lowest-paid more, they have to pay some of the people higher up the ladder a bit more as well, to keep the differential. The cumulative effect of that—plus other things, such as national insurance contribution increases—is what has created difficulties. I am not having a go, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to try to find solutions that support businesses to pay their staff more while increasing their business?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Since I last raised the subject of suicides after domestic abuse, the domestic abuse homicide project has reported on the previous 12 months and seen a significant rise in cases. This morning, I held a roundtable with some of the organisations campaigning to ensure that suicides in cases of domestic abuse are investigated from the outset as homicides, and they all agreed that action is needed now. One small change that they said would make an important difference is requiring police officers to turn on their body-worn cameras when attending sudden deaths in domestic settings and tagging it afterwards, which means important evidence will be preserved. Will the Government encourage the College of Policing to update its guidance to introduce such a requirement?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Police Federation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, even though it was slightly unexpected for me to be speaking today. I thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for securing this important debate. The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support the overwhelming majority of honest, hard-working members of the police. We recognise the immense value of their commitment and service, while at the same time continuing to hold forces to account to ensure that communities are kept safe. In my Chelmsford constituency, it has been a real privilege to join Essex police on patrol and to see at first hand the brilliant work they do to keep our community safe. It is crucial that police officers are properly supported and have confidence and faith in the institution that represents them: the Police Federation of England and Wales. With police officers having no choice in their representation or where their union dues go, the federation must be effective and supportive to all officers. That is vital for retaining existing officers and increasing officer numbers, as the Government have pledged. The reforms recently announced in the policing White Paper must be implemented in the right way, and they must not come at the cost of officer welfare. The Police Federation has an important role in ensuring that. Sadly, the ongoing police investigation into senior office holders within the Police Federation has naturally shaken confidence in the organisation. That is unfortunately the tip of the iceberg in a longer period of faltering confidence in the organisation. Accounts of poor culture identified in independent reports, particularly towards women, must be dealt with. I have heard from senior female police officers who have argued that allowing them to choose their representative body would be welcome due to these repeated failings. They have shared troubling accounts of where, irrespective of their senior police positions, they have experienced marginalisation, isolation and ridicule after raising issues within the Police Federation. In response, the Police Federation has committed to an ongoing transformation programme. However, women in the police have also expressed concern that some of the proposed measures to improve the federation are inappropriate from the outset. For example, the federation has spoken of developing a service for victims and witnesses who are federation members, with a particular focus on women victims. That is, of course, welcome, but women have noted the inherent conflict that the current system means a victim or witness can only be supported by the same staff association that also represents the officer who may be the subject of the allegation or criminal investigation. As one officer put it: “for many women, that does not feel safe, fair, or credible”. Consequently, the absence of alternative representation can lead to some officers feeling trapped at exactly the time when they should feel most supported and protected. Like the rest of us, police officers have the right to freedom of association, guaranteed by article 11 of the European convention on human rights. That has formed the basis of the National Police Association’s campaign and legal challenge to allow officers to choose their representative body. In the light of that, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I would encourage the Minister to review the effectiveness of police officer representation, including the potential benefits of reforming the legislation in this area to allow officers the option to choose a different organisation to represent them. Our police officers deserve to be listened to and supported by their representative body, and the Government should now listen and support them.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I struggle with the idea that a trans person would go into the opposite sex’s changing rooms, which they are supposedly not allowed into, for the purpose of causing harm. That is surely what we are worrying about: harm being caused, particularly to women. I struggle with the idea that, at the moment, it is the sign on the door that is preventing someone from causing harm to women. Do they go, “Oh, I wanted to harm a woman, but I’m not going to do it because the sign on the door says I shouldn’t”? I struggle with that argument in general. It should not need to be spelled out in Britain in 2026, but requiring women and girls to prove that we are female enough—because we have to do the same thing—is not only a deeply regressive step and an impractical requirement to put on businesses and other organisations, but deeply discriminatory, judgmental and, speaking as a woman, outrageous and unworkable.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I will briefly answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that, although I do not have the stats in front of me, a huge proportion of women are, sadly, attacked in their own home and single-sex spaces will not prevent that from happening. Protecting the rights of women and ensuring dignity and inclusion for trans people are not competing objectives. Both are essential to a fair society. It is basic British decency to afford that. The Liberal Democrats believe as such and that is what we will continue to call for. The Government must now provide leadership and certainty to achieve that balance.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech, and I thank her for it. I think we are probably on different sides of the debate, but it is still interesting. She says that none of trans people’s rights has been taken away. I wonder whether she can explain the legal limbo that trans people feel they are in when trying to obtain a gender recognition certificate. They are required to live in their acquired gender for several months in order to obtain a certificate, but if they cannot access the spaces for the gender that they are seeking to acquire, they cannot fulfil that criterion. Does she agree that that creates a legal limbo and does actually take away some of their rights?

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  That was a timely intervention because my next paragraph deals exactly with that. Separately, to deal with the unacceptable legal limbo that many trans people are in, I encourage the Minister to appoint a Joint Committee of MPs and peers, on a cross-party basis, to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of both the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010. The Committee should take evidence from affected communities, including trans people, and propose any amendments or new legislation that it sees as necessary to ensure that existing rights are protected. Trans people are worried for good reason. Two thirds of them have experienced harassment and violence simply because they were identified as trans. It is sadly an all-too-common theme throughout history that vulnerable minorities—in this case a minority that makes up less than 1% of the UK’s population—are scapegoated for society’s ills.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important debate, even though I know we are on slightly different sides of it. For far too long, trans, non-binary and intersex people have understandably been left anxious and fearful about the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling. In its judgment, the Supreme Court stated: “It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010.” Would the Minister therefore confirm that the judgment does not and will not affect the interpretation of any other Acts of Parliament? The ruling also reaffirmed that trans people continue to be protected from discrimination under the Equality Act. Unfortunately, a year on, the Government have still not provided adequate detail on how that will be achieved. Instead, they have created a legal minefield that has left trans, intersex and non-binary people in limbo while exposing businesses and organisations to costly legal action. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft code of practice, which was leaked in November, only worsened the environment. Trans people who hold gender recognition certificates have explained to me the legal limbo that they now find themselves in. During the lengthy process to obtain such a certificate, they are required to provide formal evidence that they live, and will continue to live, in their acquired gender, yet the draft EHRC guidance indicated that they may be required to use facilities based on their birth sex. That simply is not a coherent legal position, and we urgently need clarity on the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling for someone trying to obtain a gender recognition certificate. The draft EHRC guidance also proposed that staff working across the economy, from hotels and hospitals to cinemas and care homes, could be required to question people about their sex based on how they look, their behaviour or concerns raised by others, and refuse access to them if there is doubt they are telling the truth about their sex. That is unacceptable and unworkable. It would put trans and non-binary people in unsafe situations, and it is inevitable that it would acutely impact women and girls.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Everyone is being generous with their time today, and I am grateful. He said that people have transitioned “biologically”. I thought biology was either one thing or the other and was immutable. Could he explain that point?

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly why we need the Government to come forward with proper guidance—so that organisations can work through this properly and understand when they are working within the rules, and so that they do not have to reinvent everything for themselves. We do not have that guidance, and it is desperately needed.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman’s intervention in a slightly different way. There is something called the 80:20 rule, which states that, in pretty much anything in life, we should put 80% of our effort into 20% of situations. The vast majority of the time, it is really easy to deal with situations, including the one the hon. Gentleman just outlined. The hard work—the 80%—comes in 20% of the cases. It might not be that exact ratio, but a lot of the time we have to work a lot harder to deal with the cases that are in the margins and harder to determine. I know that from my past work in IT, but it applies to lots of other things. The hon. Gentleman suggests that he would be instantly recognisable as a man, and would be able to use facilities for men, and I would not disagree, but there are many situations—certainly a minority, but they should still be handled with care—where it is not as easy to determine. As a country that is caring, we should not ignore those situations. How a country or society looks after its most vulnerable people, who are usually part of minority groups, is how it should be judged, so I suggest that we need to take care on this issue.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about it being fairly obvious which gender someone is, I wonder whether the hon. Lady has heard about the case of the woman who had a double mastectomy and frequently gets misgendered as a man? What would she say to that woman?

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  A lot has been said about common sense in this debate. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman will join me in reflecting that common sense used to hold that the Earth was the centre of the universe and that everything else revolved around it, and that common sense does not hold true forever?

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some more progress. That requirement is unworkable. There is not one of us here who does not know how stressed our local small businesses are. How could it ever be proportionate to require overstretched staff in these businesses to police gender norms for their own customers to access a facility as basic as a toilet? The business community has already loudly voiced its concerns. In September last year, hundreds of businesses signed a letter opposing the EHRC draft proposals, given the impact they would have on their employees and their costs, as well as the legal risk they would create.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman might be confusing two very different issues. There are deeply upsetting impacts on cisgender women, too, including heartbreaking stories, as I mentioned earlier, of women who have undergone cancer treatment being questioned over which toilet they use because they do not conform with what a woman “ought” to look like. I am pretty sure that nobody in this Chamber today wants to live in a country where those who have suffered from cancer are worried that they will be challenged on their appearance when trying to use public toilets. Requiring women to use separate facilities, such as disabled toilets, instead of spaces that match their gender is also not a workable solution. I have heard from trans and non-binary individuals who say that it would effectively out them, exposing them to a greater risk of harassment or even violence and depriving them of their right to privacy. Organisations that want to be inclusive have also been affected. Last year in a statement to the House, in which she welcomed the clarity provided by the Supreme Court, the Minister for Women and Equalities said: “of course providers can offer inclusive services, should they choose to do so, so long as they are clear about who they are offering their services to.” —[ Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 959WH.] However, that has not been the case. I ask the Minister to clarify whether the Government’s position on that point has changed. Along with Liberal Democrat colleagues, I have regularly called on the Minister for Women and Equalities to take action to solve these serious issues. I therefore cautiously welcome the news that the Government intend to lay the code in May. That will hopefully bring an end to the uncertainty and worry that the trans community, businesses and organisations have been exposed to for too long. The Minister must ensure, however, that the new guidance is workable and inclusive. The Liberal Democrats will accept nothing less. It must lay out how it will protect the dignity, safety and rights of all, and ensure that trans people are not prevented from participating in public life because there are no facilities that they can safely use. As I think many of us would agree, it is also essential that the guidance is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. It must have a full debate and a free vote.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree with that. The vast majority of women who are attacked are attacked by men, and those are men who they already know. If we are going to focus on protecting women, I would suggest that that would be a very good place to start.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman always makes such interesting speeches. I just wanted to ask about intersex. We have talked a lot about biological fact. Would he explain a little bit more about intersex and the potential decisions that need to be made in relation to intersex babies when they are born?

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  One of the most important things is how we behave towards each other as a society. I do not want women, men or anybody to have fit into stereotypes. The hon. Lady is absolutely right—we want to live in a society where we accept people for who they are.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls. · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, The Guardian revealed that suicides following domestic abuse may be vastly under-reported, with research in Kent suggesting that they could be 15 times more prevalent. There has been just one manslaughter conviction from such a death in the whole of UK legal history. Liberal Democrats in the other place recently tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, supported by Women’s Aid and Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse, which would require police to investigate suicides as potential homicides where there is a reasonable suspicion of a history of domestic abuse. Given the Government’s reluctance to support that measure, will the Minister commit to making the College of Policing’s published guidance on this matter statutory, so that these cases are properly investigated across all forces?