Marie Goldman MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 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?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Social Cohesion Action Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Liberal Democrats are pleased to see the Government present this social cohesion strategy, partly because we have consistently called for its publication without further delay—it was promised last year. This should not be a political matter. We all witnessed the scenes during the 2024 riots. To suggest that a community cohesion strategy is unnecessary is to be blind to the very real challenges facing our country—challenges that have regrettably been inflamed by certain politicians who should know better. Given that almost 140,000 hate-related offences have been recorded in the year to March 2025, it is clear that action is definitely needed at a national level. To support community cohesion, we must first build community itself and the kind of community that comes from access to shared spaces—youth clubs, green spaces and the everyday places where, regardless of background, we come to recognise how much we have in common with each other. Will the Secretary of State outline how faith communities will be properly supported and involved in proactively preventing division? The Government also previously committed to promoting local faith covenants as a way of strengthening partnerships between councils and faith groups. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the new strategy will provide practical support for local authorities to implement those covenants, especially given that many councils are on the brink financially?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government are today bringing forward a statutory instrument that, according to national media reports, will make significant changes to support for asylum seekers. The Home Secretary has just delivered a speech to the press to announce the changes. I know that you and Mr Speaker are staunch defenders of the right of MPs to hear such announcements first, and to be able to scrutinise and debate changes such as this statutory instrument. Indeed, our constituents, who have elected us, deserve nothing less. May I ask for your guidance about how the House can properly scrutinise this announcement, and others like it that will surely come in the future?

• 12 Feb 2026 · LGBT+ History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking the hon. Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for securing this really important debate, and for their amazing contributions—the hon. Member for Nottingham East gave a particularly passionate and powerful opening speech. I also thank some of the other Members who have contributed to the debate. I will not speak about all of them, but I want to single out the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) as she spoke incredibly passionately. While I was listening to the debate, I could see her empathy and compassion for this subject, and I want to thank her for that. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) spoke about lived experience and history, but he also reminded us that history is not done yet. We still have a long way to go, and we are creating it every single day. Several Members have pointed out that progress is not permanent, and what we have seen in recent years completely underlines how important it is that we carry on fighting and never take anything for granted. I also thank the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for reminding us of something that should be obvious: we cannot change people. People are who they are, and to pretend otherwise is harmful and cruel, and we must fight against it. As equality and inclusion are being undermined both at home and abroad, it becomes ever more important to reflect on and celebrate the historic achievements of LGBTQ+ individuals, and LGBT+ History Month gives us the chance to do exactly that. As Members have noted with great pride, British history features a remarkable diversity of gender and sexuality. The theme of this year’s LGBT+ History Month, science and innovation, encourages us to celebrate the many contributions of LGBTQ+ people in shaping the modern world—from the infamous computer scientist Alan Turing, who literally changed technology forever, to John Maynard Keynes’ enormous contribution to economic thought. We also recognise those closer to home, such as Barbara Burford, who is recognised this LGBT+ History Month for innovation in public service and healthcare leadership. As a medical research, writer and equality champion, her work helped shaped the NHS’s approach to diversity and inclusion, showing that genuine innovation also emerges through systems, policies and organisational culture. LGBT+ History Month also reminds us of the historical harms inflicted on the community through the medicalisation and pathologisation of their identities. I also want to take the opportunity to highlight that this month coincides with Football v Homophobia Month, originally established by the Justin Campaign to tackle anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in football, in memory of the UK’s first out professional footballer, Justin Fashanu. The month remembers and celebrates those who have been trailblazers in the beautiful game, while encouraging fans and clubs to share the “Football for Everyone” message and reaffirm their commitment to create safe and welcoming spaces in which LGBTQ+ people can flourish. It is only in the past 30 years, owing to the tireless advocacy of LGBTQ+ individuals and campaign groups, that we have come to recognise and correct these injustices. It is by acknowledging this history that we can build ethical medical practice and inclusive institutions for the future. I am proud to say that my party, the Liberal Democrats, has a long legacy of leading the fight for LGBTQ+ equality. It was the Liberal Democrats, for instance, that led the repeal of section 28, introduced by the Conservatives in 1988, which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities in schools, and had been stifling LGBTQ+ representation for 15 years. The Liberal Democrats were also instrumental in securing the legislation of same-sex marriage during the coalition Government. We designed the Alan Turing law, as part of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, which granted posthumous pardons to more than 49,000 men convicted of gross decency. It is the Liberal Democrats that continue to push, agreed cross-party, for an immediate, full and inclusive ban on conversion therapy, covering both sexual orientation and gender identity without loopholes. We have always been a champion of LGBTQ+ equality, which is one of the many reasons why I am proud to be in this party. That was again brought home to me last year during the Essex Pride parade through the high street in my Chelmsford constituency. It was an honour, as I had done in previous years, to be at the front of the parade, carrying one of the rather large balloon sculptures that formed the words “Essex Pride”, and to be part of such a joyful celebration of human diversity and of the advances made towards LGBTQ+ inclusion. However, despite past progress towards LGBTQ+ equality in Britain, the community still experiences discrimination and harassment on a daily basis, and there is evidence that it is getting worst. As the hon. Member for Nottingham East highlighted, with divisive extremist rhetoric on the rise, we are slipping backwards in this country. In 2025, the UK fell six places to 22nd on ILGA-Europe’s LGBTQ+ rights ranking. To put that in context, we were No. 1 in 2015. As was referenced by the hon. Member for Luton North, hate crimes have nearly doubled over the past five years. Research from Stonewall conducted by Opinium found that in 2025, less than half of LGBTQ+ people felt safe holding their partner’s hand in public. In the workplace, it is a similar story; research found that almost 40% of LGBTQ+ employees hide their identity at work. Meanwhile, around two thirds of trans people experience harassment and violence simply because they were identified as trans. That is appalling. Indeed, it goes without saying that this past year has been a difficult time for the LGBTQ+ community, and an especially worrying and upsetting period for our trans and non-binary friends here in the UK, following last April’s Supreme Court ruling. Like many other Members, I have received heartbreaking stories from trans and non-binary constituents fearful of even being able to participate in public life. It is simply not acceptable that the rights of everyone, trans and non-binary included, do not appear to be deserving of the same respect and recognition. That is why Liberal Democrats have been clear that the leaked Equality and Human Rights Commission code of practice was deeply flawed, and have since called for new, inclusive and workable guidance. That guidance should also be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, including debate and a vote.

• 12 Feb 2026 · LGBT+ History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for reminding us that this is about people. They are not statistics—they are people, whose everyday experiences and lives are being harmed by the decisions that are being made right now and by the awful, appalling, divisive rhetoric that is coming from some parts of the community, and some parts of the political community in particular. We must fight against it, and I thank the hon. Member very much for reminding us that this is about people and that their voices must be heard. As we celebrate LGBT+ History Month and reflect on the historical achievements of LGBTQ+ individuals, we must also look forward, challenge prejudice wherever it appears, and recognise our responsibility as Members of Parliament to continue to push for LGBTQ+ equality.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. Over the weekend, I saw the appalling state of roads in my Chelmsford constituency, such as Oaklands Crescent and Dorset Avenue, that Conservative-run Essex county council has failed time and again to repair properly. Does the Secretary of State agree that patching potholes, and so having to come back to them time and again, is a terrible waste of public funds?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minster give way?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this vital and timely debate. First, I want to recognise the victims of the sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals, their families and especially the women who are yet again, through no fault of their own, another example of the UK’s unacceptable gender health gap. I have spoken about my constituent Mary on several occasions in the House. It is a pleasure to welcome her and other women affected by these scandals here to watch this debate. I thank Mary and other campaigning mothers, such as Karen and Deborah, who have already been mentioned, for their tireless work to bring foetal valproate syndrome to my and other Members’ attention, and to keep this injustice in the spotlight. Mothers such as Mary have had to reckon not just with looking after their children with complex needs, who regularly require round-the-clock care, but with continuing their exhausting campaign work to try to keep the focus on the plight of their children in an attempt to receive better support. One of the points that Mary and other mothers with children affected by foetal valproate syndrome are clearest about is that this is an evolving disability. No one knows the true damage that the drug may be causing victims as they grow older; those symptoms are evolving as they do, and children’s complex conditions often deteriorate. That can make appointments with GPs and other healthcare specialists incredibly difficult and complex. The lack of awareness and understanding about the situation among the medical community simply exacerbates the issue, and makes it even harder for mothers to get on with helping their children. It is vital that measures are brought into the clinician training curriculum, and those absolutely must feature testimonies from victims of medical scandals so that the medical community truly understand what they are facing. It cannot be underlined enough that all these challenges are not hypothetical questions to these women and their families; they are their everyday realities. For that reason, it is incredibly frustrating—and, to be quite honest, angering—for those mothers that, more than two whole years after the publication of Professor Henrietta Hughes’s report into sodium valproate and mesh implants, the Government have not only not responded but have, of late, been stating that they “will respond in due course.” I am sorry, but what a totally rubbish, useless and uncaring answer! Much is said about distrust in our politics and our politicians in this country; that sort of mealy-mouthed answer, I am afraid, does absolutely nothing to restore that trust. We must do better. I have so much more to say, but I am conscious of time. I will just say that Mary told me this morning, “We are exhausted from fighting.” Her plea is for MPs to find out more, to do more and to raise more awareness. I leave that plea with the House. The Government have an obligation to support families like Mary’s, and I hope that they will do the right thing.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Health Inequalities: Women · Hansard source

  More

  In September, I raised the case of my constituent Mary in the House. Mary is among the parents of at least 7,000 children who have suffered birth defects because of the anti-epilepsy drug sodium valproate after it was prescribed to pregnant mothers in the 1970s. Next week marks the second anniversary of the Hughes report into the sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals. Mary and other mothers like her needed redress and support for their children years ago, and the Government response to the Hughes report is long overdue. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the women and their children who are left in limbo by this Government’s failure to respond to the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report of February 2024?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Digital Exploitation of Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  There are so many aspects to this problem. What we, the parents, saw in the fledgling days of social media is not at all what our children are seeing now. We need to recognise that and act against it. What our children see online is already affecting their worldview. Internet Matters research from 2023 found that 42% of children aged nine to 16 had a favourable or neutral view of the well-known misogynistic influencer Andrew Tate, and that older teenage boys were particularly susceptible. That is incredibly worrying. Decisive action to tackle the digital exploitation of women and girls is needed across the board. Online harm is genuine harm, and we must treat it as such. There is a lot of work to do, but I am keen to work cross-party to get it done. I hope the Minister is too.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Digital Exploitation of Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, and that has always been the case. Equally, we need to learn from the fact that it has always been the case and not be surprised when these things happen. We must not wring our hands and say, “There is harm being done—what could we possibly do about it?” We need to think smarter than that and bring in legislation that is much more forward-thinking and adaptable, and enables swifter action. As hon. Members have already pointed out in this debate, digital abuse and exploitation are overwhelmingly targeted at women and girls. Research from Internet Matters found that 99% of new deepfakes are of women and girls . Moreover, according to the Revenge Porn Helpline, 98% of intimate images reported to its service were of women and 99% of deepfake intimate image abuse depicts women. It has also been discovered that many AI nudification tools do not actually work on images of boys and men. We have now reached a point where AI tools embedded in major platforms are capable of producing sexual abuse material, demonstrating serious failings in our current framework. X’s AI tool, Grok, is a case in point. We have talked about this many times before. Grok facilitated the illegal generation and circulation of non-consensual sexual images, yet Ofcom’s response was, I am sorry to say, woefully slow. The executive summary of the violence against women and girls strategy states that it will “ensure that the UK has one of the most robust responses to perpetrators of VAWG in the world.” I agree with that intention, but we must recognise that Ofcom’s response was not wholly robust. We must do something about that; we owe it to women and girls in this country to act sooner and stronger. We need more effective legislation and a regulator with the capability and confidence to take appropriate and, crucially, swift action. I welcome the move to make the creation of non-consensual intimate AI images a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, but that will be effective only if online platforms and services are held accountable under that Act. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have called on the National Crime Agency to launch an urgent criminal investigation into X, which should still happen, and to treat the generation of illegal, sexual abuse material with the seriousness it demands. We must act decisively when social media platforms refuse to comply with the law. It is also time that we introduce age ratings for online platforms and limit harmful social media to over-16s. How can we expect to tackle violence against women and girls when the next generation is being drip-fed misogynistic content on social media?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Digital Exploitation of Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this very important debate. All of us here recognise that rapid technological change is creating new risks and contexts for the exploitation of women and girls. The speed, anonymity and ease of communication provided by social media, combined with increasingly sophisticated AI tools, have led to new forms of sexual abuse emerging at alarming rates. In 2025, the Internet Watch Foundation discovered 3,440 AI videos of child sexual abuse, a vast increase on the previous year, when only 13 such videos were found. That is why this debate, and our swift action, are so important. Far more needs to be done to keep women and girls safe online, and doing so is becoming at once more difficult and more urgent by the day. If we do not act swiftly, we cannot be surprised when new technologies exploit our lack of urgency.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend’s intervention is very timely. My Chelmsford constituency is in Essex, and Essex police has just announced that it feels it will have to scrap numbers from the force, which is very concerning indeed. She also highlights the importance of women feeling safe, particularly in parks. In Chelmsford, streetlights were left dark and unrepaired by Essex county council for years, leaving many women feeling unable to take the most direct and quickest route, which was through the park, from the station to their home, at the end of the day. As a county councillor, I campaigned hard for the lights to be fixed. I am pleased that they were eventually fixed, but that was with the help of Liberal Democrat-run Chelmsford city council. It is hardly surprising that inadequate street lighting and a lack of safe paths to facilitate active travel are widely reported to be significant barriers to women walking in their communities. A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research in the last two years found that chronic underfunding of active travel across England is undermining efforts to get people walking, wheeling and cycling, instead of driving, with just 2% of the total transport budget spent on infrastructure to support active travel. It sometimes seems that we are putting our money in the wrong places. It is disappointing to note, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath did, that the UK lags behind its European counterparts, with fewer than one in five people walking, wheeling or cycling on an average day, compared with more than one in four across Europe. The report highlights that this failure has locked in more congestion and contributed to worsening air quality, making it harder to reduce emissions while also limiting growth. Members might wonder why I mention that, but we also know that higher levels of pollution intersect with racial and wealth inequalities, with the most racially diverse and the poorest parts of our towns and cities suffering the most. There is even evidence that equal exposure to air pollution does not mean equal health outcomes for women and men. For example, some studies have shown that women experience more harmful effects from air pollution than men. More research is needed, but at the very least that demonstrates the necessity of inclusion when considering the importance of prioritising active travel. The same goes for road safety more generally, and the Liberal Democrats have for some time been calling for an updated road safety strategy, so we welcomed its recent publication by the Government. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I also welcome the publication of the pavement parking consultation outcome, albeit five years on. Although it might seem strange on the surface, women are likely to be disproportionately affected by the inaccessibility caused by pavement parking. Women are more likely than men to be disabled and have mobility or visual impairment issues. We are more likely to be accompanying children and wheeling prams, and we are more likely to be carers, as was pointed out earlier. I was therefore pleased, in the autumn, to table an amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that would have enabled local authorities to enforce pavement parking laws more easily. Pavement parking is not just a minor inconvenience; it puts people in harm’s way, impacts their sense of dignity and limits their access to public space. It is easy for the casual observer to dismiss some of those small changes as trivial, but they make a genuine difference in improving women’s sense of safety and inclusion. In Chelmsford, Make Space for Girls has been doing great work to build inclusive infrastructure, which is so important for creating environments where women feel safe. The project enables girls and gender non-conforming children to design their own play spaces, and it is just as much about creating safe, comfortable physical environments as proving to these children that they can enact change in their own communities and hold power to shape their own futures. That is important, because although street lighting and safer paths play an essential role, those issues are ultimately symptomatic of the broader problem that faces our country. That is why initiatives such as Chelmsford city council’s women’s safety charter, through which local premises commit to a range of training to ensure that staff consider and prioritise women’s safety as standard, are also necessary. Finally, the fact remains that women who are victims of violence are incredibly likely to be known to the men who attack them. We must therefore focus our efforts on tackling the societal attitudes that lead people to look away from, excuse and sometimes justify violence against women and girls. We have a responsibility to change that. It cannot be that, in a decade’s time, women are still fearful of walking our streets because of who may be lurking in the dark. We owe it to future generations of women to act. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and, I believe, Members from across the House will continue to press the Government to do so.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running · Hansard source

  More

  It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this important debate. As hon. Members have set out, the abuse and violence experienced by women and girls in public spaces is horrifyingly prevalent and should be called out for what it is: a national emergency. I want to pay tribute to hon. Members from across the House for some of the things they have said this afternoon, and particularly to the hon. Member for Lowestoft, who started the debate in such a wonderful way and really set the tone. She highlighted things that we all know, as women, but that, shockingly, still need highlighting. She spoke about women having to choose either the most direct or the safest route home, and about the unspoken risk assessment we all do—those words rang true to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) spoke about her personal experience of harassment while cycling, and about the importance of encouraging children to start cycling early. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) spoke about the things we do “just in case”, and that really resonated with me. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) talked about her constituent, Holly, and her call for women’s safety to be designed in—that is really important, and I hope the Minister listens to that call. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) said that women are “constantly compromising” in what they do, and that also rang very true to me. I also highlight the hon. Members of the other gender who spoke up so passionately and convincingly when they said that men’s behaviour needs to change and that they would champion that. I thank them very much for speaking out about it. A UN Women UK study found that 71% of women of all ages have experienced sexual harassment in public spaces in the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said. That figure increases to a shocking 86% for women aged 18 to 24. Part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry confirmed, in black and white, what women already knew—that it is common for us to feel unsafe walking or running in our own streets, and that as women we often actively change our daily routines to avoid very real threats, as highlighted by Members across the House. It also found that sexually motivated crimes against women in public are not prioritised to the same extent as other serious offences. Women have felt that to be true for far too long. A University of Manchester study found that more than two thirds of women runners experience some form of abuse while running, most commonly verbal, with just 5% of them reporting such incidents to the police. That is plainly unacceptable in Britain today. Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to implement all 13 of the inquiry’s recommendations without delay. The sense of insecurity among women worsens during the winter months as the lack of safe routes on dark evenings greatly restricts women travelling for work or leisure.