Marie Goldman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2025 · Pavement Parking · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this important debate on something that is a problem across the country. Indeed, a Chelmsford resident recently wrote to me about taking her nan for a walk, when they were forced to walk in the road due to cars obstructing the pavement. That is entirely unacceptable for anyone, let alone an elderly resident. Parking on a pavement and blocking it is already an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988, but only the police have the power to issue tickets, and they are rightly prioritising more serious crime. Organisations such as the South Essex Parking Partnership have the resources to issue fixed penalty notices, but they do not currently have the power to do so, as they can issue FPNs only where there is a specific parking restriction, such as double yellow lines or residents-only parking. The use of traffic regulation orders to bring in restrictions in specific areas is slow, cumbersome and costly—something I know at first hand having previously been an Essex county councillor, as it took two years to bring in junction protection or double yellow lines to prevent parents from parking on corners when picking up their children from school. As has already been referenced, in 2019 the Transport Committee published a report in which it made a clear recommendation that a new civil offence of obstructive pavement parking, enforced by local authorities, should be created. Given that the House yesterday debated a Bill to give more powers to local authorities, I hope the Minister will introduce that power as well.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think we are in danger of getting into the weeds on exactly how local government would be reorganised. We talk about the size of the unitary authorities that would be created. The three-unitary model in Essex would instantly create three of the top five biggest unitary authorities in the country; after growth, they would be three of the top four biggest unitary authorities. It would create enormous councils with considerably less connection with the local communities they served. That is the opposite of devolution, and I worry a lot about the loss of identity that it could lead to. A lot of the talk is about savings. The Deputy Prime Minister talked a bit about savings from reorganisation, but there is very little evidence to support that using real-world data. Past models produced by consultancies have not used real-world data. However, according to real-world data, if the five-unitary model is chosen, local government reorganisation is expected to save only £105 million across the whole of Essex after five years. If the three-unitary model is chosen, we will end up with £49 million less than that. This is a huge undertaking, with a lot of resources going in for very little, and we still do not have a plan for special educational needs, adult social care and all the things I mentioned earlier. The really important point is that Greater Essex contains Thurrock, which has a very, very big debt problem: about £800 million of unsecured debt. There is no model of local government reorganisation or devolution in Greater Essex—even keeping the existing structure, frankly—that would be financially sustainable without central Government stepping in and providing funds to cover Thurrock’s debt. The maths simply do not work. I am looking directly at the Minister, because we need a solution. There will be much more unity in Essex on how to move forward if we can work out how to deal with Thurrock’s debt. It cannot be that other local residents, such as my constituents in Chelmsford, are asked to shoulder the blame for something that they did not bring about in the first place. I turn to Essex county council elections, which were cancelled last May. We have absolutely no idea whether they will go ahead next May; it would seem a bit strange if they did, but equally we want democracy. Can the Government provide some clarity? Finally, why is first past the post being scrapped for mayoral elections, but not for local government or general elections? That seems rather inconsistent.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. My problem with this Bill is that it feels rushed. More people want to contribute to the discussion. Constituents want to be represented and to have local government reorganised in a way that they have been able to contribute to. That would truly be democracy. What we are seeing right now is rushed and is not a proper representation of democracy. The three-unitary model is not the only proposed model. That is being proposed by the county council, but the model that has the most support from the local district councils—nine of them—is the five-unitary model. I certainly support that, because if we have to go ahead with local government reorganisation, surely it should be with the model that keeps power closest to people.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I also used to be a councillor, like many Members across the Chamber. I was deputy leader of Chelmsford city council for five years and an opposition member at Essex county council. I have seen at first hand the work of local councils and I know that they do it in very difficult circumstances—circumstances that have got harder and harder, with dwindling funds and increased demands on council services. Despite the very best efforts of council leaders across the country and council officers, who are often the unsung heroes local government, there are crises in housing, in special educational needs and in adult social care. We do not seem to have a plan to fix any of them, yet we seem to be rushing ahead with local government reorganisation and devolution, which to me seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse. Is the best way to fix the crisis in special educational needs or in adult social care, or to truly deliver all the housing we need a different form of local government? Why are these really important issues not part of the mix? Why do we not have a plan to fix them first—before we reorganise local government and trap ourselves in a corner? I am in favour of devolution: it is right to have power closer to the people it affects. I want local communities to be empowered, but this Bill does not deliver that. In fact, although it devolves powers relating to transport and skills—and other things in the Bill are good, too—the local government reorganisation that goes with those measures means that this legislation does the exact opposite of delivering devolution. Let us take Essex as an example. I choose Essex because I represent the constituency of Chelmsford in the very heart of Essex, because I used to be an Essex county councillor and because Essex is in the first wave of reorganisation. Essex will not benefit from the scrapping of first past the post, so my constituents will not benefit from their votes truly being represented. There is a proposal to replace Essex county council plus the district councils with either three, four or five unitaries. If we include the other existing unitaries plus Essex county council, we are talking about 15 councils in total. Replacing them with possibly three unitaries would be the exact opposite of devolution; it would take power away from the people and make the councillors elected to represent the people further away from them.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I join the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House in thanking you, the other Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker, as well as the Clerks of the House and the House staff, for all the amazing work that they do to support us in our jobs. It is not an exaggeration to say that we would not be able to do it without all of them and all of you. I also join the shadow Leader of the House in thanking the Leader of the House for the responses that she gives to business questions, which I see every single week. It has been a pleasure to get to know both of them on the various Committees and boards that we serve on, and I thank them for that. Turning to a slightly more serious matter, last week the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Government have cancelled the A12 widening scheme between Chelmsford and Colchester. That is incredibly disappointing news and a real blow to my Chelmsford constituents, Essex residents and the east of England as a whole. The A12 is a crucial link for communities across Essex, which supports logistics to the major international ports and airports in the region. It is also dangerously congested. The scheme would have addressed both of those problems and improved the journeys of the approximately 90,000 vehicles that travel on the road every day. More critically, the cancellation’s impact on house building could be profound. Local plans, including that of Chelmsford city council, are reliant on the A12 widening scheme going ahead. The cancellation could severely hamper the building of an estimated 55,000 new homes in the area. With Labour pledging to build 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament, this issue cuts across party lines. While I appreciate the financial constraints under which the Treasury is operating, it is notable that the two major road schemes that were cancelled in the recent announcement were both in the east of England, yet this region is a net contributor to the UK economy and has huge growth potential. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Housing, Communities and Local Government to meet me and a cross-party group of MPs so that we can discuss how we might still find ways to move forward with this vital project that will help the Government to deliver on their promises?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, LBC published a month-long investigative story on special educational needs and disabilities. Shockingly, it revealed that families have been sent legal cease and desist letters in attempts by some schools and local authorities to deter parents from seeking education, health and care plans for their children with SEND. The report uncovered that some parents and the independent SEND advocates assisting them have been threatened with legal action and with being reported to the police simply for daring to ask questions about the SEND provision to which their children are entitled but that is not being delivered. Let us be very clear: SEND children and their families have a legal right to support, and I am sure that the whole House would agree that attempting to prevent or limit the provision of such assistance, particularly through intimidatory tactics, is completely unacceptable. We all know that the SEND system is fundamentally broken and that reform is needed. That is why the Liberal Democrats set out our five principles for SEND reform in England yesterday. Principle No. 1 is ensuring that children’s and families’ voices are at the heart of the reform process. Indeed, the Prime Minister said yesterday that he wants “to work with parents and teachers to get this right.” —[ Official Report , 9 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 941.] Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement explaining exactly how their voices are being not just heard, but understood as part of the SEND reform process, and will she join me in condemning the outrageous practice of issuing legal threats to parents who are simply trying to do their best for their children?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Several of my Chelmsford constituents have contacted me about the lack of local NHS dentistry services. One constituent told me an all too familiar story: waiting list for NHS patients are either too long or closed, so he has had to rely on private dentistry for routine check-ups. Now, he cannot afford crucial dental care because it would cost hundreds of pounds that he does not have. That is a concern not only for patients but for dentists. One Chelmsford dentist recently wrote to me detailing the need for the Government to urgently fix the failed contract that he works under, to ensure that providers are funded to carry out NHS services and take on more patients. As with all healthcare, we know that the longer it takes to treat a problem, the more serious and expensive it can become. The Minister for Care has said that critical negotiations are taking place between the Department of Health and the Treasury, so will the Leader of the House encourage her Treasury colleagues to prioritise that, to allow the Department to renegotiate the dental contract as soon as possible, as Liberal Democrats have been calling for? Will she also ensure that a statement is made to the House to provide an update on the progress of the renegotiation?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The outbreak of bluetongue and the subsequent announcement by the Welsh Government imposing a hard border for livestock between England and Wales leaves the livelihoods of many border farmers at risk. Their land often straddles the border, and farmers rely on moving livestock daily between both countries. According to the Farmers Union of Wales, by introducing mandatory checks the Welsh Government are creating a “wholly impractical” policy. I am reliably informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) that a large majority of ewes are on one side of the border, while the tups are on the other, which will make breeding rather tricky. Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers to bring forward a statement about any work they are doing to create a more joined-up approach between England and Wales to protect farmers in these border counties? While she is doing so, can we have a statement on whether the Government will create a funded vaccination programme to protect livestock and livelihoods in the whole of the UK?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because I completely agree. Unfortunately, what he suggests is what some of these amendments are designed to do, and that is why I cannot support them. They are an attack on, and a blatant attempt to manipulate, the system, and that is totally wrong. In short, I fully support this motion and do not support any of the amendments. I encourage Members from all parts of the House to do the same.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to support this motion, which, as the Leader of the House says, has come about as a result of the Kernaghan review, an independent review of the ICGS published just last year. The review’s recommendations included the creation of an ICGS policy framework, and the formalisation of the ICGS assurance group into an assurance board with responsibility for the creation of and future changes to an ICGS processes document. The motion is designed to implement those recommendations, and I am happy to support it. The public are understandably fed up with what many perceive as accepted poor behaviour from those elected to represent them. The ICGS is designed to help restore trust by ensuring that poor behaviour is dealt with swiftly and appropriately, but that cannot happen if MPs are constantly marking their own homework. If it is thought that there are attempts to manipulate the system, or to wriggle out of tight spots for political gain, we will have no chance of regaining the trust that has been eroded, particularly over recent years. That is why I am so disappointed to see the amendments that have been tabled. After so many years of trust being eroded, we need to find a way to win that trust back, and that is what this scheme does. Let me go through the amendments to explain what I mean. Amendment (a) would, among other things, remove the right to make collective complaints, making it harder for complainants with the same issue to support each other in coming forward. It would also prevent the ICGS from accepting a person’s complaint if it was substantially the same as a complaint they had previously withdrawn. That would worry me, as I do not find it hard to imagine a scenario in which a complainant is—how shall I put this?—encouraged to withdraw their complaint, perhaps following promises of improved behaviour, but then feels the need, and has the courage, to raise the issue again. That amendment would prevent them from being able to come forward again. Amendments (b), (c) and (d) appear to be a rather blatant attempt to stack the membership of the assurance board, so that it can be politically manipulated. Amendment (e) trashes the recommendation from the Kernaghan review that the ICGS assurance board should be able to approve ICGS procedures. The Kernaghan review clearly recommends that the assurance board should be able to create and make changes to ICGS procedures. That is to speed up a process that the Kernaghan review found to be unduly cumbersome and impacted by political considerations.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I echo the thoughts and sympathies that have been sent to all those involved in the Air India crash that is being reported? I know that many British citizens will be affected, and our thoughts are with them. I recently joined Essex police on a ride-along in my Chelmsford constituency to witness at first hand its vital work in our local communities to keep us all safe. Worryingly, Essex police has regularly raised with me that the national funding formula, known as the police allocation formula, is outdated and unfair. The funding that Essex police receives falls far short of the proportion of policing carried out by the force in a national context. Yesterday’s spending review did nothing to change that or to remove concerns about police funding overall. Indeed, the chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council said that in real terms, the increase in funding “will cover little more than annual inflationary pay increases for officers and staff.” He added that “the amount falls far short of what is required to…maintain our existing workforce.” If we want to keep crime off our streets and retain the experienced officers who do such vital work to keep us safe, surely we must give them the funding to match. Yesterday’s spending review did not do that. Will the Leader of the House therefore raise those issues with both the Treasury and the Home Office?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome this today’s announcement, which has been a Liberal Democrat policy for a very long time. It is so important to have proper nutrition for children so that they get the best possible start in life. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) about funding, the Minister said that this will come out in due course, but that it will be fully funded. Fully funded can mean that those funds come from various different places. Will the Minister rule out those funds coming from existing school budgets, and will he also rule out placing any other financial burden on to already overstretched school budgets?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Civil Service Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Many of my Chelmsford constituents are civil servants who travel into London most days of the week to perform their jobs. Last month, a Centre for Economics and Business Research report revealed that the UK may need 92,000 more public workers by 2030 to maintain the same level of output, due to falls in productivity in the sector. However, the Cabinet Office has refused to comment on reports in recent days that the Government plan to cut the number of civil servants by 10% by the end of the decade, which will have an impact on my Chelmsford constituents. Will the Minister confirm today whether a 10% cut to civil service headcount is planned and if any of that will take the form of compulsory redundancy?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Civil Service Reform · Hansard source

  More

  15. What steps he is taking to reform the civil service.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome reports that eligibility for free school meals is being extended to all children in England whose parents receive universal credit. This is a Lib Dem policy on which we have campaigned for a long time, and it is a positive first step to help to lift children out of poverty. Of course, there is much more to do. Among other much needed changes, we would point to the importance of fully funding the policy for schools and auto-enrolling eligible children to ensure that they get the support they need. I will also highlight, once again, something that is raised in business questions nearly every week: special educational needs. In March it was reported in the media that the Government will produce a White Paper on special educational needs to address the crisis in schools for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We are hearing rumours that this White Paper may be delayed until the autumn, or possibly until next year. Children with special educational needs are still without support, parents are still battling with local authorities, schools are still struggling to cope, and councils are still left staring at the prospect of a £5 billion deficit next year from SEND being added to their budgets. Will the Leader of the House implore the Government to, at the very least, provide a timescale for publishing the White Paper?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. My constituent’s child was the victim of a serious sexual offence several years ago. By the time the case comes to trial next year, it will have been nearly half a decade since the assault took place. Does the Lord Chancellor think that that is an appropriate length of time for a child to have to wait to seek justice? What words of comfort can she give to my constituent?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Government Announcements · Hansard source

  More

  It is incredibly disappointing to find ourselves here to discuss this issue yet again, but this time on the vital matter of national security and defence. There was a remarkably similar urgent question before recess, and it was disappointing then, as it is now, to hear the Leader of the House attempt to justify not bringing major announcements to the Floor of the House first by citing the number of statements the Government have already given to Parliament. The ministerial code is clear: the Government do not get to pick and choose which significant statements they do or do not make to the House; whenever possible, they should be doing it every single time. While I agree with the premise of the question from the shadow Leader of the House, I must say that it is a bit rich given the Conservatives’ appalling record of doing exactly the same thing when they were in government. However, that does not let the current Government off the hook. Will the Leader of the House please confirm that the Government will comply with the ministerial code, or shall we expect to do this little dance every week? Surely this time would be better spent making a statement to the House.

• 22 May 2025 · School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister, in her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), referred to imaginings, but I do not think it is an imagining to suggest that the Secretary of State, in her response to the STRB, said that some efficiency savings would have to be found in schools to meet the additional costs. Earlier this week, I had a roundtable with headteachers from my constituency and beyond. The Minister also talked just now about “fantasising about the future”. Is she really telling me that those headteachers were fantasising about the future when they told me that they were already having to make cuts to staffing numbers for next September? One headteacher told me that just one or two more things need to go wrong and that they are on the brink of collapse. Is the Minister saying that they are fantasising about the future?

• 22 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday it was revealed by the charities Tommy’s and Sands that, tragically, delays in improvements to NHS maternity care are costing the lives of hundreds of babies a year. This follows the Care Quality Commission’s findings that 65% of maternity units are not sufficiently safe, putting women and babies under threat. Will the Leader of the House grant Government time to debate the crisis unfolding in our maternity units, the failure to implement the immediate and essential actions in the Ockenden review, and the Government’s decision to end the ringfencing of £100 million for vital improvements to maternity care?

• 15 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the Leader of the House’s words about the intolerable and increasingly unsurvivable situation in Gaza. I urge the Government to do everything in their power to help remedy the situation. My Chelmsford constituent, who is self-employed, regularly has to deal with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. He recently wrote to me about the unacceptable waiting times on HMRC’s customer service helpline. In his experience, this issue has been going on for years but has recently grown considerably worse. He tells me that he sometimes has to wait for up to 40 minutes before giving up and hanging up. It is all very well having services online, but if they are not fully accessible, people will still need an HMRC helpline that is responsive. Sadly, that is not the case. The unacceptable level of customer service has been the subject of cross-party criticism in this House many times over the years. This year, the Public Accounts Committee agreed that the situation has indeed got worse. It found that 44,000 HMRC customers were cut off while waiting more than 70 minutes to reach an adviser—more than six times the figure for the whole of the 2022-23 financial year. I am sure the whole House will agree that spending time on the phone while waiting to resolve tax issues is not something that many of us or our constituents particularly enjoy doing, and it does not do anything to help productivity. Businesses need to spend their time selling their goods and services and generating tax receipts for the Treasury, not languishing on the end of a phone. Will the Leader of the House ask for a statement to be made about when we can expect to see improvements?

• 14 May 2025 · Ministerial Code: Compliance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this urgent question. All of us in this Chamber were elected to represent our constituents and to put the interests of the country first, and to do that we must be able to scrutinise the Government’s plans and policies. The best way to do that is in this Chamber and as soon as possible, so we are disappointed that they have chosen to make announcements in this way. We also note that this is not the first time. The shadow Leader of the House has mentioned various examples, and I would like to add some more. On the NHS, for example, the Government have, without any statement in the Chamber, made key decisions such as dropping cross-party talks on social care, cutting integrated care board budgets by 50% and scrapping nearly half of NHS targets. The question must be: why are the Government so worried about bringing these issues to the Floor first?

• 8 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day by commemorating the sacrifices made not just by those who fought and fell in the second world war, but by those who continue to serve our country in our armed forces and all who support them, including their families, who often spend long periods of time away from their loved ones. Last week’s local elections were the first time in history that the Liberal Democrats beat both the Conservatives and Labour at the same local elections. We are proud of the trust that voters placed in us, meaning that our party now controls more councils than the Conservatives. Last week also saw some of the most widely divided results our country has ever seen. The winner of the West of England mayoral election, from the Labour party, took the seat with just 25% of the vote; put another way, three out of every four voters put their cross in somebody else’s box. However, the lowest winning vote share was in Cornwall, where the winner in one race—a Liberal Democrat—was elected with just 18.9% of the vote. Just seven and a half percentage points separated the top six candidates. It is clear that we are witnessing the end of the traditional two-party system— [ Interruption. ] Like it or not, our antiquated first-past-the-post system simply is not designed to cope with a multi-party system—at least, not for those who believe in fairness, as I hope the Government do. Will the Leader of the House now grant time for the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) to be debated in full, and will she encourage all her colleagues across Government to finally support the proposed move to proportional representation?

• 1 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I have a beautiful four-year-old black labrador called Shadow and one of my favourite things to do, to get some exercise and clear my head, is to take her on a long walk. With the weather so gorgeous yesterday morning, I headed to Hylands park, a stunning 574-acre country park that straddles two constituencies, including mine. It is run and maintained by Chelmsford city council park staff with the help of a small army of amazing volunteers. Early in the morning, the only people we usually see are dog walkers, so there was nothing unusual about hearing dogs barking in the distance as I meandered through the woods. But it turned out that yesterday was no ordinary morning and the dogs were barking because their owner, Rebecca, had been knocked over in a canine encounter that had left her with an obviously dislocated knee. Another regular dog walker and I stayed with Rebecca, distracting her from the pain while we waited for the ambulance crew to arrive. I would like to state for the record today just how brilliant the paramedics and hazardous area response team—otherwise known as HART—were in helping Rebecca. It was truly a privilege to observe close-up and at first hand as they put to use their vital skills and training: keeping calm, administering much-needed pain relief and eventually popping Rebecca’s knee back into place. Will the Leader of the House join me in acknowledging and thanking the wonderful people working on the frontline of the East of England ambulance service and, indeed, all ambulance services across the United Kingdom as well as all the staff who support them, from the emergency service call handlers right the way through to the trainee paramedic technicians? They support us in our hour of need, and we never know just when that hour is coming.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster came and went over the recess, when we also saw in the media rumours that the Government are considering watering down their proposed Hillsborough law. Can the Minister explain the Government’s thinking?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) was denied entry to Hong Kong while making a private trip to see her son and meet her three-month-old grandson for the very first time. She was given no reason by the local authorities as to why she was refused, so it seems reasonable to assume that her only crime was being a British parliamentarian. She tells me that going all that way only to be bundled on to the next flight home with no explanation was a big shock, and that she was close to tears. Her son was waiting for her and her husband just a short distance away in the arrivals lounge, but she never saw him. This is extremely worrying and has far-reaching and concerning implications. To be clear, my hon. Friend had not been made aware that she would not be welcome in Hong Kong, and it was a purely private visit. The Liberal Democrats are concerned that this could have a chilling effect on all parliamentarians who speak up for freedom and democracy. We cannot and must not accept our democracy being undermined by allowing the intimidation of UK parliamentarians. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on how the Government intend to engage in a clear-eyed manner with authoritarian countries that appear to be creating hidden blacklists of British parliamentarians?