Marie Goldman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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Essex police has regularly raised with me that the national funding formula, known as the police allocation formula, is outdated and unfair.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?

• 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.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Road Safety and Active Travel to School · Hansard source

  More

  It is genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this important debate. We are very short on time, so I just want to shout out a charity that has been doing excellent work for nearly 100 years. It is called Living Streets, although it used to be known by different names, and it has been encouraging walking, cycling and active travel for a really long time. I recently had the pleasure of walking around the streets of my constituency with people from the charity to see the challenges that people who are trying to walk, cycle and wheel are facing, which we have talked about, such as pavement parking and potholes not just in the roads, but on the pavements. There are pedestrian railings and barriers by pedestrian crossings that have been damaged. A car mounted and damaged a pedestrian barrier very close to where I live about two years ago, and Essex county council has failed to replace the barrier, despite being told about it many times. There is so much that we can do. We should take the example of Switzerland, where children as young as four walk to school by themselves every day. It can be done if we put the infrastructure in place.

• 27 Mar 2025 · St Patrick’s Day and Northern Irish Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank other hon. Members and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for what has been a really lovely debate. This is my first time participating in this debate, and I have been quite surprised by how genuinely lovely it has been and by the outpouring of love for the Irish community both across these isles and in the Republic of Ireland. That has been really lovely to hear. I was slightly concerned that we would get through the debate without mentioning anything about Irish music, so when the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) started talking about Irish music I was frankly relieved. Music was such a big part of my life when I was growing up. I discovered Irish music largely in a bar in France over many, many late nights when I lived there for a while. It went on late, or maybe early—I do not know; it was 1 o’clock or sometimes 3 o’clock in the morning when it finished. The sound of the fiddle and the joyful music was really amazing, and I have kept up that love of Irish music. I thank Ireland for giving us that music and for making it so enjoyable. I was also slightly concerned because the debate is about Northern Irish affairs as well as the wonderful things about St Patrick’s day—I also enjoy partaking of some Guinness. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) then spoke up and started saying something that I wanted to say. While there are some amazing things about Ireland and our relationship with it, there are also things that perhaps are not working quite as well as they could. In a debate about Northern Irish affairs, we should acknowledge that. In that spirit, without wishing to take away from some of the loveliness of this debate, I have a few things to say along those lines. I hope hon. Members will forgive me, but they are important to raise. I will start by talking about something very current; it happened earlier on this week. I pay tribute to the police and to schools for their swift and professional response to a hoax that forced nine schools in Northern Ireland to close this week. Teachers, parents and pupils can frankly do without the disruption and anxiety that such hoaxes cause. They have other things that they need to concentrate on—the importance of education must never be underestimated—so I am glad that things were able to return to normal quickly. Northern Ireland did not vote to leave the European Union. Some 56% of its population wanted to stay, yet the decisions taken by the Conservative Government in implementing Brexit have caused nothing but problems, whether along the border, inside Stormont or with trade. While Northern Ireland enjoys access to the United Kingdom’s and the European Union’s markets, the Conservatives’ Brexit deal—a botched deal, I am afraid—has been a disaster for the economy, hitting small businesses, farmers and fishers particularly badly. Although we welcomed the agreement of the Windsor framework, that deal is just a sticking plaster—one that only exists to fix problems caused by the Conservative party. What is really needed is something much more comprehensive and stronger. For Northern Ireland—as for Scotland, Wales and England—a closer relationship with our European allies will bring nothing but positives, but in our opinion, the Labour Government are failing to take a pragmatic approach to the UK’s relationship with the EU. An easy step forward would be alignment on sanitary and phytosanitary standards and securing a veterinary agreement, which the Liberal Democrats are calling for as part of our plan to fix what we believe is the UK’s broken relationship with Europe. As such, we call on the UK Government to take the following two steps: to use the provisions within the UK-EU trade agreement to secure a veterinary agreement, and to enshrine alignment with EU SPS standards in domestic law. The EU already has two veterinary agreements in place, one with New Zealand and one with Switzerland. Such agreements are not particularly novel and certainly not impossible to achieve, so it is difficult to understand what is holding the Labour Government back. Fixing our relationship with Europe is the most important way to boost our economy and accordingly provide funding to fix public services, yet Labour continues to rule out even simple steps, such as those I have outlined or, indeed, a youth mobility scheme. Such a scheme would not be a return to free movement, as the Prime Minister has suggested; it would be a way to support our young people to develop the skills and experiences they need to help grow the UK economy as a whole. Ulster University’s economic policy centre has published a report that looks at what future skills employers will need, and at the potential supply gaps. Northern Ireland needs more than 5,000 additional workers a year in order to grow its economy, so a youth mobility scheme between the UK and the EU is the perfect way to fix that problem. These proposals would go a long way towards reducing the friction caused by the Brexit deal. In a world in which the Labour Government talk endlessly about the tough choices they need to take, a youth mobility scheme feels like an open goal—we just need Labour to lace up its boots and kick the ball into it. However, we are also calling on the Government to negotiate a new trade deal with the UK with a new customs union at its heart, which would tear down red tape and boost our economy. Boosting the economies of both Northern Ireland and the whole of the UK means more revenue to fix public services that desperately need fixing, especially in the context of power sharing only having been restored just over a year ago, following two years without a functioning Executive during a cost of living crisis. The Liberal Democrats’ four-step road map provides a path for the UK to rebuild its ties of trust and trade with our European neighbours. Ultimately, Liberal Democrats want to see the UK back at the heart of Europe once more, setting the agenda from within rather than battling the constraints from without. Turning to the welfare cuts that were announced last week and deepened further yesterday, it is hard to overstate how strongly opposed Liberal Democrat Members are to those cuts and, importantly, how concerned we are about what they mean practically for those impacted. We agree that we have to bring the welfare bill down and support more people into work—it is right for people and for our economy—but the emphasis should be on supporting people into work. We will not achieve that by slashing support for disabled people, some of whom will never be able to work, while others need the personal independence payment precisely so that they can continue to work. These cuts will have a disproportionate impact on Northern Ireland, and particularly on those still living with the legacy of the troubles, including victims with catastrophic injuries and those suffering from trauma-related mental health issues. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) has been highly vocal on this issue, describing the cuts as “cruel and cowardly” and highlighting that balancing the books should not come at the expense of the most vulnerable. Limiting the eligibility of these people will do nothing to get more people into employment. Liberal Democrats have long said that the best way to bring down benefit spending is to fix health and social care, and fix it quickly. That involves investing in preventive health measures by properly funding mental health support, especially for young people, and reforming social care—surely that should be the priority. However, when it comes to healthcare reform in Northern Ireland, the spanner in the works remains political instability. Since devolution began in its most recent form 25 years ago, Stormont has been without a functioning Government for almost 40% of the time. It has had prolonged collapses—in 2000, from 2002 to 2007, from 2017 to 2020, and most recently from 2022 to 2024. It is the people of Northern Ireland, no matter what community they are from, who bear the brunt of a malfunctioning Government. This never-ending cycle prevents the transformative action that is necessary to get Northern Ireland’s public services and finances in order. There is also the cost of maintaining a divided society, estimated in 2016 to be at least £833 million annually. That cost stems from duplicated services, additional policing and security expenses, and missed opportunities for investment and tourism. Those unnecessary costs are a drain on the Executive’s already stretched budget; it would be far better to spend that money on improved healthcare, easing the pressures caused by the cost of living, and essential services. Earlier this year, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley held a Westminster Hall debate on the reform of political institutions in Northern Ireland, in which she outlined the ways in which reforming those institutions will allow Northern Ireland to become more prosperous. Addressing the financial burden of division could unlock substantial funding for public services. We echo her calls for an updated assessment of the societal and financial costs of division, and a commitment from all parties to tackling those costs. That would ensure that money is spent where it is needed most, and that we could deliver a more inclusive, united and integrated community for everyone. Northern Ireland cannot afford to keep paying for a divided system in which essential services struggle. In closing, I underline that the Liberal Democrats are entirely committed to fairness, sustainability, and a shared future for Northern Ireland. We call for real action on welfare support, movement back towards our European neighbours, and a focus on tackling division and addressing issues in political institutions in order to boost public spending. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have a positive vision for a more prosperous, inclusive and forward-looking Northern Ireland—a vision that I hope all Members of this House will share, regardless of their views about how to get there.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As the Leader of the House has already noted, today is World Book Day, and I would like to say a big thank you to Barnes Farm primary school in my constituency for inviting me in yesterday to open its brand new library. One in seven state primary schools in the UK do not have a dedicated library or reading space, and almost 1 million children in the UK do not have a book of their own. As such, it was wonderful to meet year 5 students and representatives of Barnes Farm student council, who were very enthusiastic about their new library. It is fantastic to know that those students will have access to such a facility for a long time to come. At Prime Minister’s questions on 8 January, I raised the plight of community pharmacies. They are struggling to stay afloat due to the unfair terms of their NHS contracts, which often mean that they have to buy drugs that they dispense for more than the NHS reimburses them. The Prime Minister asked me to follow up with more details, which I did that afternoon. Despite chasing, I am yet to receive a reply from the Department of Health and Social Care, to which my inquiry was passed. Community pharmacies cannot wait. The National Pharmacy Association projects that nearly 1,000 pharmacies will close by the end of 2027. There is no guaranteed funding for Pharmacy First beyond the end of this month. This is a critical issue that the Government need to address urgently. I know that the Leader of the House takes seriously the timeliness of replies from Ministers and Departments, so will she let the House know what further steps she is taking to ensure that issues such as protecting our vital community pharmacies are given the swift and full attention they deserve?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As we now know, local government is being reorganised, and the Labour Government have cancelled local elections while affected councils work out how on earth they will reorganise themselves. Like many residents in these areas, I would have hoped that that plan would have been in place before the elections were cancelled; many issues are very much up in the air, and the public deserve to know what they are in for. In Woking, for example, successive Conservative administrations at the council racked up £2 billion of debt with absolutely no plan for how to pay it off. In Greater Essex, Conservative-run Thurrock ran up debts of around £1.5 billion largely due to investments in a solar farm that did not exist. With both Essex and Surrey now on the fast track for local government reorganisation, what will happen to those debts? Last week, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), wrote a letter to all the leaders of the two-tier councils and unitary authorities in Essex, in which he said: “there is no proposal for council debt to be addressed centrally or written off as part of reorganisation…proposals should reflect the extent to which the implications of this can be managed locally.” Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to come forward with a statement to confirm that what he really means is that residents across places such as Essex and Surrey will be forced to pay for the incompetence of previous Tory administrations of other councils, and that they are likely to see reduced services and higher council tax bills simply because this Labour Government are determined to press ahead with local government reorganisation but not prepared to offer any financial support to alleviate that?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the attention of the House to the register of my interests. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government made a statement to this House in which she said that she had agreed to delay the local elections in some areas for one year. I must confess that I am a bit confused, because my local council, Essex county council, is one of those areas. The briefing papers for the extraordinary full council meeting of Essex county council that took place on 10 January state: “The Leader is minded to support the proposal to postpone the elections in order to maximise capacity for the transition process, whilst noting that this would lead to a two or three year postponement.” That is rather longer than the one year that the Secretary of State announced yesterday. Essex county councillors are usually elected for a four-year term and a postponement —really, a cancellation of elections for three years—would extend their terms of office by 75%. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the principles of democracy in the United Kingdom?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I echo the words that have been spoken about the unfolding tragedy in Washington DC? My thoughts go out to all the victims and their families. When I am out and about talking to people on the doorstep in my Chelmsford constituency, the issue of crime often comes up. That is not because Chelmsford is a criminal hotspot—far from it—but because of the often frustrating low-level crime that takes place, which concerns my constituents. They often say that they want to see more bobbies on the beat. They want to see more uniformed police patrolling our streets, making their presence felt, and reassuring the community by building relationships and deterring wannabe criminals. Much of that presence is provided by police community support officers, who work with police officers and share some of their powers. They do genuinely wonderful work that frees up precious police officer time for other and perhaps more complex policing issues. In short, they are very welcome and an important part of our communities. In Essex there are 99 PCSOs, but not for much longer. Essex police have just announced that they are getting rid of all of them, as they face a £12.5 million budget shortfall for 2025-26. I doubt that Essex police will be the only force to consider such drastic action, and I am sure that I am not alone in being extremely concerned about the implications of that decision. Will the Leader of the House consider asking the Home Secretary to make a statement on the effect on our communities, and on what can be done to salvage the situation before the experience of all these dedicated individuals is lost and society suffers as a consequence?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Education, Health and Care Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. I do not live in a rural area, so it is easy for me to overlook issues such as this. However, I do know that many councils have raised it; indeed, to be fair to Essex county council, it has raised it with me. When we talk about root-and-branch reform of the system, we need to make sure that we address the whole system and everything that goes with it, including transport. My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I thank him very much for that. What is the impact on the school budget? One primary school is funding 90 hours of learning support assistant time a week because there is no EHCP, and it is having to find that funding out of its own budget. That is not through lack of trying to get EHCPs. The school said that it had applied for an ECHP for one child in January 2024, but that child has not even seen an educational psychologist yet. Schools tell me that they do not have the buildings and the other resources to be able to safely look after these children using ordinarily available provision.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Education, Health and Care Plans · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, I would be delighted to work with the hon. Lady on that sort of issue. I was also at that APPG on SEND meeting, although I could not stay for the whole thing. I am glad she raised it, because at that APPG meeting, an example was given to us of a child who had situational mutism. The intervention they received early on meant that they were able to progress and achieve their full potential, which I thought was fabulous. Unfortunately, I have an example of exactly the opposite in my constituency, where a child with selective mutism did not receive that support and is now not in school at all. The importance of that support cannot be overstated. We could talk a lot about why there has been an increase in EHCP applications, about covid and its impact, about the lack of socialisation and what that has led to and about the lack of early intervention. Maybe some parents are asking for EHCPs because it is the only way to get the support that might ordinarily have been available if schools were not feeling the pressure so much. Ultimately, this is a systemic failure, and I want to move on to some solutions. We need to do this quickly—remember, every single day that children grow up without that support is another day they are suffering. Other than root and branch reform, we need better communication between schools and colleges, between local authorities and parents, and between schools and parents. The list could go on, but I remind everybody that communication is two-way. It is not just the local authority sending out a briefing pack—that is not good enough. We need them to listen, and we need the Government to listen. We need more training. We need qualified and experienced people working with children. A qualified and experienced SEND professional told me: “People like me, who are trained to work with SEND children and adults, often find there is no structured role for us within councils or government systems to support schools, families, or nurseries effectively.” We need to do more about that. There are people who are willing to work and have amazing experience in the system, so let us help them get the qualifications to be able to help parents and young people. One SENCO said that SENCOS need more career path options. Could we have an option, for example, to fast-track some training? Could there be some kind of associate ed psych qualification? I do not know, but maybe that could be looked at. We need to make it easier for parents to understand what is going on. Returning to the issue of tribunals, when local authorities are losing 99% of cases, something is seriously wrong. I wonder whether some of those delays, where the local authorities are deciding to take parents all the way through to tribunal, are—to be very cynical—a way to avoid having to pay the costs of providing the support to the children during that time. I welcome the Education Committee’s inquiry on solving the SEND crisis and advertise to everybody that the deadline to contribute is 30 January. I say to the Minister that, at the risk of repeating myself, we really do need some action now. I urge the Government to work on what steps they can take now to make children’s lives better because, at the end of the day, this is about supporting children’s futures. I look forward to hearing from colleagues across the House and thank them for taking part in this incredibly important debate.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Education, Health and Care Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for education, health and care plans. I thank everybody for coming along to this really important Westminster Hall debate on a subject that fills our inboxes. The Government Benches are very full, and some of the Opposition Benches are reasonably full. I will try to keep my speech as short as possible, because so many people want to speak, but there are various points that I want to make. The debate is about Government support for education, health and care plans. For the benefit of anybody watching the debate who does not understand the system, EHCPs are a fundamental part of the special educational needs system. They are responsible for providing the additional support that children need in school to help them through their educational life and beyond. The big problem is that children and parents do not get the support they need through the EHCP system. Even when EHCPs are granted, schools are sometimes unable to deliver the support set out in them, so parents end up in a ridiculous situation and in many cases have to take their local authority to court. Local authorities lose 99% of cases, but that delays and delays the process and costs parents and local authorities a huge amount of money. On 3 September 2024, the Government published local authority-level figures on waiting times for a decision following an education, health and care needs assessment. That assessment is the first stage: the parent applies for an EHCNA, and the local authority has six weeks in which to decide whether it will accept it, and 20 weeks in total in which to issue the EHCP. So how long are people actually waiting? Well, there are huge discrepancies across the system. Hampshire county council issues EHCPs within 20 weeks 75% of the time, which does not sound too bad, right? Essex county council, where I am situated, issues EHCPs within 20 weeks 0.9% of the time. Both councils have more than 3,000 requests.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I wish you a happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. Community pharmacies are fundamental to our healthcare system, providing essential advice and services while alleviating pressure on the NHS. We simply cannot do without them. Indeed, we are all now encouraged to “Think Pharmacy First” for some medical conditions. However, it is hard to understand how that is possible if pharmacies are facing closure because the NHS is not covering the cost of the medications they dispense. The contract between the NHS and pharmacies has simply failed to keep up with the rising costs of many medicines. The result is that many pharmacists are operating out of their own pocket, taking huge losses year after year. The outcome feels inevitable. We have seen 1,200 pharmacies close since 2015, including nearly 500 in the past year alone. When the Company Chemists’ Association reports average shortfalls of £60,000 per pharmacy per annum, can we really be surprised? We are warned by the National Pharmacy Association of pharmacy deserts, where many rural and deprived areas risk having no immediate access at all. This can only spell a health inequality crisis, which will be felt more intensely by those who already struggle the most. This needs to be fixed. We must avoid even more pharmacy closures up and down the country. Pharmacies are vital not just to the communities they serve, but to the NHS as a whole. Will the Leader of the House grant Government time for a debate on how our pharmacies can be better supported for long-term viability and sustainability?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Dipak first opened the doors to his pharmacy in 1991 and he has been serving the Chelmsford community ever since, greeting many of his patients by name. However, Dipak’s business is struggling. His NHS contract no longer covers the cost of the drugs he has to dispense. For example, he has sometimes been forced to pay over 100 times more than his contract provides for a particular mental health drug. Dipak is dipping into his life savings to keep his pharmacy afloat and I am sure that many other pharmacists across the country are doing the same. Does the Prime Minister agree that no pharmacist should be forced to use their own money to keep their pharmacy viable?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, would like to wish you, Mr Speaker, all the Clerks and the House staff a very merry Christmas, and I add my personal thanks to everyone who has shown such support to the newly elected Members of Parliament in their first few months in office. This week’s White Paper on local government devolution was hotly anticipated, but there is a big problem that it did not address. Local government finances are in a desperate state, and yesterday’s finance settlement announcement does precious little to correct that. Setting aside local council tax increases, my council, Chelmsford city council, has calculated that its core spending power has increased by only £100,000 in the past decade, yet its costs have gone through the roof and it is constantly being asked to do more with less. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, and we will not be able to build 1.5 million new homes without the hard work and attention of local government’s talented planners, highways engineers and housing teams. We have a crisis in our special educational needs system and no plans in sight for reform. We will not be able to fix it without a huge effort from local government professionals working in children’s services and education. Our social care system is in crisis. We will not be able to fix that without the input of the professionals working in local government. There is plenty for local government to be focusing on, but where is the plan? Instead, the devolution directive, accompanied by local government reorganisation, will drag sparse resources away from those issues, as councils are forced to focus on new structures, on paying redundancies and on spending money on rearranging the deckchairs while services the public rely on are made to suffer. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State to explain why there does not appear to be a plan for fixing these things that are broken, before giving local government more to do?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Electricity Grid Upgrades · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the hard work that the hon. Member has done cross-party on this issue for many years, and I am grateful to be joining that as another east of England MP. The issue of public consent is important, because the proposals could have such a huge impact on local communities. Developers suggest that they could provide community benefits, but with all due respect, the idea of having a community hall 5 miles down the road does not mitigate having massive pylons going past someone’s back garden. Does the hon. Member agree that the problem with regard to public consent is that people who are very well organised will understandably continue to kick up a fuss, which will delay the creation of the renewable energy that we absolutely need and certainly support?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Government and Democracy Education · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman pointed out that this is UK Parliament Week. Last week, I was delighted to visit Great Baddow high school in my constituency to speak to students who were preparing for a debate that they would be taking part in as part of UK Parliament Week. They asked me lots of wonderful questions on diverse subjects. I have often been into local schools to talk about government, but it often becomes apparent that students do not know anything at all about local government, and yet local government affects their lives on a day-to-day basis—sometimes much more than this place. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that local government, alongside central Government, should form part of this education?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Temporary Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  While Chelmsford city council’s figures cannot match those given by the hon. Member, they are still stark. It is terrible to see how much they have changed over recent years. Does he agree that many councils around the country face this issue? In my constituency, the percentage of the council’s core spending that goes on temporary accommodation went up from 5.62% in 2020 to 24.44% in September 2024. The number of cases in 2020 was 256, but we are now looking at 500 cases. It is a massive increase that is very difficult for councils to cope with.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the words of the Leader of the House about the issues affecting Florida at the moment; we wish everyone safety. I also echo the congratulations of the shadow Leader of the House to the Leader of the House on her very special birthday. I welcome the statement from the Leader of the House, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches look forward to scrutinising parliamentary business and working constructively for the good of the country. The new Government have mentioned many times their commitment to building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. We Lib Dems recognise that our country is in a housing crisis, and we welcome the target. Although I know that all MPs love donning a hard hat for an all-important photo opportunity, those homes will be delivered not by central Government but by local government, largely through the planning system and partnership work with developers and infrastructure providers. That is the case in my constituency, where the Liberal Democrat-run Chelmsford city council is already delivering, with thousands of new homes being planned. However, these homes are in danger of not being delivered at all if the Government do not urgently act in two extremely important ways. First, they need to speed up their decision making around funding for large infra- structure projects, such as the A12 widening scheme. If this important scheme does not receive the funding promised by the previous Government, more than 10,000 homes may not be delivered. Secondly, councils that are a long way into developing or reviewing their local plans, such as Chelmsford city council, are extremely concerned that they will miss the arbitrary national planning policy framework transition period deadline by just a matter of weeks. That will render all the expensive work that they have done on their plans null and void, thereby threatening the delivery of thousands of homes and leaving a developer free-for-all in the absence of a valid local plan. Specifically, planning authorities desperately need the Government to extend the transition period in the new NPPF to at least three months. When can we expect to receive assurance about funding for the infrastructure projects that are crucial to supporting the Government’s home building targets, and when can we expect a solution to the cliff edge faced by councils that are currently reviewing their local plans?

• 8 Oct 2024 · SEND Provision: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this very important debate today. It is my absolute pleasure to represent the Liberal Democrats on this important issue. It is filling up my inbox, and I know that it is filling up the inboxes of other hon. Members, both here and not here today. I would like to start by expanding on an issue that has been raised in this debate, but I think a bit more information needs to be put out about it. That is the issue of tribunals and what is happening with them. We have talked a lot about how difficult it is for parents to get EHCPs for their children, but having to take a local authority to the first-tier tribunal is such an arduous task that no parent should have to go through it. They have to wait on average a year to get an appointment at a tribunal and it is costing them tens of thousands of pounds, in many instances, to get to that point in the first place. They are employing solicitors who have to battle with the local authorities, and they get to the point where they have given up and have to go to a tribunal. Then they wait their year and get their tribunal date, and then they are often faced with legally representing themselves, because they have exhausted their own resources, but they are battling against local authorities that are not just using solicitors or barristers but King’s counsel in many cases, to fight against parents who are just trying to get what their children desperately need. [Clive Efford in the Chair ] Even worse is the figure that has already come out in this debate but is worth underlining. Despite parents not being legally represented and despite local authorities using barristers and KCs to fight parents—what sort of system is it where that is happening?—local authorities lose 98% of cases. Local authorities are using public money to fight parents and losing. Then even if a judge, through the first-tier tribunal, has made an order about what the EHCP should contain—if a parent is lucky enough to even have an EHCP at that point—in cases in my constituency and, I am sure, in other constituencies, that provision is still not being delivered, even when ordered by the tribunal. We have examples of parents who have to go to judicial review to make the local authorities do what they are legally bound to do but are not doing. We have to strengthen the consequences for local authorities that are not doing what they are supposed to be doing as set out in law, because the system is not working in that situation at the moment. I ask the Minister to address that. This matters because while we are waiting for judicial review and for tribunals, the children who are affected are growing up. Children have this uncanny knack of getting older, and as they get older, they need more resources and different resources. However, a parent in my constituency said, “But Marie, when I went to the annual review, the officer at the council said to me, ‘Every time we meet, you ask for something different.’” And she said, “Well, yes, because my child has grown up, he is now older, and he needs something different from what was in the last review.” As much as we may be shocked by comments like that from officers working for local councils, there are many, many officers who want to do the very best for children, but they are stuck in such awful situations, in which they are not provided with the resources that they need. Although a lot has been said about EHCPs, the special educational needs system is not just about EHCPs. There are about 1.6 million children with special educational needs or disabilities in the east of England—we must remember that we are talking about disabilities as well, not just neurological conditions—and only 4.8% of them, or just under 48,000, have EHCPs. The rest of them are living with SEND but do not have EHCPs. We must make sure that we cater for them as well. I am conscious of the time and want to mention the funding cuts that have happened since 2010. The School Cuts website is instructive on the subject. It tells me, for example, that one high school in my constituency has received a funding cut of £1,201 per pupil since 2010. Another has seen a cut of £1,174 per pupil. It goes on and on. A special school in my constituency takes the biscuit, with a cut of £4,815 per pupil since 2010. Schools are having to do more with less, and we must address that. I want to bring out the voices of parents. Recently in my constituency I met 24 parents and grandparents who turned up to a meeting to tell me about their problems with the special educational needs system. They told me many things. They told me what could be done to make the system better in ways that would not cost the earth. We know that there are economic challenges ahead, so let us look for solutions that do not necessarily have to focus on money. One of the things the parents and grandparents raised was the transition when a child goes from primary school to secondary school. We need to make that transition easier for pupils with SEND who need that bit of extra time to settle in and understand the new system. Can we put in place a better system of transition that gives them extra time without all the other children around? The parents and grandparents told me about the blanket approach to attendance that many schools take. They told me about 100% attendance awards and how cruel they are for children with special educational needs and disabilities, who often have to attend medical appointments during school time. They can never get that 100% attendance rate and never receive the award that they see their fellow pupils getting. It is cruel and discriminatory. The parents and grandparents told me about schools that are locking toilet doors during class times so that children cannot go to the toilet. That makes it very difficult for someone who has a physical condition that means they have to go to the toilet. One of the people who came to speak to me was a special educational needs co-ordinator. They told me that it is not mandatory to have SENCOs on the senior leadership team, and how they are often teaching full time while also doing the SENCO role. They told me that they have no protected time to look after children with special educational needs, work out what is best for them and help them. In fact, parents told me that they believe SENCOs are just a name on a piece of paper for local authorities. How does all this impact children? Children are often demoralised when they leave school. A parent told me that all their child’s energy was going into school and it left nothing—no energy afterwards for anything else. One parent said, “SEND shouldn’t just be a bolt-on.” I echo what other Members have said: SEND should be an integral part of education. I could go on and on about local authorities not doing annual reviews, not replying to parents when they write to them, or sending encrypted emails that disappear after 40 days so that parents have no permanent record of what they have been told. I could talk about evidence disappearing and about dyslexia not being accepted as a diagnosis—as if that is not a thing—but I want to spend a little time talking about solutions. One solution, which could be cost-free, is being more transparent. EHCPs should be issued within 20 weeks. In my local authority, Essex, 1% are issued within 20 weeks. When parents are waiting, in week 19, for that email to drop in their inbox, anxious and stressed, after having fought so hard to get to the point where they will finally get the provision their children need, deserve and are thankfully entitled to, and it does not arrive, that is incredibly stressful. Yet the local authority knows that there is no chance of that email arriving in that time. They know that the average wait time is probably 30, 40, 50 weeks, or even longer in some cases. Tell parents that. Alleviate their suffering just a little bit. It will not fix the problem, but it is a free option. Local authorities already know the figures—make them publish them. The Liberal Democrats want to see a centralised national body for SEND, which would end the postcode lottery of funding. Lots more can be done, but there are things we can do without having to provide funds.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Building Safety and Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by congratulating the Minister and welcoming her to her position. As we have already said in this Chamber, the Liberal Democrats welcome the final Grenfell report. We want to record again our thanks to the families of the victims, and, of course, the survivors, for giving their testimony, their experts and their statements to the inquiry; we know how difficult that will have been. Much has already been said today about the issue of cladding, so I will not say anything about it in my speech. As other Members have pointed out, this is not just about the remediation of cladding; there are many other fire safety issues in buildings that need to be remedied. This is a debate about building safety, and we must discuss other matters. There are various fire safety issues in various buildings in my constituency, particularly—I am sure that other Members will have correspondence about this in their inboxes—the need for fire door remediation. Either the fire doors were inadequate when they were installed in the first place, or they were installed incorrectly. That needs to be fixed, but the developers, the building owners and, through them, their management companies are not taking responsibility for it. Indeed, they are trying to pass the buck and make the leaseholders and the tenants pay for the replacement of the doors where that is necessary, and using defects periods that may well have expired as an excuse for not taking up those issues and not paying for remediation. In one instance, one of the leaseholders commissioned a survey before the expiration of the defects period, which identified problems with the fire doors, but the developer is still claiming not to be responsible for replacing all the fire doors in the building, although they are of identical design, and the developer has accepted responsibility for these particular doors. This is an example of where the construction industry is, unfortunately, not taking responsibility for the issues that it has created, whether intentionally or unintentionally. There are other fire safety issues, which we will all have seen in our inboxes. Some of them will be things that we in the construction industry—I have worked in it for many years—describe as patent defects, which can be seen. When someone comes across a patent defect, they can see that something does not work, but there are many latent defects, which are hidden in the depths of a building and cannot be seen by the naked eye. Those defects become apparent much later, and we need to provide a way to help leaseholders by ensuring that they do not have to shoulder the financial burden of rectifying them. Such defects are fundamental to the building—for example, there are safety issues around gas pipes that have been incorrectly installed. In some cases, it has been found that there is inadequate shielding around the pipes, as happened in a building in my Chelmsford constituency. I could go on and on about other fire safety issues, but I know that other hon. Members want to speak and I have quite a few things that I would still like to say. There is a huge backlog of issues that need to be remedied, and the Minister talked about the number of buildings that need to be remediated. I spoke to a fire safety expert from a local authority—not one in my constituency—who is responsible for looking at all the buildings in the authority’s housing stock. They had to put together a report that had to be submitted by the deadline, which I believe was earlier this year. When they tried to submit it to the Health and Safety Executive, the HSE said, “Whoa, hang on! Don’t submit it now—we can’t cope. We’ll let you know when we want to receive those documents. It may well not be until 2029.” So I would say that the number of buildings the Minister talked about is definitely an underestimate, and I urge her to discuss this issue with the Health and Safety Executive to see what other resources it might need to be able to move more quickly. Let us remember that people are living in buildings that they have officially been told are not safe. Every single night, they go to bed knowing that their families and children are sleeping in buildings that are not safe. We do not know the full extent of the problem, and there are many recommendations that can come out. We can talk about how the construction industry operates and so on, but let me talk briefly about the planning system. When we are talking about fire safety, it strikes me as very strange that the fire services are still not statutory consultees on planning applications for high-rise buildings over 18 metres. Of course the fire services are experts in fire safety, yet we do not make them statutory consultees. That feels very strange to me, and it feels like a big oversight. I urge the Minister to look into that. Members have talked about historical issues and the need to remedy them. I point out to the Minister and everyone present that these issues are not just historical. I am aware of buildings less than two years old that have fire compartmentation problems and missing firestopping. This is an ongoing issue. As one fire safety expert put it to me, “After everything that happened with Grenfell, developers are still getting away with it.” This is a systemic problem, and there are many reasons for it. It is partly driven by finances and other things, but as the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, it is also a cultural problem. There is a lot that we need to work on. I will briefly admit to a slightly guilty pleasure: I quite like watching the programme “Air Crash Investigation”, which might seem a bit macabre. I do not want to give the impression that the airline industry is perfect, but I big up those in the airline industry. The industry investigates issues and crashes, works out what went wrong, and then does not point the finger of blame, no matter where the fault lies. It looks at how such issues could have been avoided, and how it can make sure that they do not happen again in the future. If only we could make the construction industry do the same and change the culture, rather than shrugging our shoulders, saying, “Well, it’s not my fault,” and blaming the subcontractor, the manufacturer or whoever. Having worked in the construction industry for a long time, I know that that happens a lot. If we could change the culture to be more like how the airline industry investigates problems, I would be very happy to see that. There is another industry that the construction industry could learn something from. I have just mentioned fire safety issues and things that need to be remediated, and I am sure that many people in the Chamber have been issued with safety recall notices, whereby motor manufacturers have to recall cars and fix the safety issues. If there is a problem with the brakes, or anything in the engine is a safety issue, they recall the car and fix it at their expense. I would like to see something similar happen in the construction industry, so that people take much more responsibility. I come back to leaseholders, because it is incredibly important that we remember the implications for them when there is delay and things are not fixed. Not only is there a fire risk—as I mentioned before, we have people who are on 24-hour watch. Other Members have mentioned the difficulty with getting mortgages. At the moment, many leaseholders cannot sell their properties and move on. That has implications for the housing crisis, because it means that there is less churn in the housing industry, as fewer people are able to move out of their flats and allow other people to move into them. That is exacerbating the crisis. As others have mentioned, there is also the problem of insurance. Like other hon. Members, I am concerned that social landlords are not eligible for Government funds to remediate buildings, leaving many of the most vulnerable people at risk. I urge the Government and the Minister to listen to the National Housing Federation, which represents hundreds of housing associations, and the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign on these issues. I remind the House that the Liberal Democrats have been calling for the removal of dangerous cladding from all buildings, and we need to make sure that leaseholders do not have to pay for it. To reiterate what I said earlier, this should not be just about cladding. There are other serious issues, particularly firestopping. Fire doors are incredibly important. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said to the Prime Minister just last week, we need the Government to step in and provide the cash up front to carry out the remediation in some circumstances, and then they should go after those responsible. That would alleviate a lot of suffering. Finally, I would just like to say that fire safety is not a luxury. It should be seen as a right.