Marie Goldman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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?

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

  More

  On 15 April, we will mark the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster and remember the 97 people who tragically lost their life on that dark day, as well as their families’ subsequent fight for justice. Last September, the Prime Minister gave a commitment that the Hillsborough law would be introduced in Parliament before we reached this anniversary. A duty of candour for public servants and public bodies is long overdue, and will help stop future cover-ups. It is vital that the legislation delivers on the commitments made to Hillsborough families in a meaningful way. Can the Leader of the House give an update on whether the legislation will be introduced before we rise for the Easter recess? If it will not, when we can realistically expect it?

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

  More

  As Members of Parliament, we have many issues that demand our attention, but few that can be more important than ensuring children are well fed with healthy, nutritious food. I am sure that Members across the House wish that all families are able to provide that every day for their children, but we must face the tragic reality that many children go hungry. In government, the Liberal Democrats were proud to introduce universal free school meals for infants. We ensured that every child could access a healthy lunch each day, because when children go hungry, they make less progress and have poorer behaviour and health outcomes. A free school lunch may be the only healthy cooked food that some children get, or even their only meal of the day. That is shameful in a country such as England. That is why we have tabled amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would increase the after- tax threshold for free school meals to £20,000 a year, expanding eligibility for free school meals to a further 900,000 children. We are also committed to introducing auto-enrolment for those who are eligible for free school meals, ensuring that children are automatically considered eligible when their parents apply for relevant benefits or financial support. Does the Leader of the House agree that no child should go hungry in 2025, and will she ask the Government to embrace cross-party working to support the Liberal Democrats’ long-standing calls for free school meals when the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill returns to Parliament next week?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Anti-social Behaviour: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. Although I am the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for this debate, I also declare a strong interest in that I am the Member of Parliament for Chelmsford in Essex—for Members who do not know the geography, that is firmly in the east of England. I will start by saying a few things about my constituency. Other hon. Members have spoken with pride about their constituencies and how important it is that antisocial behaviour is curbed. Chelmsford is a lovely urban constituency with lots of wonderful things going on—of course, I am slightly biased—but when I am out knocking on doors, constituents tell me about things that are not going quite so well. They worry about drug dealing, as several constituents told me on Saturday when I was in the centre of Chelmsford. They tell me about fly-tipping, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). They tell me about the noisy car meets around the constituency. I used to live by the Army and Navy, one of Chelmsford’s main junctions, and the noise used to keep me awake at night sometimes, so I know how frustrating it can be. Structural issues can also lead to antisocial behaviour, including broken streetlights, which make people feel unsafe when they walk around the constituency. We need local councils to be much better at tackling such issues. Constituents are tolerant but understandably a bit fed up of antisocial behaviour, and we certainly need to do more to tackle it. Antisocial behaviour can very low level, including people riding bikes on pavements—an annoying thing that happens in my constituency and, I am sure, across the country—and when new trees have been planted and somebody comes along and chops them in half overnight. Nobody is going to be very ill off the back of that, but people are understandably frustrated by it. On fly-tipping, hon. Members mentioned the fabulous volunteers who help to make our constituencies better places. I would like to single out the volunteers of the Chelmsford Litter Wombles, who spend much of their free time going out and clearing up after littering and antisocial behaviour. I have joined them on various occasions to help them clear up. Many hon. Members raised the important point that everyone deserves to feel safe when they walk around their neighbourhood. Well over half of hon. Members focused on the importance of policing, punishment and tackling crime, which I agree is important, but it is a shame that more of them did not focus on what is driving those issues in the first place, although some did raise it. It was heartwarming, therefore, to hear the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) be the first to substantially discuss the lack of provision and support for young people and the importance of youth services. Youth services were slashed by the previous Government, which left gaps. The issue is not just about youth services as we think of them being provided by councils; it is also about funding for charities and other organisations that can help, and schools’ extracurricular activities. Schools simply do not have the budget for sports activities, music and drama—all the things that help young people to develop, give them an alternative to getting into trouble, and set them up for life. The Liberal Democrats would like to see more focus on early intervention and on giving young people something to do. This debate is about antisocial behaviour, but knife crime, which has been mentioned, unfortunately fits into that. We would like to see a public health approach taken to the epidemic of youth violence—an approach that identifies and treats the risk factors rather than just focusing on the symptoms. There should be investment in youth services that are genuinely engaging and reach more people. We must give young people the support and opportunities that they deserve to help our communities and individuals feel safer. The bottom line is that talk is cheap; it is action that really matters. We need to understand the driving forces behind some of the antisocial behaviour. That is not just about the lack of provision of youth services; we need to see why the people who are in our prisons are there in the first place. When we talk about tackling crime, the ultimate endpoint of that is people ending up in prison, but the endless cycle of crime and punishment, with more crime simply leading to calls for more police and tougher sentences, is just not working. Some studies suggest that 50% of the prison population may have dyslexia or other neurodivergent conditions. When that is the case, we are getting something very wrong, so we need to focus on what is driving antisocial behaviour in the first place. Unnecessarily criminalising young people makes it only more likely that they will commit crimes in future. We know that high-quality youth work gets results: it has been proven time and again to help vulnerable young people to escape the clutches of gangs. As I said, however, the previous Conservative Government slashed youth services. Unfortunately, that robbed young people of hope and contributed to the rise in serious violence. I thank the hon. Member for Norwich North again for initiating this important debate and for its focus on the east of England.

• 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 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not think those two things are mutually exclusive. There are preferential systems that can lead to proportional results. In fact, we see that in many places that use preferential systems. In the election in May 2024 for the police, fire and crime commissioner in Essex, the turnout was barely 25%. So why are people not voting? Surely part of the issue is simply that they do not believe that their vote counts. They do not believe that they can make a difference. Although I do not completely agree with that, I certainly agree that the first-past-the-post system makes it harder. There are also other things in our electoral system that make it harder, and I do not think that we should be talking about changing our voting system without also talking about them. For example, the introduction of voter ID was supposedly designed to enhance trust in our elections, but the evidence suggests that there have been some other consequences. In the 2024 general election, 4% of people who did not vote said that the voter ID requirement was the reason that they could not do so. Additionally, 0.08% of those who went to the polls were unable to cast their ballot because they did not have the correct ID. Those may seem like small figures, but if we put them into rough numbers, rather than percentages, we can see that, with about 28.9 million people casting their vote, the number of people who showed up who could not cast their vote because they did not have the correct ID was approximately—unless I have got my maths wrong—23,000 people. That is an incredibly high and quite shocking number. Let us think about that for a moment—23,000 people could not vote because we wanted to stop voter fraud. Of course that might be a good idea if there was lots of voter fraud going on, but the Electoral Commission’s own website says: “In the past five years, there is no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud. Of the 1,462 cases of alleged electoral fraud reported to police between 2019 and 2023, 11 led to convictions, and the police issued four cautions.” Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Voter registration is another area where improvements are needed. Research shows that as many as 8 million people across the UK are not registered correctly at their current address. This affects key groups such as young people, private renters and recent home movers who may not realise that they are missing from the register until it is too late. Although the current system allows for late registration before elections, this puts unnecessary pressure on electoral services and risks leaving some people unable to vote on polling day. We can see the impact that even small barriers to voting can have. Imagine what would happen if we broke down those barriers and got rid of them. We must recognise that barriers to participation, including voter ID, voter registration and the voting system itself, are dangerous to our democracy. I urge the Government to take the opportunity to fix this and thereby to strengthen democracy and democratic engagement in our country.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  When I was out knocking on doors in my constituency in last year’s general election campaign, lots of people reminisced with me about a previous general election when the Liberal candidate came just 378 tantalising votes short of the incumbent Conservative. They spoke very fondly of that candidate, which might not be surprising, except the election that they were recalling was in 1983—over four decades ago. I also remember speaking to an elderly, lifelong Labour voter who was lending me his vote for the very first time because he had to do something different. When I thanked him for placing his trust in me, he told me not to take too much from it, because his entire life he had never voted for a candidate who had won. I will always remember that conversation. As I walked away, I said, “Well, we’ll see about that.” Until last July, for 74 years the constituency of Chelmsford, in its various shapes and sizes over the years, had never been represented in Parliament by anyone other than a Conservative. In fact, it had been 100 years since Chelmsford was last represented by a Liberal—something I am extremely proud to have corrected. It should not have to be this way. I hugely admire the tenacity of that erstwhile Labour voter who lent me his vote, hoping against all the evidence of his lifetime that this time it might make a difference. No wonder turnout in elections is often so painfully low. Our antiquated first-past-the-post system can be incredibly demoralising, even for a committed political campaigner like myself. Believe it or not, I do not like having to ask people on the doorstep to lend me their vote so that, together, we can game the system to get the change that we want. Would it not better if people could cast their vote in a way that let them set out their preferences? They would know that all would not be lost for them if their first preference candidate did not win, as their vote could be transferred to someone else that they also would not mind seeing elected. The turnout in last year’s general election, as has already been alluded to, was 65.9% in Chelmsford, slightly better than the national turnout, which was a pretty poor 59.7%. In Manchester Rusholme, the turnout was just 40%. But these are dizzying heights compared with the turnout in local elections.

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

  More

  On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we have been delighted by the recent groundswell of support from across the House for Liberal Democrat policies. In particular, I cite: the support for our Youth Mobility Scheme (EU Countries) Bill; the warm response for the sunshine Bill—the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill—from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which is coming tomorrow; and the House endorsing a fairer voting system. Will the Government answer this clear yearning by Members across the House for Liberal Democrat policies and provide parliamentary time to ensure those Bills become law?

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

  More

  Sadly, it is difficult to deny that there have been many times in recent years when debate in this House has not been of the highest quality, when Members have not shown the public their best side, and when, dare I say, some have perhaps lost a little of their sense of perspective, as could be seen in the way they conducted themselves. But as the Leader of the House has said, the debate on the private Member’s Bill last Friday was entirely different. It was measured, respectful and considered. Members listened carefully, intervened with important and pertinent points, and showed British democracy at its best. In short, it was something to be extremely proud of, regardless of whether we agreed with the outcome or not. Party politics was largely kept out of that debate, as MPs were rightly given a free vote; a vote of conscience on a consequential topic. Free votes should surely be granted when we are debating issues that transcend party political boundaries, and surely there can be no issue more important than ensuring that our planet is still able to support human life. The Climate and Nature Bill is a crucial cross-party Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) with support from 250 parliamentarians, including 88 Labour MPs, and sponsored by MPs from six of the parties that sit in the House. Indeed, the Bill was championed in the last Parliament by the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), and even, I understand, by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). Will the Leader of the House ask the Government to commit to a free vote on that crucial Bill’s Second Reading on 24 January?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, would like to pay my respects to Lord Prescott. Although we did not serve in this place at the same time, it is impossible to have followed British politics over the past few decades without acknowledging his enormous influence. I also wish to extend my condolences to his family and friends. I was pleased to note the constructive approach taken in the other place in relation to rail passenger services, including commitments secured by Liberal Democrats to making the delivery of improvements, and the maintaining of high standards of improvement, a crucial part of the Government’s agenda. Earlier this week, I received an email from Essex & Herts Air Ambulance, a registered charity that provides helicopter emergency medical services for the critically ill and injured of Essex, Hertfordshire and surrounding areas. In the last financial year alone, its members attended 2,635 missions. It costs more than £1 million every month to keep the service operational and to cover all charitable costs. That would not be possible without the good will of people in Essex and Hertfordshire, but the recent changes to employers’ national insurance contributions will cost the charity an additional £100,000 a year. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on how the impact of the rise in employers’ NICs can be mitigated specifically for the charitable sector, recognising the vital, sometimes lifesaving role that it plays in all our communities?

• 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 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I welcomed the emphasis that the Leader of the House placed on the Modernisation Committee’s call for views. I am sure that many Members have been sidling up to her and saying, as they have to me, “Wouldn’t it be good if we could change this particular aspect of the way in which Parliament does things?” I am pleased to be able, now, to direct them to the Modernisation Committee’s website, where they can submit their own views, and I encourage them to do so. I also thank the Leader of the House for presenting the business programme. I note that several days have been provided for the Budget debate, to which I am sure we are all looking forward—although I am not totally convinced that the shadow Leader of the House and the official Opposition are looking forward to it. If reports in the media are to be believed, they had the opportunity to change the timetable for their leadership election so that the new leader might be able to respond to the Budget, but it appears that they were not too keen on that idea. Perhaps they were not entirely confident of their own ability to respond to the Budget, but we shall see what happens. Many of the questions to Ministers from Members on both sides of the House are regularly being answered with a rather frustrating, “Wait until the Budget.” However, while many of us understand that there are good reasons for the fact that detailed responses often cannot be given ahead of the Budget, time is ticking on, and the seasons do not really seem to care about the Government’s timetable. Winter is fast approaching, but our NHS does not have the funding that it needs to fully support local health services. According to figures from the House of Commons Library following work commissioned by the Liberal Democrats, 12-hour wait times at A&E have been going up and up throughout the country. I am extremely worried about what that means for my constituents, and I am sure that other Members will be concerned about theirs. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine has previously estimated that long A&E delays led to about 14,000 excess deaths last year, which means that 268 people have been dying, unnecessarily, every week because they are having to wait too long to be seen. It really is a matter of life and death, and that is unacceptable. Yes, it is another damning indictment of the last Conservative Government’s failure to get a grip on healthcare in this country, but it is what we do right now that really matters. Make no mistake: it is a choice, and we can choose to fix this. While the Liberal Democrats are calling for a wider funding boost for the whole of the NHS, we cannot keep lurching from winter crisis to winter crisis. Will the Leader of the House call on the Chancellor to create a new ringfenced fund—

• 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?