Marie Goldman MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

• 12 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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