Marie Goldman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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the ICGS from accepting a person’s complaint if it was substantially the same as a complaint they had previously withdrawn.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.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Holiday and Second Homes Regulation: Cornwall and Isles of Scilly · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that second and holiday homes have a big impact on the hospitality sector, because businesses find it difficult to find accommodation for their staff, especially in places like Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly where there is limited accommodation, which then makes it difficult for them to run their businesses?

• 5 Sept 2024 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for this debate about an issue that is so important and has filled my inbox over many months, as I am sure is the case for other hon. Members here. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the eligibility changed in 2014 with the Children and Families Act; it added an extra 11 years when it comes to the children and young people who could be included. Does he agree that it was a complete failure of subsequent Governments not to put in the extra resources to match the additional number of years? That has led to a perverse system in which we now see local authorities battling with parents—using not just normal barristers but King’s Counsel, so sure are they of their righteousness in their battle. With the help of barristers, including KCs, they are battling parents who are often not represented legally and have to represent themselves. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is perverse and should never have happened?