Getting Britain Working Again

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

As Member of Parliament for Chelmsford, I am proud to represent a city with a breadth of businesses, industries and educational institutions that do so much to support people from all backgrounds into employment. On today’s theme of getting Britain working again, over recent months I have held several roundtables with local small businesses, from independent restaurants that serve as important community spaces to local shops that provide high-quality, high street based alternatives to major multinationals. Those businesses face many challenges, but I am concerned that the Government’s proposed solutions outlined in the King’s Speech fall far short of where we need to be.

At the end of last month, I hosted a roundtable with Chelmsford businesses in the construction industry. I must declare an interest here, because I have for many years run small businesses in construction, working as a specialist subcontractor. We have been through good times and bad times. I know that the often incredibly tight margins are difficult for the industry to work with, and I know the huge temptation for main contractors, desperate to win work, to overpromise and underdeliver.

Some of the most unscrupulous contractors rely on putting their subcontractors out of business at the end of a contract through non-payment, delayed payment or ridiculously long retention clauses, hoping that avoiding paying a subbie will keep the main contractor afloat. I welcome the proposed introduction of legislation to tackle late payments and hope that, in so doing, the Government will listen to all those across the industry, at all levels, to understand the imperatives and the complexities of this matter.

The construction industry is essential to our economy and our lives. The sector creates, sustains and draws on an enormous range of trades and skills. Far from being just about getting muddy and cold on a building site, the industry requires highly skilled engineers, surveyors, planners and logistics experts. It needs administrators and accountants alongside plumbers, brickies and sparkies. The industry is critical to the functioning of our country, from ensuring that we build enough homes to maintaining and expanding critical transport infrastructure. However, owners and representatives from the companies that I met highlighted the significant decrease in young people entering the construction workforce, as well as the overall proportion of women in the sector being extremely low, at around 16%. The industry is already working hard to tackle that, but businesses cannot do it alone.

Let me highlight one specific example raised with me, which goes to the very heart of the theme of “getting Britain working again”: getting young people to site. If we want young people to take up careers in construction—and we surely do—we need them to not just learn the skills and gain essential knowledge through further education courses, but get hands-on, practical experience on building sites. I know that that is more of a challenge, but the industry wants and needs that. Time and again, I have heard businesses tell me that there is simply no substitute for a young person learning alongside a master craftsman or craftswoman and learning the tricks of the trade that allow them to adapt to the unpredictability of the myriad issues that come up on real sites, rather than in the theoretical world of a classroom. The problem is that these young people cannot get there.

Building sites tend not to be conveniently located along a bus route or next to a train station. Indeed, by definition a “new site” is often in an entirely new, undeveloped area. The work is creating the infrastructure that will be used in the future, but in the meantime how do we get young people to the sites? Many of them are too young to even hold a driving licence. If they do not drive, they are reliant on getting a lift, but it is very difficult for businesses to provide that lift, due to safeguarding rules for under-18s. That inevitably generates inequality, as only those who can afford to take taxis or have a parent available to take them can do so, with others being left behind. I am in no way saying that we should scrap safeguarding, but this is the kind of practical issue that businesses tell me directly they need help with—perhaps in the form of grant funding for transport for young apprentices or those on work experience.

We also need to start earlier in inspiring young people to consider a career in the construction industry, and this is where education must play a key role. How can children choose a career if they do not have a wide view of what is available to them? At this point, I will highlight the fabulous work done in my constituency by Chelmsford city council, which for many years—under Liberal Democrat leadership—has been running a skills festival every summer for pupils in year 8. It is called a festival, because that is exactly what it looks and feels like, but instead of the marquees and tents being filled with musicians or stalls selling merchandise and pop culture paraphernalia, they are packed with interactive stands from local businesses and other organisations based in Chelmsford and Essex. They usually have hands-on activities for 12 and 13 year-olds and hopefully encourage them to consider choosing GCSEs in the coming months that fit well with what they see in front of them—in year 8 they will not yet have chosen their GCSEs.

However, this is about not just broadening the horizons of children, but strengthening and deepening the knowledge of their teachers and schools about what is out there, so that they can support the children going forward. The feedback from Chelmsford’s “Skills Fest”, as it is known, is fabulous, with many parents commenting afterwards that they have never seen their child so “brimming with enthusiasm” for something. That is a direct quote from a parent; their child was so enthusiastic about town planning, which they had never considered before. It is pretty inspirational to hear that.

This kind of inspirational, collaborative and innovative activity is the sort of thing that I would like to see and suggest that we need to see right across the country, learning from Chelmsford’s example and experience. In short, if we want to get Britain working again, it can never start too early, and it must start with supporting children. Indeed, it is these practical solutions that would offer young people from diverse backgrounds the opportunities to experience and begin successful, challenging and meaningful careers in crucial sectors such as construction.

Let me turn quickly to the issue of health. It is clear that we cannot get Britain working again if we cannot get Britain healthy again. On that subject, I am afraid that I continue to be dismayed by the state of Broomfield hospital, which is just outside my constituency but serves as Chelmsford’s main healthcare facility. I have held numerous roundtables and surgeries with staff and patients alike to hear from them directly about the challenges facing the Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust, of which the hospital forms a part. That is easily one of the most concerning issues to local residents, myself included.

Like everyone else, I want to ensure that my friends and family know that they can trust the trust if the worst happens. That is why I was genuinely pleased in March, when the Health Secretary announced that our trust was being placed into an intensive recovery programme to ensure that swift action was taken to address its many challenges. However, almost two months on, I received word yesterday that the trust is yet to receive any details on what the recovery programme even entails.

It is almost unbelievable that a programme labelled “intensive” and announced in March to begin last month has given precisely zero details about what it means, even to the management of one of the five trusts singled out as desperately in need of support. Unfortunately, that is entirely symptomatic of a Government approach that has led to the rather precarious position that the Prime Minister finds himself in today—or possibly even worse. There are promises of swift delivery, meaningful change and competent leadership, then a failure to do any of those things.

Healthcare is essential to every one of us. Staff in the NHS do exhausting, incredible work and are definitely to be commended, but they cannot be expected to turn failing trusts around if the Government cannot begin to describe to them how they want to help them, what they want them to do or how they will be supported in doing so. Our NHS and my constituents deserve and need far better. I ask the Health Secretary—whoever that turns out to be in the weeks and months ahead—to communicate urgently the programme’s details with the relevant trusts, such as Mid and South Essex, so that work can begin right now.

Let me turn briefly to other matters. The previous King’s Speech promised a draft Bill to ban conversion therapy, but that did not happen. Here we are again, with a promise in yesterday’s King’s Speech, as has been mentioned by other hon. Members across the House, for

“a draft Bill to ban abusive conversion practices.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 May 2026; Vol. 856, c. 3.]

As a slight aside, I know that I have spent quite a bit of time talking about the construction industry and I am now talking about conversion practices, but I want to be very clear that these two issues are very different. It was a bit strange to hear cladding remediation and conversion practices lumped into the same sentence in the King’s Speech. I wonder whether there was a bit of confusion in the Government about how wildly different those two issues are—we are not talking about converting buildings. Then again, perhaps that highlights the scale of the challenge and why the Government have not prioritised this matter; perhaps they truly do not understand the issue.

I must remind the Government that we have heard time and again of the impact that abusive conversion practices have on the LGBT+ community. Indeed, it was Theresa May’s Government in 2018 who first proposed such a Bill, yet here we are, almost a decade later, without even a draft in front of us. As other hon. Members have done, I ask the Government what assurances they can give that such a Bill will finally come forward, given that it has been promised before but did not happen. The LGBT+ community must not again be told to wait until the end of this Session only to see another promise broken. The Government must publish a trans-inclusive Bill to ban conversion practices as a matter of urgency.

The Government recognise a lot of the challenges that face our country, and I do not doubt their desire to improve people’s lives, but they either refuse to carry out the appropriate solutions or are too timid to make an argument for the bold change that our country has been crying out for, even if it is sometimes controversial. We are fortunate to live in an amazing country. We have wonderful people, world-class skills and expertise, globally admired institutions and businesses, a deep history built on the principles of fairness, tolerance and inclusivity, and enormous potential to lead the world in so many ways—politically, economically and morally. However, we need to do more than just recognise that it is not currently working for everyone; we need real, workable, practical and pragmatic ideas that can and must be implemented at pace.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches want this Government to make positive changes. It matters for us and our constituents that they do that, so I encourage them to listen to the calls of Liberal Democrat Members, who are willing to work together to achieve the positive changes that we need to reduce inequality, increase economic security, and ultimately see off the politics of hatred and grievance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Ryan]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend is an ardent campaigner for community spaces like the one he mentions, and I am sure he is taking that fight to his local council on behalf of his residents and the users of that facility. I am completely onside with him. I am not sure how much work my endorsement does, but I wish him all the best in his campaign.

Getting Britain working has to mean something real in places such as Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield; it has to mean decent work, proper wages, real skills and investment in our towns to give a decent future and hope to our kids and grandkids. I am proud to say that this Labour Government are delivering on all those metrics, not in an overnight big bang, but through considered and substantial progress.

In my constituency, wages are up, employment is up, public and private investment is up and funding for our schools, colleges and local councils is up, while our local NHS waiting lists are down and access to care is going up. As a point of fact, one in seven people were on NHS waiting lists when we took office in 2024, including in my constituency. That is not Britain working. I am glad to say that the lists are coming down at a historically fast pace.

For too long, over the 14 years of the Tories, through austerity and cuts, too many constituents felt written off. Indeed, the numbers support that analysis. A big part of that came from a welfare system that the Tories built, which I believe was broken by design, with people signed off and written off, and young people and graduates left on the scrapheap. Under the Tories, the benefits bill ballooned by billions. They have no credibility on welfare reform. They talk tough, but it is this Government who are fixing the mess.

The previous Government built a system that classified 2.8 million people as unfit for work and left them there. They built universal credit in a way that actively penalised people for trying—where taking on a few extra shifts could leave someone worse off than before. They left disabled people and people with long-term health conditions in an impossible position, wanting to work and contribute, but terrified that if they tried to do so and it did not work out, they would lose the support that kept them afloat. That was not a welfare system; it was a trap and a cycle of insecurity, worklessness and despair that the Tories perpetuated, while at the same time demonising these people. They talked tough while their system was doing the exact opposite.

I welcome what this Government are doing to change that. The right to try is exactly the right approach: it gives disabled people the legal right to try work without the immediate fear of losing their benefits if things do not go perfectly. That might sound straightforward, but for constituents I have spoken to in Burnley—people who want to test for themselves part-time work and gradual return in order to rebuild their confidence—it could be transformative. The fear was real.

Disabled people are not a problem to be solved or written off. They are people with expertise in their own lives, people with needs and ambitions. The principle of “nothing about us without us” has to run through the design and implementation of this policy, and I will be considering this through my work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for multiple sclerosis. Genuine consultation and involvement backed up with an extra £3.5 billion to support disabled people and those with long-term health conditions into employment represents serious money and a serious commitment.

Good welfare policy has to do two things. It has to protect people who cannot work and who need support—the safety net—and it has to genuinely support people who can work back into employment and independence. It must not label them, park them or give up on them, but give them a hand up to get back on the horse. I am glad to see that this Government are committed to getting the balance right.

The issues facing young people are one of the sharpest challenges in towns like mine. In 2024, we inherited nothing short of a national disgrace: nearly a million young people—under-25s—were not in employment, education or training, and we had just had the worst Parliament on record for falling living standards. The number of NEET young people went up by a quarter of a million in the final years before the 2024 election, and youth unemployment was at a record high.

Once someone does not get their first leg up, the drift sets in and it becomes harder and harder to reverse. The human cost of that—the lost confidence, lost years and lost social impact—is real and lasting, especially in towns like mine. I have talked before in this Chamber about the great social ill of generational worklessness and how communities like mine, scarred from the closures of the mills and the mines, have never been given the chance nor the foundational support to properly recover.

Some young people have no parent who can tell them how to do a CV or an interview, so when they leave school they feel abandoned in a scary and increasingly expensive world where there are no opportunities for them. In the short term, a young person may turn to the benefit system, because their mate has. Next thing they know, they are in debt. Then they might have a family and get responsibilities—and change looks scary. They are still looking for work, but know in their heart that they do not have the confidence or the knowledge to get into the jobs market, and feel that they missed their window to do so. That is how people get left behind, how their children get left behind. It damages the social fabric of our country.

It is a disgrace that unemployment numbers shot up so high under the previous Government, because it was young people in towns like mine who suffered. Generationally, it is towns like mine that have always suffered—people have no hand up and no help; they are signed off, written off and politically demonised by the people who built the system that is trapping them there. I do not take a soft approach to welfare—of course, if someone can work, they absolutely should—but what has happened is not right.

Our youth guarantee is part of the answer, but I hope that the Secretary of State is looking to go further and faster in supporting young people. He is welcome to come to Burnley any time he likes so that I can show him what we can do for young people in our towns if we give them just a little support. At this point, I want to give a shout-out to Burnley jobcentre and all the staff there, with whom I was proud to host a jobs fair in Padiham earlier this year. I hope to host another in Burnley later this year.

The youth guarantee that the Secretary of State has set out is excellent: a work placement for young people aged 18 to 24 who have been seeking work for 18 months, with employment costs covered by Government. That is not a pilot scheme but an actual placement with real employment behind it. Businesses that take on a young person who has been on universal credit for more than six months will get a £3,000 youth jobs grant. For the small and medium-sized manufacturers, engineering firms, construction companies and family businesses that make up most of Burnley’s economy, that kind of support genuinely means the difference between making a hire and not being able to afford to do so.

I care deeply about apprenticeships. We are backing 50,000 new starts, after apprenticeships collapsed under the last Government, as the Secretary of State said earlier. We are introducing a £2,000 grant for small businesses that take on an apprentice. That rises to £5,000 if the apprentice has been out of work for six months. For a small business on a tight margin in Burnley town centre, that is not a minor detail; it is the difference between offering a young person a future and turning them away. Not every young person wants to go to university and not every young person should feel like they have somehow failed if they choose a different path. There should be real dignity and real ambition attached to practical skills, construction and practical trades in technical work.

Burnley has a proud industrial history. We have skilled people and businesses with genuine potential; what we have lacked for too long are the investment and infrastructure to match that potential. Under this Government, that investment is finally coming, and Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield are ready for it.

Infrastructure matters. Transport links across east Lancashire still hold us back. Businesses need reliable connections to Manchester and across the north to expand and create jobs locally. Northern Powerhouse Rail and stronger rail connectivity are not luxuries for constituencies such as mine; they are economic necessities. I will always be here asking for more, particularly on buses and rail connections to Manchester, Leeds and Preston.

While I am on the topic of small businesses, let me say something about minimum wage increases, which seem to spur a bit of political conversation. In towns like Burnley, we either accept that we are in a race to the bottom and that only low wages will allow businesses to grow—a very Victorian take—or we follow the facts and figures and accept that in such places, where earnings are spent locally, a rising tide lifts all boats. Although paying bar or shop staff might be more expensive for a business this year, the cumulative effect of an increased minimum wage across the constituency strengthens both consumer and retail spending, building a stronger economy in the medium term.

[Marie Goldman]

Nobody, and certainly nobody in my party, would argue that we should not pay the lowest-paid more, but businesses in my Chelmsford constituency tell me—I am pretty sure this happens across the country—that the issue is the knock-on effect on the differential. When businesses pay the lowest-paid more, they have to pay some of the people higher up the ladder a bit more as well, to keep the differential. The cumulative effect of that—plus other things, such as national insurance contribution increases—is what has created difficulties. I am not having a go, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to try to find solutions that support businesses to pay their staff more while increasing their business?

[Oliver Ryan]

I am coming on to say, in fact, that of course the increase has its limits and should not be a shock to business. I have heard, if not similar stories, then certainly experiences in the same vein. We had the debate on the national insurance increase in this place, but a good chunk of that increase, if not all of it, was allocated to NHS spend, which had a historic record increase under this Government, with £28 billion or £29 billion committed in the last financial year. A good chunk of that came from NI on employers. When we are looking at strengthening the national health service, asking employers to make a slightly bigger contribution to their employees’ healthcare is probably preferable to increasing the general tax take, which this Government pledged not to do in the election and have not done since.

As I say, the increase has its limits and should not be a shock to business, but a downward drive on wages in towns like Burnley hits the whole economy, even if businesses initially want it. That is why real wages have grown more in the past 18 months of this Government than in the last 10 years of the Tory Government. Our economy is stronger because of the decisions we have made and defended.

I hear regularly from local businesses about the practical difficulties of trading with European markets since Britain lost unfettered access to those markets. They want fewer delays, lower costs and less uncertainty. They want to get on with it. The European partnership Bill needs to deliver practical answers for businesses like theirs. I am yet to meet a large exporting business in Burnley, Padiham or Brierfield that has been better off since Brexit. In fact, they report to me that they are losing business to European competitors every week.

None of that can be separated from what people in Burnley are dealing with financially right now: energy bills, food bills, fuel costs and rent. That comes up in almost every conversation I have. People want to work— they do work—but they want that work to pay enough to build a life. Cutting energy bills by up to 25% for manufacturers, driving forward on clean, home-grown energy, and investing in warmer homes and lower bills are not abstract policy objectives; they make the difference between a family building something and a family just about holding it together. What people in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield want is not unrealistic. They want decent jobs and opportunities for young people; they want a welfare system that opens doors, rather than closes them; they want wages that stretch far enough to actually build something; and they want investment in the towns that have waited long enough to feel confident about the future again.

I think of all that derelict land in Burnley that I started this speech by mentioning—the old sites behind fencing and weeds that have been sat there for the best part of 20 years while people walk past and wonder if anybody in power has noticed. Those sites would be a good place to get Burnley working, to get Britain working, and I look forward to progressing my campaign with the Minister on these issues.

Regeneration is not just about buildings; it is about whether people believe their town is moving forward. It is about whether a young person growing up in Burnley can look around and see the future there for themselves—right there, close to home, without having to pack up and leave to find it. For too long, people have felt like leaving is the only option. This Government’s job is to change that. This King’s Speech points in that direction with real intent and real investment behind it. After years of towns like mine feeling overlooked, I am proud to stand here trying to change that, because if we get this right, the people I represent will feel it, and they deserve to.