“For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rosie Duffield]

Absolutely. Of course, that is the hon. Member’s area of expertise. I know many health professionals who are incredibly frustrated at this simple twisting of facts, which should not be done at all in the NHS. I thank her for pointing that out.

With a few admirable exceptions, many Members of Parliament are unable to identify or define a woman. They reject that women’s spaces must be exclusively for biological women and have decided that those of us intent on the Equality Act being upheld are evil incarnate.

For centuries, women have had to fight for our rights. We have had to fight male threats of violence and male acts of violence. We are used to having to protect ourselves and our spaces. The very least we should expect from our own Government is the leadership and conviction to back those rights with basic and fundamental legislation. The Labour Government did that in 2010, yet here we are, 16 years later, having to force the current Government to uphold and enforce the law, and make it crystal clear to the NHS, sporting bodies, membership organisations and Government Departments that the law must be followed and adhered to—that is their job.

While the Secretary of State says that her Government have

“always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”,

men who choose to identify as women are still permitted to receive care on women’s hospital wards, access women’s toilets—including in this building—compete in the women’s category in parkrun and take women’s places in grassroots sports, and there are still men in women’s prisons. Actions speak louder than words. The law is the law, so what exactly are the Government waiting for, and why are they incapable of showing even the most basic leadership?

The Supreme Court has been clear, and trans-identifying people remain protected in law under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. None of their protections or rights have been taken away.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech, and I thank her for it. I think we are probably on different sides of the debate, but it is still interesting. She says that none of trans people’s rights has been taken away. I wonder whether she can explain the legal limbo that trans people feel they are in when trying to obtain a gender recognition certificate. They are required to live in their acquired gender for several months in order to obtain a certificate, but if they cannot access the spaces for the gender that they are seeking to acquire, they cannot fulfil that criterion. Does she agree that that creates a legal limbo and does actually take away some of their rights?

[Rosie Duffield]

The hon. Member has a really good point. That lack of clarity is why we need the Government to explain fully what the EHRC is saying and how it pertains to the Equality Act. With or without a gender recognition certificate, biological men are not able to access women’s spaces—women’s toilets, women’s sports. The Supreme Court made that incredibly clear. The area of gender recognition certificates is a bit grey, and I can understand why some trans-identifying people are confused by that. That is why the Government have to step in. This is a matter of legislation.

None of the activists on my side—feminists—is saying that we want to exclude those people, make them feel terrible or give them a hard time. Bodies can introduce single-sex spaces, unisex toilets and all kinds of other activities for those people that they are allowed to take part in. We just do not want our rights to make way for biological men, who are bigger, stronger and faster, and physically potentially more dangerous to us. That is a fundamental right that many of us have fought for generations to get. Yes, there are some confusing parts, but not in the Supreme Court judgment. The Court made it very clear; the Government just have to get on with it, instead of hiding behind the judgment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Duffield]

I think it is fairly obvious that the hon. Gentleman is a man, to be honest. I think the majority of the human race could tell that. If there is a much smaller person running in that category, they simply do not belong there. The Government have had the guidance since September, but this is the law of this country. No Minister or Government MP needs guidance from the EHRC to suggest ways in which organisations could uphold the law. We made this law, and we are there to advise people how to enact it and adhere to it. We do not need the EHRC. That is just another way of pushing this down the road. It is great to have that guidance. It has done a really good job—that is what it does—but the Government do not need it. It is just another red herring—a delay tactic.

[Marie Goldman]

On the point about it being fairly obvious which gender someone is, I wonder whether the hon. Lady has heard about the case of the woman who had a double mastectomy and frequently gets misgendered as a man? What would she say to that woman?

[Rosie Duffield]

That is extraordinary, but we are talking about a country of 70 million-odd people, 51% of whom are women. The majority of people know what a man or a woman is. If one has a problem with that, that is a specific personal problem. That is a man; these are women. We all know. It is an absolute load of rubbish that we do not, so I reject that. I say to the Government: women are watching, women will be voting, and most people in the country are women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank and praise my party colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), for pressing this issue and for making safe spaces for women in society a matter of fact. She has worked hard to secure a strong and immovable defence for women, and her work is to be appreciated by constituents throughout this United Kingdom; I know that my constituents in Strangford thank her, and many elsewhere would do likewise.

This debate is so important. Today, on the first anniversary of the ruling, I very much welcome the opportunity to speak clearly and categorically to support my hon. Friend. I welcome the ruling and where it leaves us. For too long, a cloud of confusion has hung over our public life—a confusion that has undermined the safety of women, the fairness of our sports and the protection of our children. The Supreme Court judgment restored common sense, yes—but, more importantly, it restored safety for women. That is critical.

Sex is a matter of biological fact. Protections must be in place, and we must ensure that they are recognised and utilised. The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in the For Women Scotland case was not just a legal victory, but a victory for reality. It was a victory for common sense. However, too many of our Government Departments are refusing to accept that reality and, worryingly, refusing to accept the legal ruling. That must end.

[Marie Goldman]

The hon. Gentleman always makes such interesting speeches. I just wanted to ask about intersex. We have talked a lot about biological fact. Would he explain a little bit more about intersex and the potential decisions that need to be made in relation to intersex babies when they are born?

[Jim Shannon]

Whenever the hon. Lady refers to me as being “interesting”, I think that says that she and I have a different opinion on an issue. The Scottish courts have taken that legal decision. I am sure that the hon. Lady would always want to support the legal decisions in the land, whatever they may be and whether she likes them or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate on the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland Ltd v. the Scottish Ministers ruling. I also thank her and other colleagues in this Chamber for their work on these sensitive issues surrounding sex and gender. They have helped ensure that Parliament continues to grapple with these issues in a careful and thoughtful manner.

This issue has faced our society since before I became a Member; and even before I entered this place, it was clear that it was being weaponised, one human being against another, by people who do not always have the best interests of those groups or human beings at heart. I am struggling to put into words my complete confusion that, in the 21st century in the UK Parliament, we are debating what a woman is. It is Adam and Eve, if you are people of faith or believe in the origin of human beings, and even if you are not people of faith, people have known what a woman and a man are since the beginning of time.

I stand here with full respect for those who feel or want to be or, for whatever reason that I do not understand, believe that they are a different gender from the biological sex that they are in. However, women’s rights have been less, and diminished, for centuries, and every single year they are fighting on many fronts for equality. I have stood in this place and in the main Chamber talking about women’s rights on healthcare, maternity rights and gender pay equality—things that men have taken for granted but where they have imposed a substandard level of right on women. It is completely unacceptable. But here we are now, questioning the fundamental biology of women—not just in this place, in this country, but everywhere in the world. I cannot reconcile the situation that we have faced.

When the Supreme Court finally gave a ruling that clearly defined what a man and a woman are under the law, we expected this gaslighting, this aggressive lobbying and this fighting between fellow human beings to, hopefully, recede with clear guidance, rules and processes at parliamentary level, at a legal level and at an employment rights level. But here we are a year later, and the Government have been dilly-dallying and sitting on the ruling, which does not change the law, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) said.

The anniversary provides an opportunity not only to reflect on the nature of this specific ruling, but to reaffirm the fundamental principle that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, the judgments of our highest courts must be respected and properly implemented. The Supreme Court’s ruling of 16 April 2025 brought much-needed legal clarity. It confirmed that, within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, references to “sex”, “man” and “woman” are to be understood as referring to biological sex. How somebody felt that they referred to something else, I cannot understand. That was not the creation of a new law, but the authoritative interpretation of legislation passed by Parliament.

I stand here with women constituents, men constituents, trans women constituents, trans male constituents and people who are still trying to find their way through their biology and feelings, and I stand for each and every one of those without fear or favour. I have met trans people in my constituency, both those who have transitioned fully, so they are either a man or a woman because biologically they have transitioned, and those who have not transitioned and have a gender recognition certificate or live their life as the opposite gender.

[Marie Goldman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Everyone is being generous with their time today, and I am grateful. He said that people have transitioned “biologically”. I thought biology was either one thing or the other and was immutable. Could he explain that point?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I am not a medical doctor—there are experts in this room—but if somebody has gone through operations under the NHS and that is medically assessed and professionally delivered, I respect their current biological status. If I have used the wrong language, I apologise, but these are special cases. The case that the hon. Member mentioned earlier in an intervention, where somebody had had breast cancer and had a double mastectomy, and may be misidentified as male, is a special case; that person has gone through a physical change that may make others see something different from who they are. Those are separate arguments to biological males identifying as women.

As I was saying, none of these transgender constituents of mine has come to me and said, “I want to be entering single-sex spaces of the other gender to make me feel that I am who I believe that I am.” I think that needs to be understood—that this view is not universal across the transgender community.

Clarity in the law is profoundly important. Without it, public bodies, service providers and indeed individuals are left navigating uncertainty. Inconsistent interpretations risk undermining both compliance with and confidence in our legal system, to distressing effect. Rights that already exist in law for any gender, biological sex, man or woman, cannot be usurped by new demands from people in our community, whether it is trans, or Muslims, or Christians, or people of no faith. Rights, once they are acquired and in law, should be protected and implemented, and any new demands or changes required to support in full other members of the community who may differ must be grappled with and dealt with by the Government without undermining existing rights.

The Court’s judgment provides a clear, coherent framework within which decisions can be made, particularly in relation to single-sex services, which the Equality Act explicitly permits. Yet this judgment did not remove rights from trans people. Protections preventing discrimination remain firmly in place, as they should. Trans rights are human rights where they are not impinging on somebody else’s human rights. That is a really clear distinction that we need to make.

This is not a zero-sum question of one group’s rights being set against another’s, with gains for one group coming only at the expense, or at the loss, of the rights of another. Rather, it is about ensuring that the law is applied as intended, recognising distinct protected characteristics and giving effect to each in a way that is workable and, crucially, fair. Of course, implementation must be done sensitively and responsibly, taking pains to ensure that the human rights and dignity of all are respected. The law already allows for flexibility to accommodate this.

It is therefore really difficult to understand why the public sector, especially the NHS, is spending hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of pounds on going to tribunals, knowing that it will lose, for an ideological, entrenched reason. That should not be happening. That money should be spent treating women, trans women, trans men and other patients within the NHS. I pay tribute to the Darlington nurses and Jennifer Melle for being here, and for being the light, or the source of information, around this topic, having gone through so much suffering and persecution to stand up for their basic human rights as biological females.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman]

A lot has been said about common sense in this debate. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman will join me in reflecting that common sense used to hold that the Earth was the centre of the universe and that everything else revolved around it, and that common sense does not hold true forever?

[Jim Allister]

I do not think that was ever common sense, and if that is the depths to which the hon. Member has to stoop to try and find an argument, it is a very ineloquent commentary upon herself.

I have concerns that we could arrive at a situation where the Supreme Court ruling, which is emphatic and clear, might in fact be disapplied in a part of this United Kingdom, because of the iniquitous Windsor framework. One would have thought that in a United Kingdom, a woman is a woman wherever they are. But in the United Kingdom, under the Windsor framework, we are told that Northern Ireland is subject to a different ambit of laws. We are told that under article 2 of the Windsor framework, we are subject to European law on matters that, some argue, extend to this very subject.

We await—it is due shortly—the Dillon judgment from the Supreme Court as to the extent of article 2. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has been so ideologically captured by the trans agenda that it is limbering up to bring a legal challenge to the Supreme Court ruling to say that it should not apply in Northern Ireland because of article 2 of the Windsor framework. If that is upheld, we face a dire situation because we already know what the European courts think on this subject. We know it definitively because last month the European Court of Justice ruled, in a case called Shipova, that biological sex can be trumped by gender self-selection. If, as a consequence, a part of this United Kingdom is subject to that jurisprudence, and not the jurisprudence of our own Supreme Court, we are staring into a situation where Northern Ireland would have a different definition of a woman and a different approach to equality laws, and a situation where that which applies everywhere else would be disapplied in Northern Ireland. That would be of immense constitutional significance.

If that worst case scenario were to happen, and if we had a ruling to the effect that, because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, the Supreme Court common-sense ruling does not apply to the whole United Kingdom, will the Government pledge, in the name of being the Government of a United Kingdom, to ensure a united definition and application of the law across the UK? I trust that necessity for that will not arise, but if it does it will be down to the Government to demonstrate whether or not we are a United Kingdom or whether, in addition to every other inequity, we could now have an Irish sea border on gender identity. That would be intolerable, and it would have repercussions far and wide—not least constitutional. I do hope that common sense will prevail, that we will not be found, because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, to be in a different jurisprudence and that we will have the same benefits—benefits that I trust the Government will soon elaborate on. They have dragged their feet far too long already.

Internationally, there has been some progress. The International Olympic Committee has rightly made a decision that someone has to be a biological female to compete in women’s games. That is right, sensible and necessary. It is really quite the commentary on our society that we have got to a point where nurses like the Darlington nurses have had to be dragged through the courts to establish the most fundamental principle—one that we have all known from when we could first speak, walk and toddle about—that there is a difference between a man and a woman.

The Government must grasp this nettle. The Supreme Court has pointed the way. There is no escape route. Now is the time to embrace that and to ensure that we have the correct guidance right across this land. It is a matter of regret to me that, in Northern Ireland, the Stormont Assembly still has not grasped the nettle and still allows biological men to use women’s toilets. Thankfully, in this place, the right steps were taken last June, but a year on, it still has not been addressed in Stormont. It too needs to catch up with the world and face biological reality.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

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.

[Jonathan Hinder]

The hon. Lady is outlining cases where the application of that guidance might be difficult. Does she think that it would be difficult for someone to determine whether I, given the way I look, should be in a women’s single-sex space?

[Marie Goldman]

I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman’s intervention in a slightly different way. There is something called the 80:20 rule, which states that, in pretty much anything in life, we should put 80% of our effort into 20% of situations. The vast majority of the time, it is really easy to deal with situations, including the one the hon. Gentleman just outlined. The hard work—the 80%—comes in 20% of the cases. It might not be that exact ratio, but a lot of the time we have to work a lot harder to deal with the cases that are in the margins and harder to determine. I know that from my past work in IT, but it applies to lots of other things.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that he would be instantly recognisable as a man, and would be able to use facilities for men, and I would not disagree, but there are many situations—certainly a minority, but they should still be handled with care—where it is not as easy to determine. As a country that is caring, we should not ignore those situations. How a country or society looks after its most vulnerable people, who are usually part of minority groups, is how it should be judged, so I suggest that we need to take care on this issue.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; we are utterly opposed. Does she agree that the cases involving Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses are examples of this very issue? Someone looked like a male standing in the changing room when they were referred to as “Mr”, but these people had to go through the courts to prove it. That is wrong.

[Marie Goldman]

That is exactly why we need the Government to come forward with proper guidance—so that organisations can work through this properly and understand when they are working within the rules, and so that they do not have to reinvent everything for themselves. We do not have that guidance, and it is desperately needed.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Could the hon. Lady say what her ideal situation would be? Would it be that if a gentleman walked into the ladies’ changing rooms, perhaps at a swimming pool, it would be illegal to stop them or even ask them? Would the solution be that any man could go into any women’s changing room if he wished?

[Marie Goldman]

I struggle with the idea that a trans person would go into the opposite sex’s changing rooms, which they are supposedly not allowed into, for the purpose of causing harm. That is surely what we are worrying about: harm being caused, particularly to women. I struggle with the idea that, at the moment, it is the sign on the door that is preventing someone from causing harm to women. Do they go, “Oh, I wanted to harm a woman, but I’m not going to do it because the sign on the door says I shouldn’t”? I struggle with that argument in general.

It should not need to be spelled out in Britain in 2026, but requiring women and girls to prove that we are female enough—because we have to do the same thing—is not only a deeply regressive step and an impractical requirement to put on businesses and other organisations, but deeply discriminatory, judgmental and, speaking as a woman, outrageous and unworkable.

[Tracy Gilbert]

As a lesbian woman, I have often been misgendered. As a young person—a tomboy—that sort of thing did not bother me; I wore it as a badge of honour. I am very worried that we are talking about fitting women into stereotypes. Surely, in this day and age, we are trying to move away from gender stereotypes as women, lesbians and gay people. Does the hon. Member agree that a trans woman can be a trans woman and a trans man can be a trans man—they are not a woman and they are not a man; they are a trans woman or a trans man—and services should be provided on that basis?

[Marie Goldman]

One of the most important things is how we behave towards each other as a society. I do not want women, men or anybody to have fit into stereotypes. The hon. Lady is absolutely right—we want to live in a society where we accept people for who they are.

[Jonathan Hinder]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Marie Goldman]

I will make some more progress.

That requirement is unworkable. There is not one of us here who does not know how stressed our local small businesses are. How could it ever be proportionate to require overstretched staff in these businesses to police gender norms for their own customers to access a facility as basic as a toilet? The business community has already loudly voiced its concerns. In September last year, hundreds of businesses signed a letter opposing the EHRC draft proposals, given the impact they would have on their employees and their costs, as well as the legal risk they would create.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The hon. Member is talking about employers and their preferences, but they oppose gender equal pay—they would rather pay women less than men to make more profits. Just because some company says they disagree with something or they are against it does not make it wrong. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Marie Goldman]

The hon. Gentleman might be confusing two very different issues. There are deeply upsetting impacts on cisgender women, too, including heartbreaking stories, as I mentioned earlier, of women who have undergone cancer treatment being questioned over which toilet they use because they do not conform with what a woman “ought” to look like.

I am pretty sure that nobody in this Chamber today wants to live in a country where those who have suffered from cancer are worried that they will be challenged on their appearance when trying to use public toilets. Requiring women to use separate facilities, such as disabled toilets, instead of spaces that match their gender is also not a workable solution. I have heard from trans and non-binary individuals who say that it would effectively out them, exposing them to a greater risk of harassment or even violence and depriving them of their right to privacy.

Organisations that want to be inclusive have also been affected. Last year in a statement to the House, in which she welcomed the clarity provided by the Supreme Court, the Minister for Women and Equalities said:

“of course providers can offer inclusive services, should they choose to do so, so long as they are clear about who they are offering their services to.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 959WH.]

However, that has not been the case. I ask the Minister to clarify whether the Government’s position on that point has changed.

Along with Liberal Democrat colleagues, I have regularly called on the Minister for Women and Equalities to take action to solve these serious issues. I therefore cautiously welcome the news that the Government intend to lay the code in May. That will hopefully bring an end to the uncertainty and worry that the trans community, businesses and organisations have been exposed to for too long.

The Minister must ensure, however, that the new guidance is workable and inclusive. The Liberal Democrats will accept nothing less. It must lay out how it will protect the dignity, safety and rights of all, and ensure that trans people are not prevented from participating in public life because there are no facilities that they can safely use. As I think many of us would agree, it is also essential that the guidance is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. It must have a full debate and a free vote.

[Rosie Duffield]

Will the hon. Member clarify, as the Liberal Democrats are opposed to what they see as the interpretation of the law—specifically the Equality Act 2010 —whether they propose a change to that Act? The EHRC is simplify clarifying the Supreme Court’s clarification of that existing law.

[Marie Goldman]

That was a timely intervention because my next paragraph deals exactly with that.

Separately, to deal with the unacceptable legal limbo that many trans people are in, I encourage the Minister to appoint a Joint Committee of MPs and peers, on a cross-party basis, to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of both the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010. The Committee should take evidence from affected communities, including trans people, and propose any amendments or new legislation that it sees as necessary to ensure that existing rights are protected.

Trans people are worried for good reason. Two thirds of them have experienced harassment and violence simply because they were identified as trans. It is sadly an all-too-common theme throughout history that vulnerable minorities—in this case a minority that makes up less than 1% of the UK’s population—are scapegoated for society’s ills.

[Tracy Gilbert]

Does the hon. Member recognise that women are a vulnerable group and that we make up half the population, yet we are still subject to more violence than any other group of people in society?

[Marie Goldman]

I do agree with that. The vast majority of women who are attacked are attacked by men, and those are men who they already know. If we are going to focus on protecting women, I would suggest that that would be a very good place to start.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. Can the hon. Lady bring her comments to a close, having answered the hon. Gentleman’s question?

[Marie Goldman]

I will briefly answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that, although I do not have the stats in front of me, a huge proportion of women are, sadly, attacked in their own home and single-sex spaces will not prevent that from happening.

Protecting the rights of women and ensuring dignity and inclusion for trans people are not competing objectives. Both are essential to a fair society. It is basic British decency to afford that. The Liberal Democrats believe as such and that is what we will continue to call for. The Government must now provide leadership and certainty to achieve that balance.

LGBT+ History Month

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I start by thanking the hon. Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for securing this really important debate, and for their amazing contributions—the hon. Member for Nottingham East gave a particularly passionate and powerful opening speech.

I also thank some of the other Members who have contributed to the debate. I will not speak about all of them, but I want to single out the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) as she spoke incredibly passionately. While I was listening to the debate, I could see her empathy and compassion for this subject, and I want to thank her for that. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) spoke about lived experience and history, but he also reminded us that history is not done yet. We still have a long way to go, and we are creating it every single day.

Several Members have pointed out that progress is not permanent, and what we have seen in recent years completely underlines how important it is that we carry on fighting and never take anything for granted. I also thank the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for reminding us of something that should be obvious: we cannot change people. People are who they are, and to pretend otherwise is harmful and cruel, and we must fight against it.

As equality and inclusion are being undermined both at home and abroad, it becomes ever more important to reflect on and celebrate the historic achievements of LGBTQ+ individuals, and LGBT+ History Month gives us the chance to do exactly that. As Members have noted with great pride, British history features a remarkable diversity of gender and sexuality. The theme of this year’s LGBT+ History Month, science and innovation, encourages us to celebrate the many contributions of LGBTQ+ people in shaping the modern world—from the infamous computer scientist Alan Turing, who literally changed technology forever, to John Maynard Keynes’ enormous contribution to economic thought.

We also recognise those closer to home, such as Barbara Burford, who is recognised this LGBT+ History Month for innovation in public service and healthcare leadership. As a medical research, writer and equality champion, her work helped shaped the NHS’s approach to diversity and inclusion, showing that genuine innovation also emerges through systems, policies and organisational culture. LGBT+ History Month also reminds us of the historical harms inflicted on the community through the medicalisation and pathologisation of their identities.

I also want to take the opportunity to highlight that this month coincides with Football v Homophobia Month, originally established by the Justin Campaign to tackle anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in football, in memory of the UK’s first out professional footballer, Justin Fashanu. The month remembers and celebrates those who have been trailblazers in the beautiful game, while encouraging fans and clubs to share the “Football for Everyone” message and reaffirm their commitment to create safe and welcoming spaces in which LGBTQ+ people can flourish. It is only in the past 30 years, owing to the tireless advocacy of LGBTQ+ individuals and campaign groups, that we have come to recognise and correct these injustices. It is by acknowledging this history that we can build ethical medical practice and inclusive institutions for the future.

I am proud to say that my party, the Liberal Democrats, has a long legacy of leading the fight for LGBTQ+ equality. It was the Liberal Democrats, for instance, that led the repeal of section 28, introduced by the Conservatives in 1988, which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities in schools, and had been stifling LGBTQ+ representation for 15 years. The Liberal Democrats were also instrumental in securing the legislation of same-sex marriage during the coalition Government. We designed the Alan Turing law, as part of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, which granted posthumous pardons to more than 49,000 men convicted of gross decency.

It is the Liberal Democrats that continue to push, agreed cross-party, for an immediate, full and inclusive ban on conversion therapy, covering both sexual orientation and gender identity without loopholes. We have always been a champion of LGBTQ+ equality, which is one of the many reasons why I am proud to be in this party. That was again brought home to me last year during the Essex Pride parade through the high street in my Chelmsford constituency. It was an honour, as I had done in previous years, to be at the front of the parade, carrying one of the rather large balloon sculptures that formed the words “Essex Pride”, and to be part of such a joyful celebration of human diversity and of the advances made towards LGBTQ+ inclusion.

However, despite past progress towards LGBTQ+ equality in Britain, the community still experiences discrimination and harassment on a daily basis, and there is evidence that it is getting worst. As the hon. Member for Nottingham East highlighted, with divisive extremist rhetoric on the rise, we are slipping backwards in this country. In 2025, the UK fell six places to 22nd on ILGA-Europe’s LGBTQ+ rights ranking. To put that in context, we were No. 1 in 2015. As was referenced by the hon. Member for Luton North, hate crimes have nearly doubled over the past five years. Research from Stonewall conducted by Opinium found that in 2025, less than half of LGBTQ+ people felt safe holding their partner’s hand in public. In the workplace, it is a similar story; research found that almost 40% of LGBTQ+ employees hide their identity at work. Meanwhile, around two thirds of trans people experience harassment and violence simply because they were identified as trans. That is appalling.

Indeed, it goes without saying that this past year has been a difficult time for the LGBTQ+ community, and an especially worrying and upsetting period for our trans and non-binary friends here in the UK, following last April’s Supreme Court ruling. Like many other Members, I have received heartbreaking stories from trans and non-binary constituents fearful of even being able to participate in public life. It is simply not acceptable that the rights of everyone, trans and non-binary included, do not appear to be deserving of the same respect and recognition. That is why Liberal Democrats have been clear that the leaked Equality and Human Rights Commission code of practice was deeply flawed, and have since called for new, inclusive and workable guidance. That guidance should also be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, including debate and a vote.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point. When we talk about issues of trans rights, it is so important to consider the very real trans people behind the statistics and arguments. Last year, I met my constituent Hannah, a trans woman, to discuss her experience of transitioning. She told me about the very real impact that the erosion of trans rights would have on her, including the indignity, shame and difficulty it would bring, yet too often, voices such as hers are shut out of our conversation in favour of those who can shout the loudest. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to find mechanisms for voices such as Hannah’s to be given the prominence they rightfully deserve in this conversation, so that all our trans constituents can continue to live dignified lives?

[Marie Goldman]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for reminding us that this is about people. They are not statistics—they are people, whose everyday experiences and lives are being harmed by the decisions that are being made right now and by the awful, appalling, divisive rhetoric that is coming from some parts of the community, and some parts of the political community in particular. We must fight against it, and I thank the hon. Member very much for reminding us that this is about people and that their voices must be heard.

As we celebrate LGBT+ History Month and reflect on the historical achievements of LGBTQ+ individuals, we must also look forward, challenge prejudice wherever it appears, and recognise our responsibility as Members of Parliament to continue to push for LGBTQ+ equality.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Children with SEND: Assessments and Support

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the families who were at the rally outside Parliament today for their continuous fight, which is a battle that has been going on for many years. It was wonderful to see so many of them keeping up the fight and making sure that MPs are hearing their stories. That is why so many hon. Members are in the room today.

I could tell Members about the stories that those families told me just today. One parent has been waiting 91 weeks to get an EHCP. Another parent told me about the rigid attendance rules that punish children who are unable to attend school because of their special educational needs. One grandmother was in tears because she was worried that she would not be able to get the support that her granddaughter needed.

Most of all, they told me about the worry that the EHCP rug would be pulled from underneath them, with nothing left to catch them. That is what I am particularly worried about. I am sorry that the Minister is not in her place at the moment, but if she were, I would say to her that parents need the support to be there. Any new system has to be properly tested. It also has to be trusted by parents, and that trust simply is not there at the moment.

I say to the Government: tread very carefully, because parents are really worried, and they will be very cross indeed if they do not get the support they absolutely need. Governments do not have a very good reputation for getting things right: think of the many disabled children affected by the Primodos scandal, or the terrible birth defects suffered because of sodium valproate. They have special educational needs and disabilities too, and they all need support.

Free School Meals

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

My hon. Friend really cares about these issues, and I thank her for raising these matters today. This is a significant first step in our ambitious strategy to tackle child poverty and its root causes and to give every child the best start in life. I commend the work that she describes; I know that it makes a real difference to areas such as her own.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I warmly welcome this today’s announcement, which has been a Liberal Democrat policy for a very long time. It is so important to have proper nutrition for children so that they get the best possible start in life. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) about funding, the Minister said that this will come out in due course, but that it will be fully funded. Fully funded can mean that those funds come from various different places. Will the Minister rule out those funds coming from existing school budgets, and will he also rule out placing any other financial burden on to already overstretched school budgets?

[Stephen Morgan]

The new entitlement is fully funded and will support schools to deliver nutritious, high-quality meals that meet school food standards to over half a million additional pupils. As I said, we will set out further details on funding as part of the child poverty strategy to be published later this year.

School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to school governors. My hon. Friend mentions that he was a governor up until the election. We really are grateful to school governors for everything they do on a voluntary basis to support schools to be as good as they can be. As a Government, we will always work with them and schools to support improving outcomes for children.

The Department will do everything it can within the incredibly tight fiscal constraints we inherited. As a Government, we are committed to our public services, which we know will transform the lives of children and everybody in this country. We will continue to do that.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

The Minister, in her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), referred to imaginings, but I do not think it is an imagining to suggest that the Secretary of State, in her response to the STRB, said that some efficiency savings would have to be found in schools to meet the additional costs. Earlier this week, I had a roundtable with headteachers from my constituency and beyond. The Minister also talked just now about “fantasising about the future”. Is she really telling me that those headteachers were fantasising about the future when they told me that they were already having to make cuts to staffing numbers for next September? One headteacher told me that just one or two more things need to go wrong and that they are on the brink of collapse. Is the Minister saying that they are fantasising about the future?

[Catherine McKinnell]

No. We recognise how important it is for schools to plan their budgets and we know that they are keenly awaiting the announcement this afternoon. That is why we have made the announcement as quickly as possible, and much quicker than at any point over the past 10 years. We will continue to work with schools to help them deliver for the children in their care. We know that that is their priority and it is our priority, too.

Free School Meals

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liz Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Schools are now being forced to subsidise meals from their already overstretched budgets, which takes away from vital resources such as staff salaries and school supplies.

For Chander’s Ford infant school, the cost of providing meals now exceeds Government funding by £1.11 per meal, forcing it to find another £31,468 out of its budget for the financial year. Schools should not be forced to cut services or make tough decisions to cover the cost of meals that should be fully funded.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

My hon. Friend said that it is important that children are well fed, and I want to focus on the word “well”. Does she agree that this is about not just the amount of food that we provide for children, but the quality? It is really important that children receive highly nutritious content that releases energy slowly throughout the day and enables them to concentrate. Does she agree that, given that school face such difficulties with their budgets, there is an understandable temptation to look at less costly solutions for food, which is potentially very dangerous for children’s long-term health outcomes and ability to learn?

Education, Health and Care Plans

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

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.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this important debate to the Chamber, as she is right to mention the timescales. As she knows, in 2023 only half of EHCPs were issued within the statutory 20 weeks, and whether children receive support depends too much on their postcode and how well their parents can navigate what can only be described as a chaotic system. Does she agree that the special educational needs and disabilities system is failing families? We cannot have a sticking-plaster solution; we need a root-and-branch review.

[Marie Goldman]

I wholeheartedly agree that the system is completely broken and needs complete reform. I gently say to the Minister and anybody listening to the debate that the longer that reform takes, the more harmful it will be for children. Children are suffering right now because they are not getting the support they need. Children keep getting older; they do not wait for Governments to decide what they are going to do or for root-and-branch reforms. Children and their parents need the support right now. Although I would absolutely welcome a wholesale review and change, there are things we can do now to alleviate the problems. If the Minister takes away only one thing from the debate, I hope it is the plea for more to be done now and for the reform and implementation to be sped up. I will come in a bit to the things we can do.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this vital and important debate. She talks about inequality, and SEND funding is unequal across the country. Somerset council is part of the f40 group, which includes a number of the most poorly funded councils across the country. It received less than £8,000 in gross dedicated grant funding per mainstream pupil in 2024-25, which is more than £5,000 less than the best-funded local authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must tackle this postcode lottery and urgently provide better support for some of our nation’s most vulnerable pupils?

[Marie Goldman]

Of course, and my hon. Friend raises an important point. We must tackle that inequality. The Government will say, “We put £1 billion of extra funding into special educational needs.” That is great—it is much better than no extra money for special educational needs—but it will not touch the sides. Local authorities are saying that they have a deficit in the high needs block of £3 billion, and some estimates say that that will go up to £8 billion in the near future. We are looking at a massive funding shortfall.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing today’s important debate. In Slough, attainment outcomes for children with special educational needs and disabilities were below the national average, and that is precisely why we need more funding and resources for Slough children. As a parent, I can only imagine the anguish of parents who have to navigate the complex and time-consuming process of gaining an EHCP, particularly given that only half of EHCPs are issued within the statutory 20-week limit and 98% of appeals are successful. Does the hon. Lady agree that, to improve EHCPs, we need first to regain the trust and confidence of parents?

[Marie Goldman]

Absolutely. Parents’ trust in the system is important, so we need to show that we are listening to them. We also need to show that we are giving them the information they need to alleviate their stress. Someone who has a child with special educational needs knows that their child needs extra support. This is already a stressful time in their life; they then have to sit and wait for an EHCP to land in their inbox, perhaps in week 19 —it is supposed to be 20 weeks, so of course it should land in week 19—but then it does not turn up, and keeps on not turning up. That is incredibly stressful, and it takes away parents’ trust in the system. We should be more transparent about that.

We talk about an EHCP being issued within 20 weeks, but across England 37.4% of decisions took six months or longer—that is just ridiculous—and 5.7% took a year or longer. That is completely unacceptable, and it leaves parents in a very difficult place. We need to be more honest with parents and to make that information much more available to them. My new clause 3 to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill would help to make the system much more transparent for parents by making local authorities publish how well they are performing against those statutory deadlines. That would be much better for parents.

What is the impact on children? We must remember that we are not talking about random numbers or about figures on a spreadsheet somewhere; these are real children who have real lives, real parents and real families. They have aspirations in life, and we need to support them. What does all this mean for them? One SEND professional wrote to me about one child’s case:

“This child, who is autistic, non-verbal, and has sensory processing challenges, applied for an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP) in October 2023. It is now January 2025, and they are still waiting for their EHCP to be issued. In the meantime, they are placed in a mainstream school with no tailored support. The result has been incredibly stressful for the child, their family, and the staff working with them. The school has now reached a point where they cannot cope, and the child is being home-schooled, isolated from peers and without access to the specialized education they need and deserve.”

One SEND co-ordinator, who is also a teacher, wrote to me:

“It is very frustrating with the length of time it is taking for EHCPs to be finalised. Although they are back-dating the funding (which is great), by the time the EHCP actually is agreed, it is often too late for parents to request school placements ready for a transition at the start of the school year, which is often what we need it for.”

There is a preference for mainstream, and I hear the Government say that we should educate as many children as possible in mainstream. I do not fundamentally disagree, but mainstream is not suitable for all children, and certainly not when mainstream schools do not have the resources they need to provide education and support.

Mainstream sounds good in principle. However, Contact—a charity for families with disabled children—wrote to me, saying, “Local Authorities like Essex”—again, that is where I am—

“are reducing the provision in section F for a child with an EHCP as they believe that a lot of the provision in section F comes under ordinarily available provision, which they say the school can provide as standard. All the special educational provision that a child with an EHCP needs is legally required to be stated in section F of an EHCP. It is through section F that there is a legal duty for Local Authorities to make this provision. Parents have been told by schools that there is no funding for SEN provision or ordinarily available support. How can children be reliant on SEN support when there is no funding for it?”

Schools are really struggling to deal with the situation. The idea of mainstream and of “ordinarily available” provision is great, but not if schools are not provided with the funding they need. I know that the Government can say, “Well, we have increased the funding for schools,” and they have also increased teacher pay, which is great— teachers absolutely should be paid more—but they have also told schools that teacher pay needs to be funded out of their budgets, which makes the situation very difficult.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I must congratulate my hon. Friend on her preparation for this debate, which has attracted so many people to Westminster Hall today—except, of course, from the party that created a lot of the problems we now face. On her point about mainstreaming and special school education, does she agree not only that many rural areas are underfunded but that people in those areas face the additional challenge of expensive home-to-school transport to access specialist provision, because there is insufficient budget for that transport? That issue needs to be addressed if we are to have an even playing field across the country.

[Marie Goldman]

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.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important and timely debate. Even when plans are eventually put in place, children and young people struggle to get suitable school places. They face hours of travel each day, especially in rural areas, or they are left at home without appropriate education. Does my hon. Friend agree that funding needs to ensure that provision is local, meets needs and is well resourced?

[Marie Goldman]

Yes, and it is very hard to disagree with that point. Of course provision needs to recognise what the local challenges are, and those differ in different localities. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.

Let me return to LSAs and the support they provide in schools. Often, there are several children with EHCPs in a class, so it is sometimes necessary to have more than one LSA to support them. However, it is hard to recruit LSAs, because, as schools have told me, the salaries do not match the skills that LSAs require. Also, LSAs are not suitable in all cases, because young people with severe special educational needs can—through no fault of their own; I want to make that very clear—be very disruptive and, unfortunately, endanger other children if they are not properly supervised. That is why it is really important that we have LSAs, teaching assistants and all the support staff necessary to support these children. One special educational needs co-ordinator told me:

“As much as the LSA children don’t need 1:1 support full-time, there are some children that really do require 1, or sometimes 2, adults with them throughout the day if everyone is to be kept safe and for the child to have their self-care needs met in a mainstream environment.”

We talk a lot about schools, but this issue also affects further education—for example, sixth-form colleges. They tell me that the annual reviews that are done as part of the EHCP process focus too much on educational attainment and on academic achievement and progress, when colleges in fact need to understand what special measures they need to put in place to best meet the needs of the children who are coming in. That is not necessarily about academic achievement; it is about how colleges can best manage the behaviour that pupils exhibit and keep them safe. Colleges say that, unfortunately, EHCPs do not place enough emphasis on behaviour, and their plea—I hope the Minister is listening—is that if we look at the EHCP process, we should encourage it to focus on that issue and not just on educational attainment. Colleges also say that some information in the annual review of behaviour is historical, and might put sixth-form colleges off accepting pupils, even though it would be perfectly appropriate to accept them because their behaviour had changed and they could be supported in different ways.

I also want to emphasise the importance of early intervention, because addressing issues early is key. Some children will not need support throughout their entire life or even their entire school life, but getting in early, especially with speech and language issues, can help children to progress just as well as children who did not need additional support. It is not necessarily always about long-term support; sometimes it is about early intervention, and then we can save money later.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

It was good to hear yesterday from the all-party parliamentary group on special educational needs and disabilities about the importance of early intervention. We heard from the Lancashire and South Cumbria integrated care board, which showcased its really interesting work. On the back of that, I reached out to my ICB in Suffolk and North East Essex and I understand that the health response there on early interventions is quite good. Bearing in mind that the hon. Lady and I both represent Essex constituencies, it would be worth her looking at the ICB connected to her area. Perhaps we could work together on improving outcomes for parents and kids in Colchester and Chelmsford.

[Marie Goldman]

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.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

We are going to work out the time limit for everyone, because 34 names were submitted to speak, but I think there may be even more Members in this room now. The Clerk has done the calculation and it is 75 seconds each—one minute 15 seconds. We will start, as a model of brevity, with the Chair of the Education Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman]

Thank you, Dr Huq. I am not sure I thanked you for your chairmanship earlier, so I thank you now. I also thank all hon. Members who took part in this important debate and contributed, in some circumstances, harrowing stories. I do not have time to go through them all. I will simply say this.

I first heard about this subject and the terrible state that special educational needs provision was in at around this time last year. A parent raised it with me and told me what was going on. When I started digging into it, I learned that parents just did not feel heard; they felt that nobody was listening to them. Any parent and anybody involved in education who has been battling this issue can see in the debate here today that we are listening now. We will keep holding the Government’s feet to the fire and making sure that they make progress. I very much hope they do—indeed, I have faith that they do indeed want to make progress. I thank Members again for taking part. I hope we make progress very soon.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for education, health and care plans.

Government and Democracy Education

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger]

I will come to that point, because I think that the review is a golden opportunity.

The commission confirmed what I and others here know: too many young people do not understand how to participate in our democratic processes, and their lack of motivation is due to a lack of knowledge about parties and candidates. If we want young people to engage more in elections, for their sake and ours, we must work harder to ensure they understand and value our democracy.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

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?

[John Slinger]

I wholeheartedly agree. It is critical that we educate our young people about the different tiers of government and the responsibilities of elected representatives within them.

I will touch briefly on the history of citizenship in our education system. Since 2002, citizenship has been a statutory foundation national curriculum subject at key stages 3 and 4. Luke Brown, a teacher at Lawrence Sheriff school in Rugby, told me:

“A big concern is the increasingly limited time given to Citizenship and, therefore, politics.”

Citizenship remains a non-statutory programme of study at key stages 1 and 2—or primary, to use the old parlance—where, as teachers tell me, a similar situation ensues, and other priorities all too often drown out citizenship. According to the 2018 Lords report, citizenship peaked between 2009 and 2011, and declined particularly under the last Government’s curriculum review in 2013. The report found that

“citizenship was never fully embedded into the education system”.

The same happened with other subjects that were, in my view, wrongly regarded by the previous Government as subsidiary. The English baccalaureate, introduced in 2010, did not include citizenship. Furthermore, there has been a substantial decline in the number of students studying the citizenship GCSE and the number of specialist teachers.

With our new Government’s curriculum review, we have a golden opportunity to put that right. Like all MPs, I make a big effort to visit as many primary and secondary schools as I can. The biggest privilege and—dare I say it?—challenge of being an MP is not speaking in Chambers like this one but answering questions from young people in schools. When I visit schools, I find that young people are generally interested in politics. For example, the children of Paddox primary school in my constituency were hugely excited about the competition that staff are running about politics, with the prize being a tour of Parliament. A constituent of mine, Ian Dewes, the CEO of the Odyssey Collaborative Trust, said that Parliament’s education team “were fantastic” and pointed out that such visits helped to

“break down class and social barriers.”

When children of Long Lawford primary school welcomed me and the early years Minister for a visit, it was clear that their teachers had educated them well about the political system. Those are exemplars of best practice, but they should be standard across the whole country.

I would be grateful to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about how her Department will ensure a more coherent, better resourced system that gives these subjects the higher priority that they deserve. I hope, first, that she will consider confirming citizenship as a statutory subject in the national curriculum at all stages, not just key stages 3 and 4; as with literacy, the younger we start, the deeper the understanding. Secondly, will she provide guidance to all schools about what they are expected to teach and resources to do so, including lesson packs and training for non-specialist teachers? Thirdly, will she ensure coherence and common standards across the entire maintained sector? Fourthly, will she reform progress 8 to ensure that any new system of measuring schools gives the same value to citizenship as to other national curriculum foundation GCSE subjects? Finally, will she take action to incentivise the training of specialist citizenship teachers?

Another part of learning about government and democracy should, of course, be participating in it within school and the wider world, as other hon. Members have said.

SEND Provision: East of England

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

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.

SEND Provision

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burgon]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, because early intervention is so important, both in giving adequate and timely support to young people and, in the long run, in keeping the costs down; without early intervention, the problems that children face can only get worse and worse. The number needing more support through an education, health and care plan has more than doubled, but the required resources have, as others have said, simply not followed.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

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?

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the hon. Member: that is a very important point, and I certainly agree. I will turn later in my speech to the subject of the tribunals. When we look at the statistics on the outcome of the tribunal hearings, that underlines her point very strongly indeed.

I will make a bit of progress if that is okay. If others wish to seek to intervene, I will take some interventions again later, before the end of my speech. Greater need and inadequate funding are a recipe for disaster, and a disaster is exactly what has happened. In my 10 minutes, I cannot touch on every example of this crisis—