Proportional Representation: General Elections

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

When I was out knocking on doors in my constituency in last year’s general election campaign, lots of people reminisced with me about a previous general election when the Liberal candidate came just 378 tantalising votes short of the incumbent Conservative. They spoke very fondly of that candidate, which might not be surprising, except the election that they were recalling was in 1983—over four decades ago.

I also remember speaking to an elderly, lifelong Labour voter who was lending me his vote for the very first time because he had to do something different. When I thanked him for placing his trust in me, he told me not to take too much from it, because his entire life he had never voted for a candidate who had won. I will always remember that conversation. As I walked away, I said, “Well, we’ll see about that.”

Until last July, for 74 years the constituency of Chelmsford, in its various shapes and sizes over the years, had never been represented in Parliament by anyone other than a Conservative. In fact, it had been 100 years since Chelmsford was last represented by a Liberal—something I am extremely proud to have corrected. It should not have to be this way. I hugely admire the tenacity of that erstwhile Labour voter who lent me his vote, hoping against all the evidence of his lifetime that this time it might make a difference.

No wonder turnout in elections is often so painfully low. Our antiquated first-past-the-post system can be incredibly demoralising, even for a committed political campaigner like myself. Believe it or not, I do not like having to ask people on the doorstep to lend me their vote so that, together, we can game the system to get the change that we want. Would it not better if people could cast their vote in a way that let them set out their preferences? They would know that all would not be lost for them if their first preference candidate did not win, as their vote could be transferred to someone else that they also would not mind seeing elected. The turnout in last year’s general election, as has already been alluded to, was 65.9% in Chelmsford, slightly better than the national turnout, which was a pretty poor 59.7%. In Manchester Rusholme, the turnout was just 40%. But these are dizzying heights compared with the turnout in local elections.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady is talking about a preferential voting system, rather than a proportional voting system. Does she understand that there is quite a big difference between those two options, and obviously today’s debate is about proportional representation?

[Marie Goldman]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not think those two things are mutually exclusive. There are preferential systems that can lead to proportional results. In fact, we see that in many places that use preferential systems.

In the election in May 2024 for the police, fire and crime commissioner in Essex, the turnout was barely 25%. So why are people not voting? Surely part of the issue is simply that they do not believe that their vote counts. They do not believe that they can make a difference. Although I do not completely agree with that, I certainly agree that the first-past-the-post system makes it harder.

There are also other things in our electoral system that make it harder, and I do not think that we should be talking about changing our voting system without also talking about them. For example, the introduction of voter ID was supposedly designed to enhance trust in our elections, but the evidence suggests that there have been some other consequences. In the 2024 general election, 4% of people who did not vote said that the voter ID requirement was the reason that they could not do so. Additionally, 0.08% of those who went to the polls were unable to cast their ballot because they did not have the correct ID. Those may seem like small figures, but if we put them into rough numbers, rather than percentages, we can see that, with about 28.9 million people casting their vote, the number of people who showed up who could not cast their vote because they did not have the correct ID was approximately—unless I have got my maths wrong—23,000 people. That is an incredibly high and quite shocking number.

Let us think about that for a moment—23,000 people could not vote because we wanted to stop voter fraud. Of course that might be a good idea if there was lots of voter fraud going on, but the Electoral Commission’s own website says:

“In the past five years, there is no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud. Of the 1,462 cases of alleged electoral fraud reported to police between 2019 and 2023, 11 led to convictions, and the police issued four cautions.”

Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Voter registration is another area where improvements are needed. Research shows that as many as 8 million people across the UK are not registered correctly at their current address. This affects key groups such as young people, private renters and recent home movers who may not realise that they are missing from the register until it is too late. Although the current system allows for late registration before elections, this puts unnecessary pressure on electoral services and risks leaving some people unable to vote on polling day.

We can see the impact that even small barriers to voting can have. Imagine what would happen if we broke down those barriers and got rid of them. We must recognise that barriers to participation, including voter ID, voter registration and the voting system itself, are dangerous to our democracy. I urge the Government to take the opportunity to fix this and thereby to strengthen democracy and democratic engagement in our country.

A133-A120 Link Road

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The hon. Lady is clearly keener on the development than I am, but if the Government come up with some money to make this whole development viable again, I will of course resume my support for it. I would also very much welcome a visit from the Minister, but it remains to be seen whether we will get one. I am afraid that I refused to attend that event in November because I thought it was irresponsible to start a road if nobody knew how it would be funded or when it would be completed. The Minister may, in her response today, refer to a December memorandum of understanding on this matter between Essex county council, the Colchester and Tendring councils and Latimer, but I have to point out to her and to the Department that this is not a binding agreement. Paragraph 1.6 states that the funding of infrastructure, including the A1331 link road, is contingent, and that it

“will only be possible if the overall delivery of TCBGC is financially viable.”

Remember that it is £8,000 per home just for the road. TCBGC will no longer be financially viable. Financial contributions through section 106 will not be enough to cover the cost of phase 2 of the road along with all the other essential infrastructure plans for this development.

What has got to give? Will we finish up with more GP practices closing their lists and not accepting more patients, or more schools without places for local kids? Section 106 funding should be for local infrastructure, not for national infrastructure such as this proposed new A road. The clue is in the term “A road”—it is part of the trunk road network. What is the benefit-cost ratio for this new road? The original funding application said 7:1. A 7:1 benefit-cost ratio is well above the threshold of “very high”, which is only 4:1, so this public investment will give very big payback for the local economy, jobs and tax revenues.

Can the Minister provide us with a benefit-cost ration for just phase 1, which the Government have now retrospectively agreed to fund on its own? This was approved via a material amendment to the grant determination agreement that the Government have signed, allowing the county council to build just phase 1 with the grant money so far allocated. The Government agreement makes them complicit in the wishful thinking that this development will be viable. My guess is that the benefit-cost ratio for just phase 1 will be at rock bottom. It will have very little economic benefit at all, and would never have passed muster if it had been proposed as part of the funding arrangements at the outset.

Without knowing what the phase 1 benefit-cost ratio is, how could the Government possibly justify turning down the request for funding to complete the A1331 link road? I speculate that the benefit-cost ratio of finishing the road is off the scale because of the sunk costs already committed. Labour has promised growth and new homes to voters, but with infrastructure first—

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I would have preferred earlier notice of the intervention, but I will of course give way to the hon. Lady.

[Marie Goldman]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and thank him for giving way. His point is about the importance of infrastructure coming first. Just down the road from the proposed A1331 is the A12 widening scheme, which affects my constituency of Chelmsford, which will potentially affect the delivery of 55,000 new homes, and for which we are waiting for confirmation of funding. Those homes would, of course, go a long way towards meeting the Government’s 1.5 million target. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the “infrastructure first” principle is crucial, and that the Government must not overlook it when they are considering funding?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

If the Government want to achieve anything like their 1.5 million target, they will have to put the money up front for the infrastructure. Here is a shovel-ready deal for the Government to show their commitment to achieve their target of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. If the promised 7,500 new homes are not built because phase 2 of the A1331 is not completed, then Colchester city council and Tendring district council do not have a chance of achieving the Government’s ambition. Without phase 2 of the road being completed ahead of the new homes—which was the original intention—the most likely outcome is that the new garden community will be started and then stalled. There is already standstill traffic every day on the A133 where the southern end of the A1331 is intended to relieve traffic congestion. A few hundred new homes will just add to that gridlock.

In November, in my letter to the Secretary of State, I made it clear that I have not, until now, felt the need to object to this massive housing development in my constituency. I recognise the need for new housing, but my support is contingent on the principle of “infrastructure first”. If there is no new money from the Government and nobody can say when the road will be completed, I will object, and so will the vast majority of the people of Colchester and Tendring. The Government are shifting responsibility on to the developer and local authorities for the road on which the viability of the whole scheme depends. I therefore ask the Minister—although somehow I do not expect a conclusive answer today—to top up the housing infrastructure fund grant so that it covers 100% of the cost, as originally intended, and to publish the benefit-cost ratio of just funding phase 1, so that we can see what poor value limited HIF funding now represents. I also ask the Government to affirm the principle of “infrastructure first”—I hope the Minister can do so—and ask for their acknowledgment that the section 106 money is not appropriate for funding a major piece of national infrastructure. An A road is being proposed here, not a local road, which is why central Government should fund it.

I notified you, very late, Mr Stringer, that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) might want to add a few words.

Temporary Accommodation

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for giving me the opportunity to contribute to his debate. I congratulate him on securing a debate on this extremely important topic. I agree with much of what he has said, and how he has highlighted the problem that we face.

My local authority of Newham faces an absolute crisis in temporary accommodation; the situation is one of the worst in the country. To give the House some indication of where we are, there are 6,700 households in temporary accommodation in Newham, which is more than in any other local authority. That number is growing by around 30 households a month. One in 20 homes in Newham is now temporary accommodation. The cost of temporary accommodation for next year will be £72 million, adding £31 million to the council’s budget overspend. Homeless applications this year are up by 26%, which adds to the borough’s waiting list—there are now 38,000 people waiting for housing.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

While Chelmsford city council’s figures cannot match those given by the hon. Member, they are still stark. It is terrible to see how much they have changed over recent years. Does he agree that many councils around the country face this issue? In my constituency, the percentage of the council’s core spending that goes on temporary accommodation went up from 5.62% in 2020 to 24.44% in September 2024. The number of cases in 2020 was 256, but we are now looking at 500 cases. It is a massive increase that is very difficult for councils to cope with.

Holiday and Second Homes Regulation: Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. On the one hand, we are trying to address the desperate housing needs of local families. We have in excess of 20,000 families on the local housing register, and we know that is merely the tip of the iceberg—the need is a great deal more. On the other, a lot of local families are being evicted from their private rented accommodation to make way for yet more holiday lets. If we do not recognise that, we are failing to grasp the full picture, so he makes a strong point.

I acknowledge that this is an important part of the Cornish economy, but it is worth noting that when one looks for accommodation in places such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, the hotel and guesthouse sector is just as—if not more—important, in the sense that it competes with the holiday letting sector without many of the incentives and benefits that the self-catering sector enjoys. For example, many operate above the VAT threshold, whereas those in the holiday letting sector, if they take it down to a single property, do not. Of course, they face many other regulations as well.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

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

[Andrew George]

That is absolutely the case. As a visitor to the Isles of Scilly, my hon. Friend knows that that is a significant problem, because people cannot commute to the Isles of Scilly to work. It is difficult to commute to work for businesses providing those kinds of jobs in many of the coastal areas around Cornwall, and many people find themselves living in very informal settings, including caravans, because nothing else is available to them.

I will rapidly run through some of the regulations concerned: council tax; small business rate relief; the furnished holiday lettings scheme; holiday business registration, which the last Government proposed, and the planning use class changes. First, on council tax, going back to the pre-history where this all originated, when the Conservatives originally introduced the council tax system—what they called the community charge—they introduced a 50% council tax discount for second homes, because they said second home owners were not using all the services and therefore should not have to pay for them. That was the justification back in the 1990s.

Building Safety and Resilience

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

Let me begin by congratulating the Minister and welcoming her to her position.

As we have already said in this Chamber, the Liberal Democrats welcome the final Grenfell report. We want to record again our thanks to the families of the victims, and, of course, the survivors, for giving their testimony, their experts and their statements to the inquiry; we know how difficult that will have been.

Much has already been said today about the issue of cladding, so I will not say anything about it in my speech. As other Members have pointed out, this is not just about the remediation of cladding; there are many other fire safety issues in buildings that need to be remedied. This is a debate about building safety, and we must discuss other matters.

There are various fire safety issues in various buildings in my constituency, particularly—I am sure that other Members will have correspondence about this in their inboxes—the need for fire door remediation. Either the fire doors were inadequate when they were installed in the first place, or they were installed incorrectly. That needs to be fixed, but the developers, the building owners and, through them, their management companies are not taking responsibility for it. Indeed, they are trying to pass the buck and make the leaseholders and the tenants pay for the replacement of the doors where that is necessary, and using defects periods that may well have expired as an excuse for not taking up those issues and not paying for remediation. In one instance, one of the leaseholders commissioned a survey before the expiration of the defects period, which identified problems with the fire doors, but the developer is still claiming not to be responsible for replacing all the fire doors in the building, although they are of identical design, and the developer has accepted responsibility for these particular doors. This is an example of where the construction industry is, unfortunately, not taking responsibility for the issues that it has created, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

There are other fire safety issues, which we will all have seen in our inboxes. Some of them will be things that we in the construction industry—I have worked in it for many years—describe as patent defects, which can be seen. When someone comes across a patent defect, they can see that something does not work, but there are many latent defects, which are hidden in the depths of a building and cannot be seen by the naked eye. Those defects become apparent much later, and we need to provide a way to help leaseholders by ensuring that they do not have to shoulder the financial burden of rectifying them. Such defects are fundamental to the building—for example, there are safety issues around gas pipes that have been incorrectly installed. In some cases, it has been found that there is inadequate shielding around the pipes, as happened in a building in my Chelmsford constituency. I could go on and on about other fire safety issues, but I know that other hon. Members want to speak and I have quite a few things that I would still like to say.

There is a huge backlog of issues that need to be remedied, and the Minister talked about the number of buildings that need to be remediated. I spoke to a fire safety expert from a local authority—not one in my constituency—who is responsible for looking at all the buildings in the authority’s housing stock. They had to put together a report that had to be submitted by the deadline, which I believe was earlier this year. When they tried to submit it to the Health and Safety Executive, the HSE said, “Whoa, hang on! Don’t submit it now—we can’t cope. We’ll let you know when we want to receive those documents. It may well not be until 2029.” So I would say that the number of buildings the Minister talked about is definitely an underestimate, and I urge her to discuss this issue with the Health and Safety Executive to see what other resources it might need to be able to move more quickly. Let us remember that people are living in buildings that they have officially been told are not safe. Every single night, they go to bed knowing that their families and children are sleeping in buildings that are not safe.

We do not know the full extent of the problem, and there are many recommendations that can come out. We can talk about how the construction industry operates and so on, but let me talk briefly about the planning system. When we are talking about fire safety, it strikes me as very strange that the fire services are still not statutory consultees on planning applications for high-rise buildings over 18 metres. Of course the fire services are experts in fire safety, yet we do not make them statutory consultees. That feels very strange to me, and it feels like a big oversight. I urge the Minister to look into that.

Members have talked about historical issues and the need to remedy them. I point out to the Minister and everyone present that these issues are not just historical. I am aware of buildings less than two years old that have fire compartmentation problems and missing firestopping. This is an ongoing issue. As one fire safety expert put it to me, “After everything that happened with Grenfell, developers are still getting away with it.” This is a systemic problem, and there are many reasons for it. It is partly driven by finances and other things, but as the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, it is also a cultural problem. There is a lot that we need to work on.

I will briefly admit to a slightly guilty pleasure: I quite like watching the programme “Air Crash Investigation”, which might seem a bit macabre. I do not want to give the impression that the airline industry is perfect, but I big up those in the airline industry. The industry investigates issues and crashes, works out what went wrong, and then does not point the finger of blame, no matter where the fault lies. It looks at how such issues could have been avoided, and how it can make sure that they do not happen again in the future. If only we could make the construction industry do the same and change the culture, rather than shrugging our shoulders, saying, “Well, it’s not my fault,” and blaming the subcontractor, the manufacturer or whoever. Having worked in the construction industry for a long time, I know that that happens a lot. If we could change the culture to be more like how the airline industry investigates problems, I would be very happy to see that.

There is another industry that the construction industry could learn something from. I have just mentioned fire safety issues and things that need to be remediated, and I am sure that many people in the Chamber have been issued with safety recall notices, whereby motor manufacturers have to recall cars and fix the safety issues. If there is a problem with the brakes, or anything in the engine is a safety issue, they recall the car and fix it at their expense. I would like to see something similar happen in the construction industry, so that people take much more responsibility.

I come back to leaseholders, because it is incredibly important that we remember the implications for them when there is delay and things are not fixed. Not only is there a fire risk—as I mentioned before, we have people who are on 24-hour watch. Other Members have mentioned the difficulty with getting mortgages. At the moment, many leaseholders cannot sell their properties and move on. That has implications for the housing crisis, because it means that there is less churn in the housing industry, as fewer people are able to move out of their flats and allow other people to move into them. That is exacerbating the crisis. As others have mentioned, there is also the problem of insurance.

Like other hon. Members, I am concerned that social landlords are not eligible for Government funds to remediate buildings, leaving many of the most vulnerable people at risk. I urge the Government and the Minister to listen to the National Housing Federation, which represents hundreds of housing associations, and the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign on these issues. I remind the House that the Liberal Democrats have been calling for the removal of dangerous cladding from all buildings, and we need to make sure that leaseholders do not have to pay for it.

To reiterate what I said earlier, this should not be just about cladding. There are other serious issues, particularly firestopping. Fire doors are incredibly important. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said to the Prime Minister just last week, we need the Government to step in and provide the cash up front to carry out the remediation in some circumstances, and then they should go after those responsible. That would alleviate a lot of suffering.

Finally, I would just like to say that fire safety is not a luxury. It should be seen as a right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)]

I congratulate the new hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) on a brilliant maiden speech—it was quite emotional at the end there—and all hon. Members who have made maiden speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) is still a young lad now, but he was an even younger lad when I had the displeasure of campaigning with him in Burnley—he had shorts on, but he still managed to win. It is great to see him in his place and it was a pleasure to listen to his maiden speech.

This debate is obviously about a very serious matter. My thoughts, and the thoughts of everyone in the Chamber, are with the 72 people—men, women and children—who lost their lives in the Grenfell fire over seven years ago. It was an appalling event and the survivors and the community are yet to see justice. That might mean criminal prosecutions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) rightfully highlighted—I know he is urging for that to happen at pace, as he did yesterday during Justice questions—or, in regard to the broader building safety crisis, ensuring that buildings are made safe at pace.

Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s phase 2 Grenfell report and recommendations make for difficult reading. In fact, digesting them will make us angry. We all have to channel that anger, collectively and responsibly, to ensure that the victims of Grenfell and previous fires, such as Lakanal and in Kirby, are responded to by the body politic and the new Government—my good colleagues and hon. Friends now on the Front Bench. Just think about this: each and every one of those 72 people who lost their lives should still be with us today, enjoying the life that we enjoy and having the frustrations that we have.

As the report says, the event was entirely preventable. It was entirely predictable. But the lessons from history, whether that be Lakanal or the earlier fire in Kirby, were not learned. They were not acted upon by successive Governments of all political persuasions or by industry. I will not name the companies referred to in the report for obvious reasons to do with the court case. Government, product manufacturers—you name it, Grenfell was the result of organisations and individuals, as the report says, being systematically dishonest. Dishonesty was hardwired into the construction and building industry, putting profit before people’s lives.

We cannot escape the fact that this was a political decision, driven by ideology. The coalition Government are referenced in the report: their time in office was basically a bonfire of red tape. It was deregulation—build them high, build them cheap and refurbish them cheap—and the consequences are all too clear. Indeed, residents of Grenfell alerted the council of the day, regulators and the powers that be that this was an accident waiting to happen, and it did happen, with all those consequences for all to see.

Of course, some of this has continued. We have had companies gaming tests of products that were put on high-rises—products that should never have been there. Let us be frank: those products are solidified petrol. Thousands of them were put on high-rises up and down the country—high-rises insulated by solidified petrol. This country is quite unique in the fact that it greenlighted those products through deregulation. It is no coincidence that we had fires such as Lakanal and Grenfell.

[Marie Goldman]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the gaming of the system and the tests. Was he as appalled as I was to read about the way in which those tests were gamed? It is said that those products, which were designed not to burn, failed the tests, so the companies went back a second time. One of the issues with the tests was that the temperature had to not rise too much, so the companies insulated the temperature gauges rather than admit that they had a product that ultimately was not fit for the purpose they were trying to sell it for. Is he appalled as I am that that practice was allowed to happen, and does he agree that the testing houses need to shoulder some responsibility for the fact that it was allowed to happen?

[Mike Amesbury]

Absolutely I am appalled, and as I have said, those products are still with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) will refer to a recent incident in Dagenham where they were trying to remediate the problem.