Hate Crime Law: Misogyny

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Luke Myer]

I absolutely agree, and I thank the hon. Member for making that point.

That takes me to the next point I wanted to raise, from the second specialist organisation that I spoke to today. ARCH Teesside does vital work supporting victims and survivors of sexual violence and preventing harm before situations escalate; it puts wraparound support around an individual. It raised with me today a practical concern about what will happen to prevention funding, particularly when police and crime commissioners are abolished from 2028. They are often a main source of funding for local specialist violence against women and girls organisations. ARCH Teesside is concerned that the need for services will not change when the structures change, and it does not have certainty about the funding currently held by PCCs.

Organisations such as ARCH need to be able to plan ahead, retain specialist staff and know what funding framework they will be working with. I will be grateful if the Minister can give some reassurance that specialist local services will not lose dedicated prevention funding as responsibilities move away from PCCs, and tell us a little about the clarity that organisations will receive about the future framework into which they will need to bid.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about certainty of funding. Some of the organisations that I have spoken to in my Chelmsford constituency that deal with victims of domestic abuse point out to me that often the funding is project-based. It is not about what they have tried before, have proven to work and want to continue with; they find that people say, “Oh, yes, but we’re starting this new project now, so we’re only accepting bids for new projects and things that haven’t been done before,” and all the great work that has been done before is forgotten. Does he agree that we are always going to be chasing our tails in that way, and nobody will be well served by it, and that we need certainty of funding for things that are proven to work as well as for trialling new stuff?

[Luke Myer]

I agree. This is slightly tangential to this debate—I apologise—but when I was in local government, we set up a specialist team to work with families and young people at risk of exploitation, and we gave them that sort of long-term focus and freedom to approach things in a range of different ways, rather than giving them time-limited funding, say for three months. Chopping and changing can be very disruptive for families, and it is exactly the same here.

The petitioners are right to ask Parliament to take misogyny more seriously. The Government have taken some important steps, which I welcome, but I hope they will now build on that work, look carefully at the remaining gaps in the law and, above all, make sure that the ambition of halving violence against women and girls is matched by what women experience in communities such as mine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank those across the country who signed this petition to ensure that we had this really important debate. Violence against women and girls is a national emergency. As others have said before me, it is really important that we underline that: it is an emergency. This is affecting a whole generation, and I am terrified of what that means for society if we do not deal with it.

Liberal Democrats have long called for misogyny to be made a hate crime so, while we very much welcome the Government’s amendment to extend the list of aggravated offences under hate crime legislation to cover sex or presumed sex, and while I was proud to sponsor the amendment that extended that to LGBT people and disabled people in the last parliamentary Session, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I agree with the petitioners that Ministers should go further and amend the Sentencing Act to ensure that all crimes motivated by misogyny are classed as hate crimes. I also want to highlight that the extension of aggravated offences to cover sex, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity has not yet been brought into force, so I hope to hear a timeline from the Minister on when that will be brought forward by the required secondary legislation. Hatred is just as unacceptable no matter its type; that means that there must be zero tolerance for misogyny.

As the petitioners noted, misogyny can fuel crimes including sexual violence. The need to make misogyny a hate crime and the importance of tackling it early on is borne out by the data: studies have confirmed what women, from our own experiences and those of our friends, know to be true: that the majority of us have, at some point, encountered some form of abuse in outdoor spaces, and that this is so commonplace that very few ever bother to report such incidents to the police. That is why, in a similarly themed Westminster Hall debate at the start of this year, I pressed the Government to accept and begin implementing all 13 recommendations of part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry, set up after Sarah Everard’s murder. That has not happened, I am sad to say.

One recommendation yet to be taken up was to “immediately” improve national data collection and sharing on sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces. The inquiry found that data is fragmented and inconsistently documented across police forces. Given that making misogyny an aggravated offence under hate crime legislation should allow for greater information gathering, I ask the Minister here today how she anticipates making use of that if data on more serious sexual violence is not being effectively collected right now.

The petitioners also called on the Government to act on anti-feminist hate groups and the harassment and online abuse that they perpetrate. I am sure that many of us are aware of the abbreviation IRL, meaning “in real life”, which differentiates between the online space and in-person, so-called real spaces. However, there is increasingly less distinction with what is happening IRL and, instead, a blurring of boundaries between our digital and in-person experiences. Both cross over into the other’s realms with relative ease. That is why it is as important as ever to take decisive action to tackle misogyny wherever it originates, including online, as other Members have said.

From cyber-flashing to sharing intimate images without consent, or the more recent development of AI-generated sexual images, it is crucial that the Government do all they can to keep pace with the rapid technological changes that pose particular harm to women and girls. We need legislation that tackles that in advance of it happening. It is important that we are a bit more prescient as to what might come next, rather than constantly playing catch-up, because when we are playing catch-up, the harm has already been done.

For example, 98% of deepfake intimate images reported to the revenge porn helpline are of women. As organisations such as Internet Matters have underlined, given that not every case that I have mentioned reaches the hate crime threshold, taking strong measures against them is crucial to ensure that misogynistic attitudes are dealt with early and the tools that misogynists may use against women and girls are disrupted. Research by Internet Matters found that a shocking 14% of children aged between 13 and 16 had experienced some form of intimate image abuse and harassment, such as cyber-flashing or having a non-consensual image of them shared. The organisation states that

“these behaviours are becoming normalised”.

For those of us who grew up a few decades ago—let us not go into it too much—that was not the norm back then. Things are changing rapidly, and we must recognise that.

On that note, when the violence against women and girls strategy was announced to Parliament last December, I pressed the then Minister to tackle harmful, misogynistic online content, highlighting the fact that Ofcom’s official guidance was only voluntary and that waiting until 2027 to strengthen it would be far too late. Tomorrow marks the deadline that the previous Minister set for tech companies to implement on-device safety measures to protect children from taking, receiving or viewing nude images—exactly the kind of harm that Internet Matters found children are increasingly being exposed to. I would therefore be grateful if this Minister confirmed whether the Government will uphold the previous Prime Minister’s deadline to big tech—and if not, whether and by which date they will take action on this matter. Liberal Democrats are clear that the Government’s first duty must be to tackle online harms and misogyny, not to prioritise the profits of big tech.

More broadly, I and Members from across the House would very much welcome a recommitment from the Minister to the violence against women and girls strategy published at the end of last year and, in particular, the goal of halving violence against women and girls within a decade. I very much welcome that, and Members from across the House have been welcoming it, too. With data showing that more than four in 10 people arrested during the 2024 riots had previously been reported for domestic abuse, taking on violence against women and girls is not a stand-alone aim; it is inherently linked to facing down the normalisation of extremist, far-right rhetoric and policies. We cannot allow this VAWG strategy to fail where others have failed before. It must be a top priority for this Government. We must not accept a world that tells women and girls to expect violence and abuse.

I thank again all those who brought forward and signed this petition. I expect the Government to consider their calls very carefully and, most of all, to recognise and indeed take confidence in the strength of feeling and breadth of public support that exists for tackling violence against women and girls.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is deeply disheartening that, a year on from Baroness Casey’s audit, the Government have not made greater progress. The victims have already been failed once; they must not be failed again. Previous inquiries have produced more than 800 recommendations, most of which have not been implemented. We see this over and over again across Departments: inquiry launched, recommendations produced and accepted by the Government, and then nothing—while victims continue to suffer.

I wholeheartedly support the independent inquiry into grooming gangs, but it must not become an excuse to delay implementing the changes that we already know are needed. Will the Minister set out a clear timeline for implementing all Baroness Casey’s recommendations in full, and make clear to every organisation with a duty to safeguard children that the hundreds of recommendations from previous inquiries are not “nice to haves” but must be implemented at pace and without further delay?

[Sarah Jones]

The inquiry, led by Anne Longfield, will look at previous inquiries and recommendations and bring them all into the inquiry’s remit. I encourage the hon. Lady to sit down and talk to Anne Longfield, if she has not done so already, to ensure that her concerns in that space are felt.

[Marie Goldman]

indicated assent.

[Sarah Jones]

I see that she has done so already.

The hon. Lady’s point about inquiry recommendations is not unreasonable. I recently gave evidence to the Nottingham inquiry which, among other things, is considering the fact that Government inquiries happen over many years, recommendations are made, and then there is no oversight. The Cabinet Office is acting on that, bringing bodies together and ensuring that it can drive things forward, and that whatever the Department and whatever our role, we prioritise those recommendations from inquiries.

We are making progress on all of Baroness Casey’s recommendations—I would say we are making good progress. The hon. Lady is right, of course, that we need to push as fast as we can.

Police Federation

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, even though it was slightly unexpected for me to be speaking today. I thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for securing this important debate.

The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support the overwhelming majority of honest, hard-working members of the police. We recognise the immense value of their commitment and service, while at the same time continuing to hold forces to account to ensure that communities are kept safe. In my Chelmsford constituency, it has been a real privilege to join Essex police on patrol and to see at first hand the brilliant work they do to keep our community safe.

It is crucial that police officers are properly supported and have confidence and faith in the institution that represents them: the Police Federation of England and Wales. With police officers having no choice in their representation or where their union dues go, the federation must be effective and supportive to all officers. That is vital for retaining existing officers and increasing officer numbers, as the Government have pledged. The reforms recently announced in the policing White Paper must be implemented in the right way, and they must not come at the cost of officer welfare. The Police Federation has an important role in ensuring that.

Sadly, the ongoing police investigation into senior office holders within the Police Federation has naturally shaken confidence in the organisation. That is unfortunately the tip of the iceberg in a longer period of faltering confidence in the organisation. Accounts of poor culture identified in independent reports, particularly towards women, must be dealt with. I have heard from senior female police officers who have argued that allowing them to choose their representative body would be welcome due to these repeated failings. They have shared troubling accounts of where, irrespective of their senior police positions, they have experienced marginalisation, isolation and ridicule after raising issues within the Police Federation.

In response, the Police Federation has committed to an ongoing transformation programme. However, women in the police have also expressed concern that some of the proposed measures to improve the federation are inappropriate from the outset. For example, the federation has spoken of developing a service for victims and witnesses who are federation members, with a particular focus on women victims. That is, of course, welcome, but women have noted the inherent conflict that the current system means a victim or witness can only be supported by the same staff association that also represents the officer who may be the subject of the allegation or criminal investigation. As one officer put it:

“for many women, that does not feel safe, fair, or credible”.

Consequently, the absence of alternative representation can lead to some officers feeling trapped at exactly the time when they should feel most supported and protected.

Like the rest of us, police officers have the right to freedom of association, guaranteed by article 11 of the European convention on human rights. That has formed the basis of the National Police Association’s campaign and legal challenge to allow officers to choose their representative body. In the light of that, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I would encourage the Minister to review the effectiveness of police officer representation, including the potential benefits of reforming the legislation in this area to allow officers the option to choose a different organisation to represent them. Our police officers deserve to be listened to and supported by their representative body, and the Government should now listen and support them.

Digital Exploitation of Women and Girls

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this very important debate.

All of us here recognise that rapid technological change is creating new risks and contexts for the exploitation of women and girls. The speed, anonymity and ease of communication provided by social media, combined with increasingly sophisticated AI tools, have led to new forms of sexual abuse emerging at alarming rates.

In 2025, the Internet Watch Foundation discovered 3,440 AI videos of child sexual abuse, a vast increase on the previous year, when only 13 such videos were found. That is why this debate, and our swift action, are so important. Far more needs to be done to keep women and girls safe online, and doing so is becoming at once more difficult and more urgent by the day. If we do not act swiftly, we cannot be surprised when new technologies exploit our lack of urgency.

[Lola McEvoy]

Does the hon. Member have any observations on the fact that technology has always outstripped legislation, and that this is actually about accountability and the enforcement of regulation?

[Marie Goldman]

Absolutely, and that has always been the case. Equally, we need to learn from the fact that it has always been the case and not be surprised when these things happen. We must not wring our hands and say, “There is harm being done—what could we possibly do about it?” We need to think smarter than that and bring in legislation that is much more forward-thinking and adaptable, and enables swifter action.

As hon. Members have already pointed out in this debate, digital abuse and exploitation are overwhelmingly targeted at women and girls. Research from Internet Matters found that 99% of new deepfakes are of women and girls. Moreover, according to the Revenge Porn Helpline, 98% of intimate images reported to its service were of women and 99% of deepfake intimate image abuse depicts women. It has also been discovered that many AI nudification tools do not actually work on images of boys and men.

We have now reached a point where AI tools embedded in major platforms are capable of producing sexual abuse material, demonstrating serious failings in our current framework. X’s AI tool, Grok, is a case in point. We have talked about this many times before. Grok facilitated the illegal generation and circulation of non-consensual sexual images, yet Ofcom’s response was, I am sorry to say, woefully slow. The executive summary of the violence against women and girls strategy states that it will

“ensure that the UK has one of the most robust responses to perpetrators of VAWG in the world.”

I agree with that intention, but we must recognise that Ofcom’s response was not wholly robust. We must do something about that; we owe it to women and girls in this country to act sooner and stronger. We need more effective legislation and a regulator with the capability and confidence to take appropriate and, crucially, swift action.

I welcome the move to make the creation of non-consensual intimate AI images a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, but that will be effective only if online platforms and services are held accountable under that Act. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have called on the National Crime Agency to launch an urgent criminal investigation into X, which should still happen, and to treat the generation of illegal, sexual abuse material with the seriousness it demands. We must act decisively when social media platforms refuse to comply with the law.

It is also time that we introduce age ratings for online platforms and limit harmful social media to over-16s. How can we expect to tackle violence against women and girls when the next generation is being drip-fed misogynistic content on social media?

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is right. Does she agree that online pornography remains an issue that needs to be tackled? The statistics show that more than 50% of young boys aged 11 to 13 have already seen porn, and that it is shaping their minds about what consent is.

[Marie Goldman]

There are so many aspects to this problem. What we, the parents, saw in the fledgling days of social media is not at all what our children are seeing now. We need to recognise that and act against it. What our children see online is already affecting their worldview. Internet Matters research from 2023 found that 42% of children aged nine to 16 had a favourable or neutral view of the well-known misogynistic influencer Andrew Tate, and that older teenage boys were particularly susceptible. That is incredibly worrying. Decisive action to tackle the digital exploitation of women and girls is needed across the board. Online harm is genuine harm, and we must treat it as such. There is a lot of work to do, but I am keen to work cross-party to get it done. I hope the Minister is too.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I warmly welcome the Government coming before the House with this much-anticipated violence against women and girls strategy. It is essential that we tackle this issue head-on, and to do that it is vital that we do not just talk about dealing with the horrific consequences of violence—as the Minister has said, that alone is not good enough. We must not accept a system that tells women and girls to expect violence and abuse, but which promises support after their lives have been irrevocably harmed.

Training for teachers is a welcome measure, but unless it is also accompanied by steps to properly moderate online content, there is no doubt in my mind that it will fail. As long as violent misogynistic content reaches children and adults online, this crisis will persist. I have no doubt that the Minister knows that. Will she go further and faster in tackling the devastatingly harmful effect of online content right now? Children are being harmed right now; we need tougher action right now.

We were told that the Online Safety Act 2023 would make a difference—it has not. Now Ofcom has released guidance that we are assured goes further, but it is voluntary and any strengthening will come in only in 2027, which is too late. Without clear legal enforcement, social media companies will continue to put their profits first. Will the Minister commit to holding social media companies properly to account? Will she ensure that Ofcom’s guidance on violence against women and girls becomes mandatory, with enforceable duties and real consequences for failure—now, not in 2027?

Finally, in order for this strategy to succeed where multiple others have failed, it must also include ringfenced funding for specialist services, including for older victims. It must work comprehensively across Government Departments, recognise that minority women may experience violence differently and have clear accountability if progress stalls. Will the Minister set out how the strategy will deliver on each of those points?

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the violence against women and girls strategy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

The scale of violence against women and girls in our country is intolerable, and this Government are treating it as a national emergency. Members are aware that we have made an unprecedented commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. This effort will be underpinned by our violence against women and girls strategy. As I said in my oral statement on the Angiolini inquiry earlier this month, I know that there is a great deal of interest in that strategy. Having lived and breathed this piece of work for many months, the eagerness with which colleagues across the House are awaiting its publication is something I welcome, not least because in order to succeed in our mission, we will need everyone to play their part, including Members of all political stripes. I can confirm that the strategy will be published this Thursday, 18 December, and I look forward to presenting it to the House on that day. I will be very happy to discuss every detail and every policy in our plan once it has been launched; until then, I hope that hon. Members will bear with me for just a few more days.

We have not been sitting idle, however. Since the general election, we have taken urgent steps to strengthen the response. We have introduced new protections for stalking victims, launched long-awaited domestic abuse protection orders, increased refuge funding and increased helpline funding. We have placed domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms in the first five areas, and we have begun the process of ending the presumption of contact—something begged for by victims for years. We are expanding support for child victims of trafficking across the country. Because I have a time limit, I will not list the many other things that have been done in this area not just by the Home Department, but by every Government Department. I really could go on.

Those steps are all having an impact, but to give every woman and girl the safety and security they deserve, a complete reset is needed. Through the strategy, we will go further than ever before in our efforts to deliver real and lasting change, and provide every woman and girl across the country with the safety and security that they deserve.

[Marie Goldman]

I stand here today disappointed—disappointed that women and girls continue to be unsafe in Britain in 2025, and disappointed that the strategy has been delayed three times this year, when urgent action is clearly needed. This Government should not have to be dragged before the House for an urgent question on a strategy that should have been published months ago. I am disappointed that, now that it is finally set to be published—on Parliament’s final sitting day of the year—stakeholders have said that the consultation process was inadequate and that the strategy “feels like an afterthought”. Meanwhile, the Home Secretary has been trailing it on the airwaves without parliamentary scrutiny.

One in four women have experienced domestic abuse. A woman is killed by a man every three days. Only 2.6% of rape offences result in a charge or summons. Those are shocking figures, and they are certainly not an afterthought to me or to the millions of women and girls in Britain. The police have called this a national emergency, and they are right, yet consecutive Governments have either sat on their hands or produced VAWG strategies that have failed time and again, as a National Audit Office report showed this year.

How will this strategy succeed where others have failed? How will progress towards halving violence against women and girls be measured? What interim targets will be set, and what consequences will follow if those targets are missed? Finally, as long as violent, misogynistic content continues to reach children online, the crisis will persist. Social media companies are failing to enforce their own terms of service, and the Online Safety Act 2023 has yet to deliver. What will the Home Secretary do to change that?

[Jess Phillips]

I feel every moment of disappointment that the hon. Lady feels about the failures over the years. I recall working in a service during the coalition Government, when we had to cut our child rape service and get the money from the Big Lottery Fund, because the state, in an era of austerity under that Government, took away the funding that we had used for a child rape counselling service. There are many, many years to reset. We have to change decades—not decades, actually, but millennia—of the expectation that women are just meant to expect this violence.

I could have made a document that, like all the documents that went before, did not do that reset. The delay—I am going to do something rare for a Government Minister—is my fault. It is entirely my fault because, with every iteration, the strategy was not ambitious enough. I could have done it more quickly, and then it would not have been as good. I apologise that the hon. Lady has to wait till Christmas, but there have been decades of failure. The metrics that we will be measured against and the plans for how they will be measured will all be released on Thursday. The hon. Lady will be able to hold me to account. I will not be dragged kicking and screaming; she is welcome to come into my office at any point and have a meeting with me.

Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential impact of immigration reforms on humanitarian visa routes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate. I will focus today on two groups, Hongkongers and Ukrainians, as the two largest recipients of humanitarian visas between 2019 and 2024. Recipients of humanitarian visas, however, come from a wide range of places, including conflict zones in Africa and the middle east. Hon. Members who wish to refer to broader UK initiatives, including the Afghan resettlement programme, are welcome to do so.

Since 2021, thousands of Hongkongers and Ukrainians have made the UK their home, including many families in my constituency, who now live, work, study and volunteer here. They have become our neighbours, colleagues and friends. I believe our communities are richer because they chose to build their futures in the UK. Colleagues will recall that, after Beijing’s imposition of the national security law and the crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong, there was cross-party recognition that the UK had a moral and historical responsibility to offer a route to those holding British national overseas status—thus the BNO visa scheme was born.

Since 2021, approximately 200,000 Hongkongers have come to the UK and put down roots in this country, working their way towards indefinite leave to remain after five years. That is why that, when the Home Office published its immigration White Paper in May this year, it was a shock for many to learn that the Government intended to increase the standard qualifying period for settlement to 10 years across the board. That created significant uncertainty, especially for Hongkongers, with accusations that the goalposts were moving retrospectively.

Fast forward to last week, when the Home Office published Command Paper 1448 and launched a 12-week consultation on how to implement the White Paper. For Hongkongers, that paper contains an important and welcome clarification: BNO visa holders will be fully exempt from the proposed earned settlement criteria, and will retain a five-year route to ILR. The paper confirms that the Government remain fully committed to the BNO route. The Home Secretary went further on the Floor of the House by noting that this country has

“always supported…the repatriation of Hongkongers.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 547.]

The word “repatriation” is important. It communicates the sense that the UK sees Hongkongers as people who rightfully belong and whose presence is understood and recognised. That is an important and powerful message. I want to place on record my thanks to the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers for their continued commitment.

The headline announcement has not dispelled all anxiety, however, for two reasons. First, the consultation document suggests that, to be eligible for ILR, applicants should demonstrate that they have earned at least £12,570 per year for three to five years. The intention behind that is understandable—to maintain confidence in the system—but the BNO route was never conceived as a classic economic migration route. It is a humanitarian route for people who have demonstrated a uniquely strong attachment to this country.

Many BNO households are income poor but asset rich. They arrived with significant savings and have supported themselves without recourse to public funds. Given the shift to a new culture and way of living, income patterns do not necessarily fit neatly into rigid salary thresholds, which is a concern. Secondly, there is the proposed increase in the English language requirement from B1 to B2. Thousands of BNO holders have already paid for and passed the B1 test in good time. Moving the goalposts to B2 now would shut many people out of ILR in the short term, despite years of lawful residence, work and contribution.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

My constituents in Chelmsford, which has a sizeable BNO population, are concerned about the issues that the hon. Member has just raised. As for the question of economic migration, many of them came here as students or retirees so it is difficult for them to fulfil the criteria, and they feel that the rug is being pulled out from underneath them through retrospective changes to the language criteria. Does the hon. Member agree that that does not make sense and needs to be looked at again?

[James Naish]

I will come on to five groups who need to be given special consideration, including those that the hon. Member has just mentioned.

Over the weekend, more than 5,000 BNO visa holders completed a survey about the proposals. The results show that if the requirements outlined were strictly applied with no transitional arrangements, only 8% of BNO households would expect all members to be able to apply for ILR after five years in the UK, and 43% said that no members would be eligible for ILR at the five-year point.

Asylum Policy

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

We will work with local partners, councils, philanthropists and other charitable organisations as we develop safe and legal routes. As I said in my statement, they will take three primary forms: community sponsorship, because we believe that is the best model for integrating refugees into our communities; a route for talented students; and a route for skilled workers. We want to play our full part as a country in providing sanctuary to those truly in need. We need to move to a better system. Safe and legal routes will be the way to do it in the future.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I am sure that all of us across the House can agree that a key aspect of dealing with the asylum system is to deal with the crisis of the backlog, which is enormous. The Home Secretary said in her speech that the Government are looking at a number of large military sites as an alternative to asylum hotels. One large military site already in use is RAF Wethersfield in Essex. I understand from Essex police that Braintree district council has been given funding to the tune of about £2 million to help with community cohesion, because that facility is nearby. However, buses are taking asylum seekers from Wethersfield to such places as Colchester and my constituency of Chelmsford several times a day. That is placing extra strain on Essex police in those areas, yet they are unable to access those funds. Will the Home Secretary commit to providing extra funds to Essex police in those areas to help police them?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I think there were two questions. The first was on the backlog of appeals, which I recognise is far too high. That is why we will create a new independent appeals system so that we can run through these cases more quickly, while fulfilling our obligations to have an independent process and provide early legal advice. On the specific point on Wethersfield and pressures on councils, we work closely with local councils and provide funding to assist with community cohesion and other issues. I will look carefully at the example the hon. Lady has raised if she writes to me.

Anti-social Behaviour: East of England

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. Although I am the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for this debate, I also declare a strong interest in that I am the Member of Parliament for Chelmsford in Essex—for Members who do not know the geography, that is firmly in the east of England.

I will start by saying a few things about my constituency. Other hon. Members have spoken with pride about their constituencies and how important it is that antisocial behaviour is curbed. Chelmsford is a lovely urban constituency with lots of wonderful things going on—of course, I am slightly biased—but when I am out knocking on doors, constituents tell me about things that are not going quite so well. They worry about drug dealing, as several constituents told me on Saturday when I was in the centre of Chelmsford. They tell me about fly-tipping, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). They tell me about the noisy car meets around the constituency. I used to live by the Army and Navy, one of Chelmsford’s main junctions, and the noise used to keep me awake at night sometimes, so I know how frustrating it can be.

Structural issues can also lead to antisocial behaviour, including broken streetlights, which make people feel unsafe when they walk around the constituency. We need local councils to be much better at tackling such issues. Constituents are tolerant but understandably a bit fed up of antisocial behaviour, and we certainly need to do more to tackle it.

Antisocial behaviour can very low level, including people riding bikes on pavements—an annoying thing that happens in my constituency and, I am sure, across the country—and when new trees have been planted and somebody comes along and chops them in half overnight. Nobody is going to be very ill off the back of that, but people are understandably frustrated by it.

On fly-tipping, hon. Members mentioned the fabulous volunteers who help to make our constituencies better places. I would like to single out the volunteers of the Chelmsford Litter Wombles, who spend much of their free time going out and clearing up after littering and antisocial behaviour. I have joined them on various occasions to help them clear up.

Many hon. Members raised the important point that everyone deserves to feel safe when they walk around their neighbourhood. Well over half of hon. Members focused on the importance of policing, punishment and tackling crime, which I agree is important, but it is a shame that more of them did not focus on what is driving those issues in the first place, although some did raise it. It was heartwarming, therefore, to hear the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) be the first to substantially discuss the lack of provision and support for young people and the importance of youth services.

Youth services were slashed by the previous Government, which left gaps. The issue is not just about youth services as we think of them being provided by councils; it is also about funding for charities and other organisations that can help, and schools’ extracurricular activities. Schools simply do not have the budget for sports activities, music and drama—all the things that help young people to develop, give them an alternative to getting into trouble, and set them up for life.

The Liberal Democrats would like to see more focus on early intervention and on giving young people something to do. This debate is about antisocial behaviour, but knife crime, which has been mentioned, unfortunately fits into that. We would like to see a public health approach taken to the epidemic of youth violence—an approach that identifies and treats the risk factors rather than just focusing on the symptoms. There should be investment in youth services that are genuinely engaging and reach more people. We must give young people the support and opportunities that they deserve to help our communities and individuals feel safer.

The bottom line is that talk is cheap; it is action that really matters. We need to understand the driving forces behind some of the antisocial behaviour. That is not just about the lack of provision of youth services; we need to see why the people who are in our prisons are there in the first place. When we talk about tackling crime, the ultimate endpoint of that is people ending up in prison, but the endless cycle of crime and punishment, with more crime simply leading to calls for more police and tougher sentences, is just not working. Some studies suggest that 50% of the prison population may have dyslexia or other neurodivergent conditions. When that is the case, we are getting something very wrong, so we need to focus on what is driving antisocial behaviour in the first place.

Unnecessarily criminalising young people makes it only more likely that they will commit crimes in future. We know that high-quality youth work gets results: it has been proven time and again to help vulnerable young people to escape the clutches of gangs. As I said, however, the previous Conservative Government slashed youth services. Unfortunately, that robbed young people of hope and contributed to the rise in serious violence. I thank the hon. Member for Norwich North again for initiating this important debate and for its focus on the east of England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I am not familiar with the data about those notices for the hon. Member’s constituency. Of course, there is always a challenge in distinguishing between the focus of police and patterns of crime. For example, in this debate we have talked about shoplifting but we have seen, at the same time, a decrease in burglaries, car thefts and so on. The police must always be nimble and not allow themselves to be overly distracted by one particular element of crime, but I take the hon. Member’s point seriously.

Recently, the Essex police, fire and crime commissioner outlined the benefits of an additional £1.6 million for hotspot patrols to tackle antisocial behaviour in 15 areas. The first phase of that initiative, known as Operation Dial, resulted in 101 arrests and the issuance of 112 fixed penalty notices—in keeping with what the hon. Member mentioned—across 13 zones. It is welcome that Essex has not been alone in this practice: police forces in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk are also utilising targeted, visible patrols that have the dual effect of addressing antisocial behaviour and serious violence.

[Marie Goldman]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative police, fire and crime commissioner for Essex recently proposed getting rid of all 99 PCSOs in Essex? Does the hon. Gentleman think that would ever be the right thing to do?

Oral Answers to Questions

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is a serious problem of injunctions, non-molestation orders and protection orders not being treated properly. That is why we are introducing Raneem’s law, which includes stronger protection orders and specialists in 999 control rooms.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

Chelmsford’s allocation of dispersal accommodation for asylum seekers is more than 120 beds, but the number found to date is about a tenth of that number owing to the high demand for and high cost of private rented accommodation in the district. What extra support can the Minister offer councils facing the increasing cost of housing asylum seekers?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are trying to co-operate much more with local authorities so that we can deal with these issues, but ultimately the way to deal with them is to get the backlog down and get people out of high-price accommodation so that we can integrate them if they are granted asylum.