Violence against Women and Girls: Smart Glasses

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this crucial debate. As we have heard, smart glasses can pose a very real threat to the safety and personal privacy of women and girls in particular. Smart glasses, combined with the ease of communication and anonymity provided by social media, have offered a new avenue for gender-based harassment. Recordings of women and girls taken without their knowledge or consent can be livestreamed or uploaded and distributed online with far too much ease.

The initial harm of an in-person encounter is then compounded by social media algorithms. Quick to follow are abusive online commentary, online stalking and other technology-facilitated harassment. All that translates to real-world harm. Reporting in the past week by London Centric illustrates how perpetrators are getting away with it. The publication found that, if these so-called content creators film themselves approaching a different woman every day and post the videos on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok, they can receive millions of views, earn money from them and face no legal consequences. The police are aware, but they are simply working within the law—in this case, law that was written in the last century.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires repeated harassment of an individual to reach the threshold for prosecution. However, harassing behaviour of the sort committed by those who are non-consensually filming women, such as those with smart glasses, is allowed as long as the women are only filmed once. To be frank, the current law makes this area the wild west when it comes to privacy and online abuse. It does not matter that the same harassing behaviour is replicated against potentially dozens of women. All that currently matters in law is that it is not done repeatedly to the same woman. As such, this disgusting behaviour is not only legal but profitable—it is monetised misogyny, plain and simple.

Those who claim, as the men filming these videos do, that it is “just a bit of fun”, need only read about the impact a few seconds of non-consensual filming has on the women who are victims of it. In one case, London Centric reported on a woman who, after being filmed without her consent by a “content creator”, described how other men have since entered her workplace, where she was recorded, to ask her whether she knows that she is “TikTok famous”. Other women have moved away from London altogether after being non-consensually filmed.

[John Slinger]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling speech. Does she agree that, in addition to the need perhaps to change the legislation and for greater enforcement, there is a huge amount of work to be done around education? I am afraid that education needs to be done for men and, sadly, boys. The statistics are clear: 91% of people prosecuted for sexual offences are men aged 18-plus. Does she think, as I do, that we need to be in schools and in the spaces where men and boys are talking, to explain to them just how disgusting this behaviour is and that it will have consequences?

[Marie Goldman]

The hon. Member makes an important point, and I agree, but we have to go after those who promote and normalise this behaviour—by which I mean the online platforms. They are essentially broadcasters. Reaching a mass audience, for example through television, used to mean having to have a broadcasting licence and being held to a high standard; but the online platforms get away with promoting disgusting, misogynistic content over and over again. People see it, so it becomes normalised.

[John Slinger]

The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I reassure her that I completely agree that we need much tighter regulation of the social media companies. Frankly, the tech bros have had it too easy and too good for too long. We ought to find a way of holding them responsible and liable in law for some of the harms that their products cause, rather than merely suggesting that the users of their products are liable. Does she agree that we need to explore some of those concepts?

[Marie Goldman]

It seems that across the House we entirely agree on this matter.

[Shockat Adam]

In addition to the platforms, the manufacturers have a responsibility here. Does the hon. Member agree that manufacturing must come with greater responsibilities?

[Marie Goldman]

Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member for his important intervention, which proves what a difficult and complex subject this is. Everybody has a role to play, not just the victims. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said, it is important that we do not leave this matter just to the victims, but to manufacturers, broadcasters and social media platforms, as well as the so-called content creators—I struggle with that phrase, because they pose as content creators, but they make a lot of money out of this. That is one of the disgusting things; it is monetising misogyny, as I have said. Everyone has a role to play, and we must focus on that.

As we have seen, legislation is falling woefully behind advances in technology such as smart glasses and changes in behaviour on social media. When we legislate, we need foresight about what might come later, not just what is happening now and what happened in the past. We need to write legislation in that way. I urge the Minister to review the effectiveness of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, to ensure that the harassment loophole that I described is closed. I am sure she does not doubt that these examples are indicative of harassing behaviour, not least because social media feeds often show the same video to the same user over and over again.

Every woman and girl, regardless of who they are or where they live, has the fundamental right to live free from fear, harassment and violence—but, to ensure that that is a reality, not just a slogan or aspiration, we have to act decisively. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said, the problem is not a lack of understanding of the issue. We can take simple steps right now to mitigate this misuse. We must begin by enforcing hardware-level standards to ensure that smart glasses are tamper proof, as other hon. Members have said. We must ban modifications that disable or remove the recording indicator, as well as those that might cover it up—a bit of electrical tape might do the job, as others have suggested, and that should not be okay either. We must also expand the scope of sexual harm prevention orders to prohibit completely the purchase or use of smart glasses by sex offenders, where appropriate, including as a condition of release.

The problems with emerging technologies do not exist in isolation. They are amplified by and rely on social media. I implore the Government to take stronger action to hold to account the social media giants—the companies that do not just facilitate, but promote this content. Stories such as those detailed in London Centric would not exist if not for the impunity with which these companies currently operate. Profit must never be placed above the safety and dignity of our citizens.

We should have ensured that Ofcom had the powers and legal backing to enforce accountability years ago. It must be equipped to prevent smart glasses-enabled abuse online, with tangible consequences for the companies that fail to comply. The Liberal Democrats have also called on the Government to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content and activity online, and build a digital world where women and girls can live safely and without fear.

As we have heard, it is important that we acknowledge that developments in technology can still be harnessed for the better. Smart glasses act as genuinely life-changing technologies for blind and partially sighted people. As we have heard, by providing hands-free access to information, object recognition and descriptions of surroundings, they can dramatically increase an individual’s personal independence. However, that is all the more reason for action. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the Royal National Institute of Blind People has reported that users are becoming increasingly hesitant to wear smart glasses for fear of a backlash and of others becoming angry or suspicious towards them. Preventing smart glasses from being used for predatory and covert filming will not only protect women and girls from abuse but help to protect legitimate users from suspicion so that those who benefit from this technology can use it with confidence.

I hope the Minister will take very seriously today’s cross-party calls for much stronger action to tighten the law to prevent the monetised online harassment of women and girls, to give Ofcom real teeth to regulate social media companies and ultimately to provide a stronger legal framework for smart glasses, so that those who genuinely benefit from them are not subject to suspicion or threats.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this important debate and to all Members for their powerful contributions. There is a lot that we can agree on.

It is fair to say that today’s discussion reflects a truth about the age in which we live: that, sadly, the rapid development of technology has presented new ways to exploit and abuse women and girls. While today’s discussion mainly centred on smart glasses, I recognise that many of the issues raised go much further than any single device. They speak to a broader challenge to ensure that innovation develops alongside the safety and protection of everyone, including women and girls.

Our response must be unwavering on that, and under this Government it is. Tackling violence against women and girls is everyone’s business, and that includes tech companies taking their responsibility to keep people safe seriously. Where they fail to do so, we will act. An example of that is our recent announcement on device-level controls legislation. The cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy addresses online and tech-facilitated abuse head on, setting out clear action to tackle it. That is a 10-year strategy, and with the one-year anniversary coming up, important measurables should be assessed and reviewed.

As mentioned, we know that when used responsibly, new technologies like smart glasses can be hugely beneficial. For example, smart glasses have been a game changer for those who are visually impaired, helping them navigate the world around them. However, we expect all tech companies to be designing and deploying products responsibly, with privacy and safety considerations built in from the start. The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked an important question about whether those glasses were designed just with blind people in mind. I think the honest answer is probably not.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), said that companies have made it too easy for perpetrators, and I agree. Companies must consider the risks of their products being misused by those determined to abuse women and girls, and mitigate those risks through design. Safety by design of smart and connected technology means that we can better protect victims and survivors and stop perpetrators misusing technology.

On the question of a complete ban or restrictions of smart glasses, the benefits of smart glasses must be weighed against the harms that they can cause. The Government are already looking into options to restrict smart glasses in certain settings and restricting the sale to certain users. That work is happening at pace. Some settings have clear restrictions on taking images or videos, such as courts and tribunals, which is why the use of smart glasses in those settings is already prohibited. Other settings, such as healthcare and education, have existing safeguarding or professional policies that are relevant to smart glasses and any kind of digital recording. Both NHS England and the Department for Education are currently looking into wearable technology in certain settings as well.

The Government also recognise the concerns raised about the use of smart glasses on the parliamentary estate. These concerns are serious and I share them. Appropriate next steps are currently being considered, notwithstanding the decisions that a parliamentary Commission and Speakers of both Houses can make on the matter.

Everyone, including women and girls, has the right to feel safe going about their daily life without worrying that images or videos of them are being made and then potentially shared online without their knowledge. The Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which was brought into force earlier this year, makes it illegal for someone to harass someone else based on their sex or presumed sex, and perpetrators are already being held to account as a result. This could include taking images or videos without a person’s consent, and it can be a one-off offence.

Equally, stalking protection orders can be used to tackle stalking that is facilitated by technology, including devices such as smart glasses. That work is supported by Project Vigilant, which the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), who has now left the Chamber, mentioned. The project, which is funded by Government, is a proactive policing tactic used by trained officers to identify and disrupt perpetrator behaviour in public spaces.

[Marie Goldman]

The Minister is making some important points; I am pleased to hear that the Government are listening. I gently say to her that posting an image or some video footage online of a woman who has been recorded without her knowledge often does not meet the threshold of stalking or harassment in itself, yet the effect on the woman can be absolutely awful. That is what the police are grappling with at the moment—they do not feel that they can prosecute. Even when the victim asks the platforms to take the footage down, the platforms do not do anything about it. What more can the Government do to tackle those specific points?

[Satvir Kaur]

The hon. Member is right to focus on the victim. This should not just be the responsibility of the victim. We need to design out the issues so that it does not happen in the first place, and platforms 1000% have a responsibility and should take down any images that were put up without a person’s consent. The sharing of those images without consent is illegal.

As I was about to say, where content captured using smart glasses is illegal and uploaded or shared, the Online Safety Act 2023 provides important protections. Platforms must remove non-consensual intimate images, prevent users from encountering them and prevent their services from being used to carry out an offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Satvir Kaur]

I do, although I would add that tech companies are very clever, and while they may not intend harm, they absolutely should feel their responsibility when producing and designing these products to safeguard women and girls. I know the shadow Minister and I agree on that.

I was asked directly about this, so let me be clear: sharing or threatening to share an intimate image without consent is a criminal offence. That includes creating or requesting the creation of deepfake intimate images of adults without consent. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 strengthens those offences further.

[Marie Goldman]

I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being incredibly generous with her time. I feel that this is how debates should work in this place—it is really good to have this back and forth, and lots of Members are making really good contributions.

The Minister has talked a couple of times about intimate images. I want to make the point that these are not all intimate images, but it is nevertheless really distressing when they are shared across social media. I am worried about that focus on intimacy, because it is not always about intimacy in the way that we might understand it.

[Satvir Kaur]

No, absolutely. Irrespective, if someone’s image is out there without their consent, that is a problem.

I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for sharing the harrowing story of Isabella, and I thank Isabella for allowing him to do so. It is completely unacceptable. Stories like that, which I sadly now hear on a very regular basis, make me and the Government even more determined to tackle this issue and focus on supporting the victim. We have heard so many times about how women and girls can act differently, and nothing frustrates me more. We really need to go for the perpetrators and for those that are creating the harm—big tech companies.

I want to reassure the hon. Member that misogyny, and particularly online misogyny, is being taken seriously by this Government. That is why we have created the national taskforce for tackling misogyny, which received £15 million in the Budget to do its work. Healthy relationships are now being taught about in schools. I have been part of one of those sessions, which I found really insightful and powerful. It was a bit sad hearing about teenagers’ experiences and what they think is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. We sit here and think, “Surely children must know,” but actually they do not, because of what they are seeing online.

To reassure the hon. Member for West Dorset further, the Government have looked at domestic violence protection orders to ensure that they are not just about violent behaviour but that we broaden the scope to include abuse, which is why they are evolving into domestic abuse protection orders. There is already a pilot, and we are hoping to roll it out nationally by the end of this year. It will better protect victims, and it covers not just violence but things such as coercive control and stalking. To date, the pilot has resulted in the introduction of more than 2,000 police-led DAPOs, so I see it as a turning point that will widen the scope, increase our understanding and result in the police being given more powers.

I again thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for securing the debate, and I am grateful to Members for their invaluable contributions. This is not the end of the journey; it is very much the beginning. The Government are committed to this agenda, and I am personally determined to ensure that everyone—especially women and girls—can live their lives without fear of abuse. Our response must include a clear and robust response to the technological advancements of our age, whether in the form of smart glasses or any other product. Safety must be prioritised.

Tech companies have a responsibility. This Government will hold them to account, and we will not hesitate to act where they are failing. The scale of the challenge is vast, and we will tackle violence against women and girls only if everyone plays their part, but I am confident that together—including by working across parties—we can do that.

Equality Act 2010 Guidance: Gynaecological Conditions

Marie Goldman Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this really important debate. I would also like to join other Members from across the House in congratulating and commending the campaigners, some of whom are in the Gallery, on the incredible work that they do on behalf of not just themselves but all women across the country and, indeed, internationally.

Millions of women face the difficulty and pain of managing gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis, fibroids, PMDD—the list goes on and on. It is obvious that more must be done to rapidly speed up diagnosis times and provide effective care and accommodations to those with these often incredibly debilitating conditions. Their impacts on women’s everyday lives extend, as we have heard, to education, employment and fertility. Some women leave work altogether because they cannot obtain the support that they need. We cannot—indeed, must not—accept that as normal.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe that there would be merit in dealing with these conditions in the same way as cancer, HIV and multiple sclerosis, which are deemed to be disabilities, under the Equality Act 2010, from the point of diagnosis and without the need to meet the functional test. I therefore urge the Government to examine that proposal further.

As we have heard, however, even getting a diagnosis is appallingly slow. Women’s symptoms are too often normalised or dismissed across all health conditions. I have heard outrageous stories of women’s persistent health concerns being dismissed with sometimes incredibly sexist comments attached. One young woman described to me fairly recently a particularly awful example. She was explaining to a consultant how she felt physically sick because of her persistent stomach pain, in this case while she was out shopping with friends, only to be dismissed by the doctor, who replied, “I often feel sick when I go shopping with my wife”—[Interruption.] There are groans from the Gallery. That actually happened.

With there being grossly outdated and misplaced attitudes like this, it is hardly surprising that it takes an average of almost 10 years to receive an endometriosis diagnosis in the UK. Recent research by Endometriosis UK has shone a light on the extent of the impact of this condition. In a recent report, the charity found that 97% of those surveyed worked while experiencing severe pain. It is no wonder that almost half of all those with endometriosis said that it had made it difficult to progress in their career, while 28% had had to leave their job altogether because of it. The same survey found that employers overwhelmingly want to help, but with there being little guidance and with employers facing the everyday pressures of running a business, the support for these women often just is not there. That is costing women—in pain, in missed career opportunities and, ultimately, in dignity.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have written to Baroness Merron, the Women’s Health Minister, on several occasions to raise the urgent need to improve care for women with gynaecological conditions. The Government know that health-related economic inactivity costs the UK £212 billion every year. Even if we think about this only in such crude economic terms, the action needed pays for itself. Indeed, one NHS Confederation report found that for every £1 spent on obstetrics and gynaecology, the estimated return on investment was £11. It follows that tackling NHS waiting times for gynaecological services should be a top priority.

That is why it was so disappointing that the women’s health strategy contained no specific, measurable, time-bound target to reduce the backlogs in endometriosis care, while the NHS 10-year health plan did not include endometriosis, adenomyosis, PMOS or fibroids in its prevention agenda. Without there being clear direction from Government, we risk consigning more women to even longer waits and prolonged, unnecessary pain. That is why I was proud that the Liberal Democrats tabled to the Health Bill a new clause that would have ensured that the average wait time for endometriosis and other women-specific conditions was no longer than the average wait time for other elective conditions in the NHS. That would be a meaningful step towards equality in women’s healthcare.

Finally, we know that what gets measured gets done in the NHS. I hope that the Minister takes this away and conducts a serious examination of adding gynaecological conditions to the Equality Act 2010 guidance. We owe it to these women to do all we can to tackle this injustice.

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.