Edward Morello MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 May 2025 · Broadband and Mobile Connectivity: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister asked for specific questions. Part of the problem is that the cost of customer acquisition is four to five times larger in rural Britain than it is in urban areas, so the big companies prioritise urban areas, where they can find a lot of customers, leaving rural areas to small businesses that then face the capital cost issue that he refers to. My specific question is this: how can the Government help those small businesses that are trying to connect rural communities to go faster?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I was touched by the hon. Gentleman’s story of his father’s role in contributing to the economy. I hope that he will be present in the immigration debate later this afternoon to make the same points about the vital work of immigrants contributing to wealth creation in the UK. The hon. Gentleman mentions NICs and the other headwinds facing small businesses. One small business in West Dorset has seen its business rates go from £8,000 to £27,000. If we want to help small businesses grow, surely we have to stop taxing them so much.

• 21 May 2025 · Parkinson’s Disease · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart—especially after that flattery. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this important debate. Parkinson’s, as has been said, is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. But behind every statistic is a family, a carer, a friend—someone whose daily life is shared by this illness. My constituents have written to me about their experiences of loved ones living with the disease. The stories they have shared are heart-breaking, with long waits for specialist care, difficulties accessing the right medication on time, and exhausting battles for financial and social support. I know I speak for many here when I say that we must do more. Parkinson’s is a progressive condition, with more than 40 possible symptoms affecting movement, sleep, mental health, speech, eating and swallowing. Nearly half of those living with it will experience anxiety or depression, and more than half will develop psychotic symptoms as the condition progresses. Across the country, there are long waits for specialist care, a lack of multidisciplinary teams with Parkinson’s experience, and serious difficulties in accessing vital medication in a timely and consistent way. We urgently need to overhaul the way that care is provided for people with Parkinson’s, particularly in rural areas. That begins with primary care. GPs are the front door to the NHS, yet we know that continuity of care is beginning to be eroded. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for everyone with a long-term condition such as Parkinson’s to have access to a named GP—someone who can understand their history and needs, and can advocate for timely referrals and co-ordinated care. This is not just about funding more; it is about funding smarter. Primary and community care can prevent some hospital admissions and provide medication and essential support for those who cannot easily travel. That is especially important in rural areas like mine, where distance, isolation and sparse public transport already pose significant barriers to treatment. Care services are struggling with conditions like Parkinson’s and have been stretched to breaking point by Government decisions and a lack of funding. Weldmar Hospicecare in West Dorset is a lifeline for so many families. Earlier this year, NHS Dorset announced a £400,000 cut to its fast-track funding, starting next April. Weldmar also faces a £600,000 increase in costs as a result of rising national insurance contributions and other pressures. It already raises 60% of its NHS-commissioned care through charitable donations, and that is unsustainable in the long term. The same goes for our community pharmacies, which are vital for people with Parkinson’s, especially in rural communities. They are not just dispensaries; they provide healthcare consultations, medical reviews and early advice, often acting as the first point of contact for worried patients. Yet the funding model they rely on is outdated and inadequate, leaving many rural pharmacies on the brink of collapse. If we are serious about reducing health inequalities, we must ringfence funding for essential services and not allow it to disappear into ever-wider budget allocations. We owe it to everyone living with Parkinson’s, and to the families, the carers and the health workers supporting them, to do better. That means listening to the voices of those people affected, ending the postcode lottery and making sure that no one, wherever they live, faces this devastating disease alone.

• 21 May 2025 · Parkinson’s Disease · Hansard source

  More

  I will answer that with one of my favourite facts about Dorset: if we were a country, we would be the oldest in the world by population age. We are older than Japan.

• 20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate, and I agree 100% with the point that she is making. Two constituents in West Dorset support two children with multiple needs—overlapping autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and significant trauma of the kind she mentioned. The funding for a one-off assessment remains, but the ongoing funding to support those children no longer exists, and that is a fundamental problem.

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Just to follow up on my hon. Friend’s point about the importance of mental health hubs, in West Dorset the only child and adolescent mental health services centre is in Dorchester, and for many people in my constituency, especially young people, that means at least a 30-mile round trip to access services. In rural Britain, we are lucky if transport links exist, and those that do are often limited. That makes accessing services nearly impossible, which is what makes hubs so important.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I would just point out that the reason we get that concentration: grid capacity. The grid is constrained in the areas where there is the highest level of demand. It is unconstrained in the areas where we have the least amount of demand, which are rural areas. That is why we keep getting applications there. If we upgrade the grid, we will not have that problem.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I should declare that prior to entering this House, I spent the better part of a decade working in renewable energy finance. While I would not claim to be a solar expert, I could certainly write a whole speech debunking things that have been said today. For the record, solar panels have a lower carbon footprint per unit generated than the equivalent fossil fuel. They are 95% recyclable, and any solar farm development requires a glint-and-glare report before it gets approval if it is anywhere near an Air Force base or an airport. I will move on, because I could go on for a long time. Those of us who believe in science know that tackling climate change means making bold, practical choices about how we decarbonise our economy. If we are serious about reaching net zero, tackling fuel poverty and protecting our countryside, we have to make renewables work for people as well as the planet. I have often made the point that the solar sector is not particularly good at communicating the benefits of a just transition to the population at large, so let me be clear: solar power means cheaper bills for consumers, protection against geopolitical insecurity and a greener future for the next generation.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the answer is in my speech. We have made substantial progress on decarbonising our power grid: a decade ago, just 6% of our energy came from renewables, and today, the figure stands at 42%. That is a national achievement we should be proud of, but we must go further, not just because the climate emergency demands it, but because renewables are the cheapest source of energy available. Liberal Democrats believe strongly in expanding use of solar and other renewables to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, improve energy security and bring down bills. Crucially, we believe that this must be done while protecting our natural environment. A strategic land use framework is essential if we are serious about delivering net zero while safeguarding our ability to produce food and restore nature. We are asking more and more of the countryside—to produce food, capture carbon, generate clean energy, support biodiversity and provide space for housing, tourism and recreation. Without a joined-up approach, we risk pitting these priorities against one another. It is vital that a framework gives clear national guidance on where solar is most appropriate; sets out that solar should avoid high-quality agricultural land wherever possible; and encourages dual-use solutions that support both energy generation and nature recovery. It must enable local authorities to plan ahead with confidence, and to balance competing pressures in a way that reflects the needs and character of their communities. Planning policy should not be dictated solely by where grid connections are available, but by a long-term vision of how we want our land to be used. It is a common claim that instead of putting solar panels on fields, we should put them on rooftops and car parks. I do not disagree, but having worked in the sector, I feel obligated—I make this point a lot—to explain the commercial realities. If utility-scale solar costs 50p per unit to build, rooftop solar is roughly double that, and carports double that again. Meanwhile, energy companies pay as little as 5p or 5.5p per unit for energy exported to the grid. That means that pure-export rooftop and carport solar does not stack up financially for investors, but that is something that the Government can fix. By mandating a minimum export price, we could unlock rooftop and car port investment, reduce pressure on farmland and cut consumer bills. Yes, wholesale energy buyers would earn a little less, but consumers, communities and the climate would all benefit. This is an easy win for a Government who have stated their commitment to net zero. Ground-mounted solar will invariably remain part of the energy mix, and we cannot reach our climate targets without it, but projects must be done right, which means prioritising lower grade land and ensuring that new schemes come with tangible benefits for the communities they affect. Community benefit funds should receive a fair share of the wealth created. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) has tabled new clauses to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to deliver just that, alongside local authority powers to invest in energy efficiency and support street-by-street upgrades to reduce bills. In Scotland, for example, community benefit is worth £5,000 per installed megawatt per year. That means that a controversial large-scale solar project, such as the Kingsway solar farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), would provide £2.5 million annually to the local community. That is the scale we should be talking about, and it must be the community that determines how and where that money is spent. Today, about two thirds of UK solar is ground-mounted, but rooftop solar has a critical role to play and the Liberal Democrats are proud to be leading on that issue. We welcome the Government’s decision to adopt our policy of mandating solar panels on the roofs of new homes, which is a core part and first step of our rooftop revolution. We also call on Ministers to go further, by requiring new homes to meet net zero building standards and include provision for solar generation. When it comes to delivery, Liberal Democrats in local government are showing what can be done. From Barkham solar farm in Wokingham to Sandscale park in Westmorland and the thousands of car park panels installed in Portsmouth, we are delivering clean energy at scale, backed by communities. Delivery must also be responsible, and I know that many of us are concerned about the number of solar farms being approved on our best agricultural land. Let me be clear: I am yet to meet a farmer who got into farming because they wanted to grow solar panels; this is happening because making a living from farming is increasingly impossible. We must ensure that farming is sustainable, profitable, and properly supported, so that farmers can keep doing what they do best, which is producing brilliant British food and looking after the land. I also share concerns about the use of nationally significant infrastructure project schemes, which are taking land out of use. That raises questions about long-term land use and oversight, particularly given the level of foreign investment in the sector. Finally, a very quick word on standards—I appreciate that I am testing your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are genuine concerns about labour practices in the global solar supply chain, but the industry is taking action. Having been part of the Solar Energy UK supply chain sustainability working group when it was first constituted, I can personally attest that the industry is taking the issue very seriously. Through the solar stewardship initiative, robust environmental, social and governance and traceability standards are being applied to ensure compliance with UK and EU laws. By the end of this year, certified facilities will be producing 100 GW of panels annually, which is five times the UK’s current capacity. As a result, we can be confident that we can meet our targets without compromising our values. The potential of solar is enormous. It can drive down bills, reduce emissions and create thousands of jobs, as well as protect our countryside.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  It might be worth making the point that only 10% of solar applications end up being built. The cumulative number of applications is completely irrelevant; what matters is the number that are actually built on the land, so while 7% of a constituency may be covered by applications, that is not a reflection of the percentage that will be built on.

• 14 May 2025 · Carer’s Leave · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate. She has been an advocate for carers throughout her parliamentary career, and I thank her for all her hard work. Unpaid carers are the backbone of Britain’s social care system. They carry out remarkable and irreplaceable roles, often with little help and too often at great personal cost. I would like to tell the story of one of my constituents, Sarah. She spent nearly 30 years as a full-time carer for her son, who has profound and complex needs. He suffered neurological damage before and during birth, and although he is verbal, he has severe autism and behavioural challenges, which, through no fault of his own, have dominated the lives of everyone around him. Sarah’s story is one of lifelong dedication and unconditional love. For years, her son’s unpredictable behaviour dictated his family’s routine. He was excluded from multiple schools and, later, from supported living settings because his needs were too challenging to manage in shared environments. He now lives with one-to-one professional carers. The support that he receives is of a high standard, but it costs as much as all the benefits he receives. Sarah no longer qualifies for carer’s allowance because her son no longer lives at home. However, as a mother she remains deeply involved in his care. Over the years, she has given up work. She is approaching 60 with no pension or savings and with health problems of her own. On top of that, she now supports her elderly in-laws and ageing parents. Like so many others, she is a carer several times over—unseen, unpaid and exhausted. Sarah described herself to me as simply “broken” from years of having no room to breathe or recover. Sarah contacted me not just because of the long hours of care or the loss of income, but because of the fear caused by the Government’s proposed changes to disability benefits, especially the personal independence payment. Her son relies on PIP; the suggestion that that support could be taken away or turned into a voucher system has devastated Sarah’s mental health. She told me that she cannot sleep and feels physically unwell from anxiety. Carer’s leave is designed to support those who give so much of themselves to care for family and friends, but we must ensure that that support is not undermined by other policies. When carers are able to share some of their responsibilities with professional services and return to work, they should encounter stability, not the prospect that they will have to return to full-time caring because of sudden changes. However, proposals such as the changes to PIP risk having exactly that effect, which causes immense anxiety among the very people who we claim to be helping, including Sarah, who worries whether her son will be affected or not. Carer’s allowance is just £81.90 a week, which is the lowest amount for a benefit of its kind. Worse still, carers are being punished for going even slightly over their earnings threshold. Tens of thousands of carers are being asked to repay thousands of pounds each, and often through no fault of their own. Indeed, many of them did not even know that they had gone over the threshold, and in many cases it was the Department for Work and Pensions that had failed to update their records in time. That is yet another example of carers being treated as an afterthought. I am immensely proud that the Liberal Democrats, thanks to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife, passed the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. The Act gives 2 million employees across the UK the legal right to at least one week of unpaid carer’s leave each year, which was a crucial first step, but now we must go further and make that paid leave. Caring is vital, emotionally draining and complex work, which deserved to be recognised as such. That is why we should introduce paid carer’s leave and consult on extending the eligibility for it. We should also give unpaid carers a statutory guarantee of regular respite breaks, and not just when a council can afford them. We should also increase carer’s allowance by at least £20 a week, with higher earning thresholds and a taper, so that people are not penalised for doing extra hours at work. Sarah’s story is not unique. Her exhaustion, her fear and her resilience are echoed in stories in millions of households up and down the country. We owe it to her and to every unpaid carer to stop taking them for granted.

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Like her, I have heard from the British Beer and Pub Association, and I have also heard from several of the pubs in my constituency of West Dorset. The British Beer and Pub Association has said that the increase per bottle on beer and cider will be between 5p and 7p. That comes on the back of increases in business rates—one of my local pubs, The George in West Bay, saw their business rates rise from £8,000 a year to £27,000 a year, with increased national insurance contributions on top. If we want to keep village pubs, we need to support them and not keep taxing them.

• 13 May 2025 · Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. On the point about new developments, does he agree with the Liberal Democrats that making the water companies statutory consultees in the planning process would mean that developers cannot build where the infrastructure cannot account for the new houses?

• 13 May 2025 · Local Housing Need Assessment Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate. In West Dorset we face growing housing challenges. Young families are struggling to find homes in villages where they were raised, key workers cannot afford to live close to their jobs, and older residents wanting to downsize find too few suitable options. We need more homes, but they must be affordable, well designed and rooted in the needs of the people who live in them. For the record, our landscape is—in my totally unbiased opinion—the most beautiful in the country, with over 70% of West Dorset falling within the protected national landscape, or area of outstanding natural beauty, as it was formerly known. It is a landscape at the heart of our £320 million tourism economy. Housing policy must reflect the balance we need to strike between delivering homes for our residents and protecting the places that define our communities. Building more homes must not mean building the wrong homes in the wrong places. The standard method for assessing local housing need currently fails to reflect the complex reality of rural communities such as West Dorset. Rigid housing targets, imposed without flexibility or enough local insight, risk forcing inappropriate developments on these precious areas, undermining the very qualities that sustain our economy and our environment. We need a system that empowers local authorities to deliver the right homes in the right places and with the right infrastructure. In West Dorset, 78% of homes are under-occupied, with nearly 46% having two or more surplus bedrooms. It is not a crisis of space; it is a crisis of sustainability. Nearly half our population is over 55, and many older residents are living in homes that are simply too large for their needs and are unable to downsize while staying in the communities that they love, while young families are priced out of moving in, or moving back to the communities where they grew up. It is not just about numbers; every home must come with the infrastructure it needs. Too often, developments in our area go ahead without the GPs, schools, dentists and roads needed to support them, let alone the sewerage system. In West Dorset, our sewerage infrastructure is outdated and overwhelmed. Last year alone, we saw 4,200 sewage spills. It is an environmental and public health disgrace, yet water companies are still not statutory consultees when housing need is assessed or developments are approved. This must change. If the Government are serious about protecting our environment while building new homes, they must require water companies to be involved from the outset, to ensure that the infrastructure can cope and that new homes do not just add to an already failing system. In constituencies such as mine, many homes sit empty for most of the year, driving up prices and hollowing out our towns and villages. We must give councils the tools to tackle this through planning powers and council tax premiums, and by properly assessing the impact of holiday lets and second homes when calculating housing need. The Liberal Democrats believe that this should be a local authority-driven process. Councils know their areas best. They should have the powers to set planning fees, buy land at fair prices and shape the future of their communities. Development should be community led, not developer led. If the Government want to build 1.5 million homes, which are sorely needed, then we must reform the standard method so that it reflects reality. Let us give local councils the tools and flexibility to deliver the homes and residents they need in ways that infrastructure and environment can support, as well as taking occupancy rates into account, in order to identify the needs of people to downsize and stay in their communities, and also make water companies statutory consultees, because we cannot build a sustainable future on crumbling foundations. West Dorset does not need imposed numbers. It needs good, affordable homes that work for local people, protect the land and restore trust in the system.

• 13 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 13 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Affairs Committee recently heard from the Falkland Islands Government about the urgent need for the UK Government to use the EU-UK reset as an opportunity to remove the detrimental post-Brexit tariffs on Falklands exports. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his Department and European counterparts to address those tariffs for a new trade arrangement for the Falkland Islands?

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about reuniting families, the shadow Minister seemed to be utterly bemused as to why so many migrants and illegal immigrants are male. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware of the Doctors without Borders report that showed that a large number of sub-Saharan African women were being injected with such high levels of contraceptive as to make them permanently infertile, because they were being raped so many times on their way here that they could not then work to pay off their debt, because they were pregnant. A fairer system would allow more women and children to come to the UK.

• 7 May 2025 · Educational Opportunities in Semi-rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate. It should not be controversial to say that children and young people deserve an equal start in life, regardless of whether they grow up in a city, suburb or small rural village, but for those growing up in semi-rural or rural constituencies such as West Dorset, there are persistent and systematic barriers that too often get overlooked in national policy. Young people in rural areas rely heavily on public transport to reach school, college, apprenticeships or work, yet bus services in rural Dorset are disappearing. Dorset received just £3.8 million in Government funding for the bus service improvement plan—less than a third of what Devon received, and the lowest funding in the south-west. For too many families, that means there is no bus at all. That matters when we consider that, in 2023, 64% of children in rural villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings had to get to school by car, compared with just 28% in urban towns and cities. The cost of that travel is often unsustainable, particularly at the moment, during a cost of living crisis. For poorer families, in particular, the lack of affordable, reliable transport directly limits access to education. Young people also need safe options to travel independently, but in rural areas that is often not possible. Although we need active travel and cycle to work and school schemes, we cannot ignore the fact that cycling on rural roads is disproportionately dangerous. Statistics show that cyclists are nearly twice as likely to be killed on rural roads than on urban ones. Transport is only part of the picture. Children’s mental health matters too. In Dorset, CAMHS provision is centralised in one location—Dorchester. For a family living in Lyme Regis or Beaminster, that can mean travelling between 25 and 35 miles for help. That is not good enough. Poor mental health affects a child’s appetite to learn, make friends and participate in class. It can shape their entire educational experience. Yet, rurality is not counted in the models that provide funding to our schools and services. The headteacher of the Thomas Hardye school in West Dorset previously worked in a London borough. He spoke to me yesterday and highlighted the difference: his previous school in London received approximately £10,000 per pupil; in West Dorset, it is closer to £5,000. Government funding formulas rely on deprivation metrics and overlook rurality, failing to reflect the challenges we face, such as transport, staffing and access to services. We are letting our parents, children and teachers down by not properly funding our schools. Apprenticeships could help to fill the employment opportunity gaps in rural areas, but current funding arrangements do not take into account the additional costs faced by rural employers, such as transport and cost of materials. Rurality should not be a barrier to aspiration. Young people in my constituency of West Dorset have every bit as much potential as those in cities, but potential needs opportunity, and opportunity needs investment. We must support our teachers, we must support our schools and we must support our children.

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  Too many disabled people in West Dorset are living in fear: fear that the PIP support they rely on will be taken away or that loved ones might not qualify. In recent weeks, I have heard from 190 constituents each sharing their distress about the plans. One of my constituents, Barbara, is 65. She has lived with juvenile idiopathic arthritis since she was three. She has experienced constant pain, multiple surgeries and increased disability throughout her life. Yet she worked in social services for many years and never claimed employment and support allowance. Her PIP award helps her fund the support she needs to give her independence: mobility equipment, home adjustments and private care when the NHS service falls short. Despite scoring three points in some areas on her most recent assessment, and scoring on virtually all areas of daily living, Barbara would not qualify for any support under the proposed changes. For constituents such as Barbara, this is a terrifying prospect. As she put it herself: “PIP is not a benefit. It is a tool for survival.” As we debate the potential changes to PIP, I hope we will remember her words. Disabled people and their carers deserve dignity. They deserve to be seen not as a cost to be managed, but as valued citizens, worthy of respect and entitled to fairness and compassion from this House.

• 6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  In rural areas such as West Dorset, public transport is limited. Unfortunately, a car is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Our current approach to parking is outdated and increasingly unfair. At Dorchester South station, a lack of parking provision has become a source of real frustration, with drivers forced to park in surrounding residential streets, sometimes blocking access to emergency vehicles or cutting off neighbours in their own driveway. Some beach car parks have been privatised, pushing up charges and limiting access. Where parking is available, payment systems increasingly discriminate against older people and against those without smartphones. Apps require good signal or wi-fi; large parts of West Dorset have neither. The use of apps and the withdrawal of cash or card options effectively exclude some of the most vulnerable people in our community, including older residents. West Dorset experiences a dramatic increase in population during the summer, with up to 42% more people during peak months. It puts a huge strain on beach car parks, residential streets and protected natural areas. There must be parking to account for those swells in population, so that it is not our roadsides and verges that pay the price. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the creation of an independent car parking regulator, which would help to ensure national standards for appeals, signage, access and fairness. It would provide much-needed oversight of a system that currently operates with too little accountability and far too much inconsistency. Hospital parking is another area in which urgent reform is needed. Research by the Liberal Democrats has found that NHS staff, patients and visitors have paid out £1.15 billion since 2018 in car parking fees. More than £300 million has come from NHS staff: people who are caring for others under intense pressure are being charged to go to work. We believe that this must change. We are calling for a visiting and caring fund to reduce parking costs for NHS workers and ensure that patients are not penalised for needing treatment or seeing loved ones. What we need is a parking system that works for those who live in West Dorset, for those who visit and for those who rely on fair and safe access to work, healthcare and community life. Until that happens, we are letting down far too many people.

• 6 May 2025 · Dedicated Schools Grant · Hansard source

  More

  I agree 100% with my hon. Friend’s point. I have no doubt that in her constituency, as in mine, there is a similar problem: when the Government talk about a fully funded pay increase, it is based on a school average. In many rural places, we do not have the average because we have smaller class sizes, or we have single, large schools that cover a large geographical area and a large number of pupils, which are heavily disadvantaged as a result.

• 6 May 2025 · Dedicated Schools Grant · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with all the points that my hon. Friend has made so far. This morning, I spoke to the headmaster of the Thomas Hardye school in Dorchester in my constituency. His previous job was at a London borough school in Croydon, where on average he received £10,000 per pupil; in West Dorset, that figure is £5,000. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s funding formula for schools does not take into account the added costs of rurality and providing services in places like West Dorset and, no doubt, his own constituency?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Safety of Humanitarian Workers: Conflict Zones · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing this important debate. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have been fortunate in meeting those on the frontline of humanitarian responses, often in some of the most difficult and dangerous circumstances. They are individuals who willingly step into uncertainty. Many do so for less financial reward than they could find elsewhere; they are driven not by salary, but rather by the conviction that service to others is worth so much more. Their work is not getting easier. From Gaza to Sudan, from the DRC to Ukraine, humanitarian workers are confronting a growing number of complex emergencies, where conflict, displacement, disease, food insecurity and climate disruption are regular occurrences. In 2024, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project estimated that one in eight people worldwide were exposed to armed conflict. Every day, thousands continue their work, delivering aid, supporting fragile health systems and helping communities rebuild. International humanitarian law exists to protect these workers, but in recent years that protection has been eroded. Eight convoys have been attacked, humanitarian staff detained and entire operations halted due to insecurity. The apparent lack of consequences for these incidents sends a dangerous message not only to those in the field, but to the international system as a whole. The UK should be at the forefront of challenging that trend. We must continue to be a voice to uphold the Geneva convention, strengthen accountability mechanisms and press for practical tools, such as early warning systems in negotiated humanitarian corridors, that allow aid to reach those who need it most. The protection of aid workers should never be up for negotiation and must not depend on whether or not a crisis is in the headlines. Sadly, the very resources needed to carry out this life-saving work are under threat. The reduction in the UK’s official development assistance from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 will lead to the closure of health programmes, education services and nutrition schemes in some of the world’s most fragile states. At the same time, cuts to United States Agency for International Development in the United States are significantly adding to the pressure that both aid organisations and workers are feeling. What we are seeing, in real terms, is food rotting at the border crossings, vaccines that cannot be delivered, and aid workers unable to access food, fuel, shelter and basic supplies. The result is not only increased suffering on the ground, but a shrinking of the humanitarian space at precisely the moment when we need it to expand. That retreat is not just a budgetary issue; it is a strategic and moral one. When the UK steps back, others fill the void—often with radically different intentions. We risk weakening the international order that we helped to build; in doing so, we abandon those who continue to act in our name, under our flag and in line with the values we claim to defend. The Government must also ensure that British citizens serving in humanitarian roles overseas are supported, recognised and valued. One of my constituents, who deployed as an aid worker to Ukraine, shared with me his experience of working under the threat of missile attacks without heating, running water or electricity. He was not seeking praise. He was asking whether this House values public service. The introduction of the humanitarian medal was an important step, but the decision to exclude from eligibility those who deployed to Ukraine prior to July 2023 is deeply disappointing. For those who answered the call during the largest humanitarian crisis in Europe, the absence of formal recognition feels not only unfair but inconsistent with the spirit of the medal itself. The previous Government explicitly removed the five-year rule, and allowed eligibility only for events from 19 July 2023 onwards. Minister, how many of the British humanitarians who have deployed across the globe will be ineligible for the medal due to the 2023 cut-off point? I would like the Minister to use this opportunity to pledge to remove that cut-off, so that all those who answered the humanitarian call can be recognised.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Safety of Humanitarian Workers: Conflict Zones · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. From someone who has in fact put himself in harm’s way, that is a wonderful sentiment. There is also the broader issue of how we treat those who work on the frontline of global emergencies, often representing this country’s values abroad. That includes how we fund and support the organisations they work through. We should remember that humanitarian work is not only about crisis response, but prevention, resilience and stability. When that work is undermined, it is not just the world’s most vulnerable who pay the price; it is all of us, because the effects of conflict, poverty and displacement do not stop at borders. They shape our security, trade and the kind of world we leave behind. I hope that this debate will serve as a moment to reflect not only on what humanitarian workers do, but on what we owe them, in policy, in practice and in principle.