Fleur Anderson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for securing this important debate, with so many MPs and such a short amount of time for such a big topic. As the former shadow Paymaster General, I spent two years working on national resilience policy, and I am pleased to see many of those policies emerging in Bills in our programme of government today. I am proud to have secured the 2024 manifesto commitment to strengthen preparedness across central Government, local authorities, emergency services and local resilience forums. I speak today as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the environment. Our APPG is currently conducting an inquiry into national resilience and adaptation. We welcome written responses from any organisations or individuals listening to this debate, including any Members here today. Across two critical evidence sessions, we have covered housing, infrastructure, nature and food systems. We have learned from vital stakeholders including the National Farmers Union, Zurich Insurance, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the UK Green Building Council, the Woodland Trust and Kew Gardens.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  No, I only have two minutes; I am afraid I will not be able to give way. The message from stakeholders has been unequivocal. The UK is fundamentally unprepared for the scale of the climate risks that we face. These risks cascade across systems. Extreme heat killed nearly 3,000 people in 2022, but by 2050, deaths could reach 10,000 people annually. Flooding costs us £2.4 billion every year. Crucially, 60% of England’s most productive farming land is at high flood risk. As the Climate Change Committee’s recent report, “A Well-Adapted UK”, warned, nature must be treated as vital infrastructure. To match the urgency, we must adopt some critical interventions. I first want to ask the Minister whether the lessons from the covid inquiry will be learned and shared. It was an enormous achievement to get that inquiry—there was an enormous amount of evidence—but it really showed that Ministers must not take their eye off the ball, as the previous Government did with Brexit and their lack of preparation for covid. We must learn the lessons, and they must be shared with us now. We need stronger flood mitigation planning, and enforcement by local councils. We must embed strict resilience standards, including, among many other things, planting trees, which is a key action. We must act now before the risks become unmanageable crises.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly will withdraw that. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The cost is being borne by families who cannot magic away the detrimental economic consequences of Brexit with a £5 million gift. The damage that the hon. Member for Clacton has inflicted has compounded, year after year. The Brexit effect has built up and up through uncertainty, higher trade barriers, and businesses being forced to divert time and resources away from growth, innovation and job creation. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I recommend that all Members read our report on the EU reset. The most important lesson the Committee drew is that a reset cannot simply be a collection of lots of initiatives; it must be guided by a clear strategic vision. We need a whole-of-government strategy that defines what we want the relationship with the EU to look like in five, 10 and 15 years’ time, and aligns our economic, security and diplomatic priorities accordingly. I therefore welcome the announcement of the European partnership Bill in the Gracious Address. I welcome the priority that is being given to a better working relationship with the EU. This will benefit the whole country through better security, increased economic growth and more investment for businesses. This is how we tackle the cost of living crisis. On economic co-operation, we must reduce the real-world frictions holding back British businesses. A veterinary sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will cut border checks and bring down costs. Mutual recognition of professional qualifications will unlock services and trade, and where alignment supports jobs and growth, we should pursue it. On security and defence, in a more dangerous world, the UK’s security and that of Europe are indivisible. We should seek to return to frameworks such as Security Action for Europe, which increased military readiness and defence scale-up. We should strengthen co-operation on defence capability, industrial resilience and strategic planning. The choice is not between sovereignty and co-operation; it is between influence and absence. On people-to-people links, the return to Erasmus+ must be built upon with a youth mobility scheme. We should reverse the cutback in school visits, and ensure better access for touring musicians, creatives and researchers. This parliamentary Session will include action on social media and its impact on under-16s. Across Putney, parents raise with me again and again the harmful impact of social media. I recently had consultations in schools in my constituency—in Hotham primary school, Putney high school and Ashcroft technology academy—in which I talked to young people about the impact. I talked about the addictive design, harmful content and sheer amount of time young people are spending online—wasted time that they feel disappointed about. I am really pleased that the Government are already taking action; there are consultations, pilots and proposals for restrictions right now. I agree that we must now go further, and with greater clarity. Other countries are already acting on this issue. The debate here has progressed very fast in the last year, and action now, it is agreed by everyone, is essential. The time has come to set a clear principle that childhood should not be shaped by predatory algorithms designed to maximise engagement at any cost. I support raising the age of social media use to 16, alongside robust and enforceable age verification. This is not about being anti-technology; it is about being pro-childhood. The campaign on this issue in Australia is called 36 Months. It said it so well: raising the age for social media use by 36 months, from the age of 12 to 16, gives young people 36 months to get to know themselves before the world gets to know them. Internationally, I welcome our stance on Ukraine and Iran, and urge the Government to go further in opposing the illegal settlements on the west bank, which undermine peace in the region, and to take more action to boycott illegal settlement goods. In Sudan, 25 million people need assistance, yet the funding gap means that food, medicine and water, sanitation and hygiene services are being rationed. Next week’s development conference at the beginning of this new parliamentary term is a test of whether the changes are more than rhetoric and will be backed up by action. If we reverse the cuts, put money behind frontline health and water systems, and back local leadership, instead of bypassing it with top-down contracts, we can effect real change. There is a false dichotomy between spending on aid and development, and on defence and security. Spending on aid is frontline defence and security spending, just delivered differently. Funding global health, WASH and conflict prevention cuts off the instability that terrorists and armed groups thrive on. Aid preserves a political space for diplomacy and stops conflict, the need to evacuate citizens, and the need to deploy troops. This is a King’s Speech for talent. Britain’s got talent and Putney’s got talent. This King’s Speech shows that this Government back the talent of Putney’s young people. My constituents in Putney voted for Labour at the general election for action—action to change their lives for the better; action from a Government in touch with the issues that really matter to them; and action that takes a long-term view of the changes that are needed. This King’s Speech is a programme that delivers on that, and I look forward to working with the Government on continuing to achieve the ambitious programme for change that we promised.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely respect the work that the hon. Member does in his constituency and across Northern Ireland to bring about reconciliation, but I would say that the Bill does put victims at its heart. The victims have been spoken to constantly to create the Bill and rework it, since the Tories’ Bill did not work, and to put the justice they want at its heart. Across the Chamber, we should make sure that the Bill does deliver what he advocates, because it should deliver justice and the answers for which families have been waiting for so long. I must say that I am disappointed there was no mention of the renovation of Hammersmith bridge in the King’s Speech. I live in hope that one day the King will sit on the Throne and talk about the renovation of Hammersmith bridge. We are one step further, because there is a timetable for applying to the structures fund, and I am very hopeful that funding will be announced soon—this year—for that renovation, so that the bridge can reopen for the six bus routes and all the vehicles now prevented from going across it, which impacts us so much in Putney. However, I was most keen to see the focus on closer alignment with the European Union, and I will focus my speech on that, as well as on protecting children online and international security. Brexit has imposed a deep and enduring cost on our economy and living standards. It is the elephant in the room when we talk about the economy, and the context for the very difficult financial position we are in as a country. Because of Brexit, GDP per person is 6% to 8% lower, business investment is about 18% lower, and employment and productivity are down 3% to 4%. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) will talk about everything he did, except the consequences of the single policy that he has delivered. He sold the country false promises, and we are seeing the consequences today, but he is not the only one that bears the cost.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak in this debate on the Loyal Address in reply to the King’s Speech. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) for their proposing speeches and congratulate them. It is an honour to be the MP for Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth Town, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people who have stopped me—on the street, at events or when I go to schools—to thank me for the work I do for our community. That is not often the image of MPs, which is usually about being constantly harassed and abused, but, honestly, the people of Putney are wonderful and I am so grateful for their support for my work. We do not always agree on everything, but they are very supportive of my work as an MP, and I thank them for that. In a short time, His Majesty’s Government have delivered real change that matters to people in Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth Town, who tell me what the Government are doing to make a difference to their lives. We have raised the minimum wage and strengthened workers’ rights, including day one sick pay, protecting renters’ rights and stopping the unfair section 21 evictions. In the last few months leading up to section 21 evictions being stopped, it has been horrific to see that, while the good landlords remain good, the rogue landlords have taken the opportunity to evict people. That just shows why we needed to make that change, and how good it is to rebalance the equation in favour of renters. We have also brought the railways back into public ownership, starting with our own South Western Railway, and I am so proud that we have lifted 450,000 children out of poverty by abolishing the two-child benefit cap. I welcome the ambitious package of legislation announced today. The 37 Bills include those on health, education and security. There is a clean water Bill to tackle pollution and hold water companies to account. There is a Bill to speed up remediation for those living with unsafe cladding, which is still affecting so many people on developments in Putney. There is long-term investment in social housing, and support for victims of domestic abuse to stay in their own home. There is reform of the leasehold system by accelerating the transition to commonhold, including stronger transparency measures alongside tighter regulation of managing agents. This issue plagues so many people in Putney, who have been looking forward to the commonhold and leasehold transformation coming down the line. It will make such a difference to people who do not get enough information on their bills, do not know what they are being asked to pay for and see their bills go up time and again. We are giving them the security of tenure that they have not had up to now. There is also the scaling up of clean energy through the energy independence Bill. The Northern Ireland legacy Bill will build a fairer Northern Ireland, with justice for the families who have waited for too long.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response. I am obviously disappointed that he did not suddenly announce when the taskforce will be, when the funding will be given, when the funding will be reconsidered and when the restoration will happen. I live in hope. I am disappointed not to have an update on the viability of the different options discussed by the taskforce and to have no timetable ahead, but I have hope. I am really glad to hear about the spending review settlement with the Treasury. I congratulate him for achieving that. I understand that it is no mean feat to get that money out of the Treasury and to have that money in the structures fund, for which Hammersmith bridge is a good candidate. I am glad that there are not too many other hon. Members in this Chamber vying for the same pot of money. We are good to go with who we have in the room—that will be fine. I am also heartened to hear that the structures fund opened last week. That is the starting pistol and I hope to follow up from this debate with a meeting with the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, the Department for Transport and Transport for London to learn when they will apply to that fund. I am also heartened to hear that the third-third-third funding structure is being reconsidered. It is not necessarily the structure on the table, but I hope that the one that will get this over the line is the one on the table in the end. I will keep coming back. I am sure that the Minister understands that I will continue to lobby on behalf of my constituents not only about the opening of Hammersmith bridge, but about the District line, about the roads, for more active travel and for the ability of cyclists and pedestrians in Putney to enjoy our roads and get where they need to go on time. I look forward to continue to work with the Minister and other hon. Members. I thank hon. Members who contributed to this debate. We work together very much on this issue for the good of our constituents. I look forward to more answers in the future. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered the future of Hammersmith Bridge.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his acknowledgment of the many years that I have been campaigning on this issue and that he has seen me raising it in the Chamber. I agree that there is no time to wait, because the longer we wait, the more the bill goes up, as well as the hardship continuing for us. Built in 1887, Hammersmith bridge is one of the world’s oldest suspension bridges. It is a grade II listed structure made of wood and wrought iron; its suspension system rests on cast-iron pedestals. It is not just a piece of infrastructure, but part of Britain’s engineering heritage and a national landmark. However, this is not just about history; it is about people. Hammersmith bridge has always been a lifeline, a critical connection across the Thames used by thousands of cars, people and cyclists—and six bus routes. For seven years, that connection has been broken. The bridge was closed in 2019 on public safety grounds after microfractures were identified in the now 138-year-old structure. It later reopened to pedestrians and cyclists, and in April 2025 the carriageway reopened to pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users and e-scooter users, but not to any vehicles or those buses. That ongoing closure continues to have profound and far-reaching consequences for my constituents, especially in Roehampton, which is directly south of the bridge, and in Putney, which has the alternative bridge if people are going east. The impact on daily life has been severe, sustained and deeply felt. Residents in Putney, Barnes, Richmond and Hammersmith have endured years of longer journeys, unreliable transport and constant congestion. I conducted a survey of residents and found that 90% of respondents described the closure as “extremely disruptive”. That comes as no surprise to anyone living locally. This is the issue that comes up all the time, at every event that I go to and almost every door I knock on. Before the closure, around 22,000 vehicles crossed the bridge each day. Those journeys have not disappeared; they have simply been forced on to other routes, creating daily gridlock across neighbouring areas such as Putney. The latest snapshot data from the Department for Transport shows that, between 2020 and 2023, the overall number of motor vehicles on Putney bridge increased by 16%. Bus services were among the first and hardest hit. Six major routes, including the 209, were withdrawn, and have still not been reinstated. Others, such as the 533, have been diverted, leaving services overcrowded, delayed and unreliable. Congestion in Putney has now become so severe that in January last year I called together the bus services, Transport for London, the council and the utility services to say, “Look, there’s a real problem here in Putney.” Transport for London officials replied, “Yes, there is. We look across the whole of London, and Putney is especially congested.” In their opinion, part of the reason for that is the closure of Hammersmith bridge.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that question; I will ask the Minister the same thing. Where is that funding? Has agreement been reached between the three bodies, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Department for Transport? That was the agreement, but where is the agreement now? I am not sure where it is or what funding is on the table, so I am hoping to hear from the Minister later. The bus taskforce that I mentioned has had to meet monthly since then and is still meeting. It is really good and we are getting a lot done—we are making changes to try to get the traffic moving—but we still have the constant background of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, which in effect makes transport, particularly on the roads in my constituency and those surrounding, less resilient. When one thing happens, there is a knock-on effect that significantly clogs up the roads. Seven years on, residents, commuters and businesses in Putney are still paying the price. For many residents in Putney and Roehampton, it is not a minor inconvenience or something we could have just got over in the last seven years; it is a fundamental barrier to daily life. The majority of households in the London borough of Wandsworth do not have a car. They rely on buses to get to work, school and medical appointments, as well as to see family. The loss of these connections has made everyday life significantly harder. Behind the statistics are real people, real stories and real consequences. Ana is a constituent from west Putney who came along to my recent action event at the bridge. She has a 12-year-old son, Santiago, who has Down’s syndrome and complex needs. He attends a specialist school in Hammersmith on the other side of the bridge, which is the nearest school equipped to support him. Before the closure, their journey was straightforward and manageable. Since then, it has become an exhausting and unpredictable ordeal, often taking well over an hour each way. On one occasion, Ana allowed two full hours to take Santiago from school in Hammersmith back to a medical appointment at St George’s hospital. The journey took nearly three hours and they missed the appointment entirely. Even when the hospital kindly rescheduled, the same journey the following week still took two and a half hours. It should take nowhere near that and certainly would not if the bridge were reopened to vehicles. That is not just an inconvenience; it is missed healthcare. Furthermore, the closure has cut Santiago off from important social opportunities. He used to attend weekly football sessions for children with Down’s syndrome in Shepherd’s Bush, which supported his physical health, confidence and social development, but the journey became so long and exhausting that he would fall asleep in the car. Eventually, he had to stop attending altogether, missing out on three years of those vital physical activities. I have spoken about Ana’s experience at length because it highlights something we must not overlook: although the closure affects everyone, disabled children and their families are hardest hit. Public transport is not always a viable option, and the long diversions that currently exist place enormous strain on already complex routines. I have heard countless more stories from constituents before and since I told them about this debate. Caroline, another resident, drives to visit her 92-year-old mother for dinner on Fridays. What used to be a 40-minute journey before the bridge closure now takes up to two hours. Paula told me that her heart sinks every time she gets into her car to visit her daughter and family in Hammersmith. With only one viable route left via Fulham Palace Road, what was once a straightforward journey now often takes twice as long with no certainty about the delays she will face. These are the quiet, cumulative losses—a loss of time with loved ones, missed moments and added stress—that rarely make the headlines, but define people’s daily lives. I have also heard from residents whose cancer treatments have been disrupted, from separated parents struggling to maintain contact with their children, and from students cut off from study opportunities. Some of the words my constituents have used to describe the reality of living with the bridge’s continued closure are: “nightmare”, “miserable”, “unsafe”, “disastrous”, “absurd” and “national scandal”. That is the human cost of inaction on the bridge. The consequences are not just limited to individuals; they extend across the local economy as well. More than 75% of local businesses report moderate or severe negative impacts as a result of the closure. Reduced footfall in shops, delayed deliveries and staff struggling to get to work have all taken their toll. Small businesses in Putney have been hit hard. Customers are deterred by the congestion. Journeys that should take minutes take far longer. Deliveries are delayed and more expensive. The closure has created a drag on economic activity across Putney, Barnes, Hammersmith and beyond. At a time when local high streets are already under pressure, it is an added burden they can ill afford. There is also a clear environmental cost. Thousands of additional vehicles are now being diverted through already congested roads, especially Putney High Street, because we can only go along to the next bridge—we do not have all the options that there would otherwise be in a different area. This has led to increased air pollution, higher noise levels and more dangerous conditions for road users. Cyclists are put off cycling through Putney because of the higher congestion and heavier traffic, making it feel more unsafe. I really am worried about potential cyclists—the people we want to get out of their cars and on to the roads using more active travel—because many in Putney are put off. Bus journeys, as I have said, are further delayed as well. The overall effect is a transport network that is less efficient, less safe and less sustainable, and that is not good for our environment. The situation has now become even more acute. On the other side of us, the closure of Albert bridge in February 2026, again due to structural issues, is expected to last up to a year, and we do not know how much longer. That has placed even greater strain on the remaining crossings and has intensified congestion across south-west London. Albert bridge carried 20,000 vehicles a day before the February closure. With two key bridges affected, residents are effectively being cut off from travelling north of the river in a reasonable and reliable way. Of course they can travel, but it is the extra time and the unreliability that people tell me about. For a global city like London, that is not sustainable. Connectivity is not a luxury. It is essential for economic growth, access to services, and the functioning of daily life. Since being elected in 2019, I have consistently campaigned for the full reopening of Hammersmith bridge to vehicles, including buses. I have raised the issue 26 times in Parliament. I have secured debates and led action days and public meetings in Putney. I have worked closely with residents and with Wandsworth borough council, which is also fully engaged and supportive of the restoring of the bridge. I have also worked with campaigners, including the Putney Action Group and Putney Society. I have raised the matter directly with the Prime Minister and pressed for leadership and urgency, and I have raised it with the Mayor of London. Since April 2019, Hammersmith and Fulham council has spent nearly £54 million simply to make Hammersmith bridge safe. To put that into perspective, all London councils combined spent just £100 million between 2010 and 2021 on maintaining and repairing every road and river bridge across the capital, and even then much of that cost was ultimately picked up by Transport for London or central Government. The impact on Hammersmith and Fulham council’s budget is disproportionate. Thanks to the council’s action, Hammersmith bridge is no longer in danger of collapsing into the Thames, but it still costs the council around £2 million a year just to maintain its current restricted state. That money does not deliver a permanent solution; it merely postpones failure. Hammersmith and Fulham council cannot afford to fund further repair works. Continuing to spend millions of pounds on temporary fixes is financially unsustainable and fundamentally unfair. The current approach is not viable and cannot continue. It is wholly unreasonable to expect Hammersmith and Fulham council to shoulder sole responsibility for a nationally significant, grade II listed heritage bridge. The unfair cost share must be addressed. In contrast to the Albert bridge, where funding is shared 75% by Transport for London and 25% by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, responsibility for Hammersmith bridge falls disproportionately on Hammersmith and Fulham council, which is expected to fund around 33% of the enormous cost. Where are we now? Years of stalemate have produced an internationally embarrassing situation and daily frustration for residents, businesses and commuters. That cannot be allowed to continue. I am glad that the new Government and the Minister have taken a much more active role, as the previous Government were so dismissive. The Minister has brought together key stakeholders for the taskforce. A meeting was held at the Department for Transport in January 2025, which I attended along with the key bodies, including the Department for Transport, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council, Richmond council, Wandsworth council, the deputy mayor for transport, Historic England and the Port of London Authority. The taskforce considered six options, which I know really well because I get asked about them all the time on the doorstep; people want to know what the options were, what is happening and what will happen next. Option zero, which is the one that is kind of on the table, is the Foster and Partners and COWI proposal to deliver a temporary double-deck crossing within the existing structure of Hammersmith bridge, allowing pedestrians, cyclists, buses and cars to use the bridge while the full repair and restoration works are carried out around it using barges. Option one was bridge closure with no access allowed; the structure would remain a beautiful monument, but no more than that. Option two was bridge repair and restoration sufficient to allow for active travel by pedestrians, cyclists and two single-decker buses. That would restore the bridge to how it was before the closure. Option three was bridge repair and restoration sufficient for active travel only. Option four was a replacement bridge with a 44-tonne weight limit—to just get rid of the bridge and build a new one. I cannot tell Members how many Putney residents are in favour of that one. Option five was an offline replacement bridge—one somewhere else—with the existing structure remaining in place either around it or next to it. I really appreciate that the Minister took a back-to-basics approach at the meeting to assess all the options and to see where we are now. In the meeting, option zero—the Foster and Partners and COWI one—remained on the table, and options one, four and five were ruled out on cost grounds. At that meeting, the Minister was also clear that leaving the bridge as it is “is not an option”. Officials were tasked with properly costing the restoration, and Historic England agreed in the meeting to look at revisiting its requirements, which is an important step that could help reduce the previously estimated £240 million cost. I welcome the confirmation since then that funding may be available through the national structures fund and the Minister’s recent statement that Hammersmith bridge would be a strong candidate for investment from that fund. More broadly, the continuing impasse exposes a deeper structural problem. Now is the time to review the ownership and responsibility for all the bridges in London. These strategic assets should sit under a single authority with responsibility for maintenance, repairs and long-term investment. They should be taken out of the responsibility of local councils and put in the responsibility of one single body. In conclusion, Minister, what concrete actions have been taken since the last taskforce meeting in January 2025? Is the Foster and Partners and COWI option still being assessed and considered? What is the current estimated cost—the updated figure—of fully restoring Hammersmith bridge? Have there been meetings, with decisions made, between Hammersmith and Fulham council, Transport for London and the Department for Transport, and has a viable agreed plan been reached between those three bodies? Has an application been made under the structures fund? If not, when will it be made? Either way, when will a decision about the structures fund funding be made? When will the taskforce next meet—I hope it will be soon—and will a firm timetable be shared with it? Finally, has any assessment been made in consultation with the Mayor of London on transferring responsibility for all bridges to one London body? Let me be clear: action must be taken now. Potential funding is not the same as secured funding, discussions are not the same as decisions and processes cannot become excuses for further delays. Residents have waited for seven long years—seven years of severed communities, gridlocked roads, lost bus routes and daily hardship. That is not acceptable for a major transport route in our capital city. It is not acceptable for families trying to get to school or hospital appointments. It is not acceptable for businesses trying to survive. It is not acceptable for the many residents who rely on public transport simply to live their daily lives. The social, economic and environmental costs are too high. The human impact is too great. What is needed now is clear and urgent: a fully funded plan, a clear and credible timetable, and decisive action to begin—and then end—restoration without further delay. The bridge has stood since 1887; it has served generations of Londoners. Now is the time to restore it and to reconnect the communities who depend on it.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of Hammersmith Bridge. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here for this debate. I also thank everyone who attended my recent action event at Hammersmith bridge to campaign for its reopening, and all the constituents—so many constituents—who emailed me in advance of the debate. I know that many will be watching right now. This month marks seven years since Hammersmith bridge was closed—seven years of disruption, frustration and avoidable hardship for residents across west London. The anniversary on 10 April was not a milestone that anyone wanted to reach, but it is a stark reminder of how long communities have been waiting for decisive action and how urgently a fully funded plan is needed to restore this vital crossing. Seven years, 2,566 days, 366 weeks or 84 months—that is how long this situation has been allowed to continue, and those of us in Putney and Roehampton have felt every single one of those days. It is a national disgrace that this issue is not being rectified, but I am genuinely pleased to see the Minister in his place. I am grateful for the many opportunities that we have had to meet since the election and for his engagement on the issue, so I am genuinely looking forward to what he has to say at the end of the debate and to continuing to work together towards replacing the bridge and rectifying this infrastructure failure. I am also grateful to be able to set out clearly the human, social, economic and environmental impacts of the bridge’s closure to ensure that the Minister is under no doubt about the effect that the closure is having.

• 20 Apr 2026 · School Food Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that the consultation on school food standards was launched last week. Many constituents have contacted me about the benefits of having more and better vegetarian school meals. Having fewer meals from processed meat is healthier, better for the planet and better value. Does the Minister support updating the guidelines so that the required number of protein-based meals can be met through delicious plant-based options and not just meat and fish?

• 20 Apr 2026 · School Food Standards · Hansard source

  More

  7. What plans she has to review school food standards requiring mandatory servings of meat, fish and dairy.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Prime Minister saying that he should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. In November, in the Foreign Affairs Committee, I asked who saw the vetting and was told this by Sir Olly Robbins: “Obviously, the vast majority of those are relatively straightforward. Ones that require more senior judgment, and potentially a discussion about managing and mitigating risks, are escalated appropriately.” Questions being asked by the Foreign Secretary, by Ministers or by officials in No. 10 should have been a signal to the civil servants to escalate this matter, given the controversial nature of this political appointment. Were concerns about links to Epstein, to other countries or to anything else raised in conversations with Peter Mandelson, just before the time of the appointment, that would have signalled that civil servants should escalate this?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain; I wish you a happy St Patrick’s day. I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for securing this debate and choosing this topic, and I commend her and the Committee for their solid work. Their useful report brings together many different aspects of the Government’s work on this issue, and gave a platform to so many victims, organisations and voices that are often not heard in this place to talk about the impact it has on them, what they think about the current work and what they hope for in future. This Friday is the anniversary of the 1993 Warrington bombing, when Tim Parry and Johnathan Ball—two children—were killed and 54 people were injured. Not a week goes by, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, when we do not remember the victims. They are the people we should have in our minds when we talk about the troubles, and about legacy and reconciliation. Secretary of States do not often come to Westminster Hall, so I welcome the presence of the Secretary of State, who I know has taken a personal interest in righting the wrongs of the previous Government’s legislation, and in what that can do for society in Northern Ireland, both now and for future generations. It is important to remember what this is fundamentally about; I could see that it was on the minds of all Committee members throughout the inquiry. More than 3,500 people, across Northern Ireland and in towns, cities and military barracks across England, died in the troubles. They included nearly 2,000 civilians and more than 1,100 members of our security forces. Nearly a third of those deaths remain unsolved, and a great many victims and families, some of whom I had the privilege of meeting when I was a Minister, are still seeking answers. Their questions remain with me. I will never forget sitting in the WAVE Trauma Centre in Belfast and talking to victims, who, so many years later, have so many questions and just want to know what happened to their loved ones.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Tommy Judge, the work he has done and all that he has lived with throughout his life. My hon. Friend and I have met many other people across England who are working to support victims and survivors in Great Britain, as well as in Northern Ireland. The report ends on a cliffhanger. It ends by talking about wider reconciliation, which is very important, because the legacy legislation is just part of a piece of wider work that needs to be done that is important for reconciliation. When I have been to Northern Ireland, I have asked many times: “What is reconciliation? What does it mean? What will be the outcome? What will it look like?” It means different things to different people. Some people do not want reconciliation; for some people, reconciliation means answers; for some people, it means the ability to live together in a community peacefully; and for some people, it means good jobs, education and opportunities, and hope for the future. With the world watching the peace process in Northern Ireland, this work could not be more important. It is a beacon of hope for people in other conflicts around the world, who look to Northern Ireland and say, “It has been possible in Northern Ireland,” and who look to the ways in which we continue to build that peace, bit by bit. It is hard, and we are seeing how hard it is, but the ultimate aim must be for communities to be able to live and thrive peacefully together, and to reduce the generational trauma—to reduce the amount that is passed down to future generations. I hope that future Select Committee reports will look at other aspects of reconciliation, including integrated education, which is an absolutely necessary part of bringing together communities, especially young for people. Just living and working together in a school all the time is so important, as has been reiterated to me so many times by parents and peacemakers in Northern Ireland. I am sure the Committee will consider that aspect too. Having made that recommendation for future reports, I congratulate the Committee on the report we are debating, on the work the Committee has done, and on how influential I am sure the report will be on the work done not only by the Government but by many organisations and people across Northern Ireland.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  In 1998 immunity was in the Good Friday agreement, and the whole population got to vote on that, and on whether or not they agreed with that immunity—it was very controversial. There was no vote on whether the population agreed with immunity in the legacy Act. In fact, all the democratically elected parties lined up to oppose that immunity.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree; it was just too much even to ask or encourage more people to come forward—if they did come forward, there would be no justice. The families of victims often see those people in their local supermarket; they are living in their communities, but the families know that there is no hope of them ever having justice. That is too painful to contemplate. Like the report, I welcome the fact that the Government have taken a very different approach. I know that the Secretary of State engaged widely on the drafting of the Bill with victims’ groups, families, veterans and other affected parties, and I was pleased to play a part in those discussions. The troubles Bill will restore civil cases and enable the resumption of halted inquests. It will mean that legacy cases are dealt with sensitively and efficiently through a reformed legacy commission, with the fullest possible disclosure of information to families. Rather than making false promises to our veterans, as the legacy Act did, the Bill will put in place six genuine protections for any veteran who is asked to give information, and nobody who carried out acts of terrorism will be given immunity. We should be clear that it was terrorists—the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Ulster Defence Association—who were responsible for the vast majority of deaths during the troubles. It is right that where there is evidence of criminality by anyone, those responsible should be held to account. Frankly, it is shocking that many Opposition Members disagree and would prefer to grant immunity to those who carried out the most heinous acts of terrorism on UK soil. The Government agreed information-sharing commitments with the Irish authorities under the joint framework announced in September. I welcome the fact that the Select Committee visited Ireland before and during the compilation of the report. The agreement is unprecedented and could be hugely significant in enabling answers to be found for families once the new legacy commission is established. I am glad that the report highlights the powers of the Secretary of State, the definition of a family member, and the need to listen to victims, listen again and keep listening. These are people who have lost trust in the system. Slowly but surely—through the Government’s actions and the actions of organisations such as the South East Fermanagh Foundation, WAVE and so many others working in mental health across Northern Ireland—the trust of families has been built up. But they will need to see good outcomes. I welcome the increased funding for the commission and the PSNI, and the reiteration of the need for speed in this work. As has been pointed out many times, many of the family members are now elderly. They are seeing out the end of their days and just want the answers they seek in time.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and my hon. Friend makes a very good point: this also includes service families. No matter what family someone comes from, it is a huge loss. These are people missing from family tables, about whom there are still questions, and it is a trauma not to know what happened—that is what this legacy legislation aims to resolve. We are so many years on, and there is so much investigating yet to do. I understand that many people simply want to know how their loved ones died. The ICRIR is taking forward 100 investigations, some of which Peter Sheridan listed in his evidence to the Committee. Those include the deaths of Alexander Millar in 1975; Seamus Bradley, a 19-year-old; Rory O’Kelly in 1977; Kathleen O’Hagan in August 1994, who was seven months’ pregnant, and her baby also died in that attack; James and Ellen Sefton in 1990; and Judge Rory Conaghan in 1974. Those are just some of the people who died—their families have questions, and they are being investigated by the ICRIR. The commission’s caseload also includes the 1974 Guildford pub bombings, the 1974 M62 coach bombing, the 1976 Kingsmill massacre, and the 1979 Warrenpoint massacre, which was the deadliest attack on British forces during the troubles. We must ensure that those investigations can progress and deliver answers for families, and that all communities can have confidence in the commission, as trust was also a key element of the evidence given in the report. The last Government’s legacy Act had no support in Northern Ireland, and it is clear why that was the case. It shut down the right of individuals to pursue a civil case, whether against the state or perpetrators of terrorism. It cruelly stopped a number of inquests midway through, and it ended over 1,000 police investigations in Northern Ireland and England, including those into the deaths of more than 200 UK service personnel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) highlighted. The Act was also widely opposed in Northern Ireland by political parties and victims and families. In November 2025, Sandra Peake—the chief executive of the WAVE Trauma Centre—wrote to all MPs, and she also gave very powerful evidence to the Committee for the report. In her letter to MPs, Sandra said: “The then Government wanted to draw a veil over the past but there isn’t a veil thick enough to hide the blood and bones of murdered loved ones or to muffle the cries of their families.” The arbitrary ending of troubles-related inquests, and closing the civil action route to justice, confirmed the belief that the interests of victims were not only not on the agenda, but had not even made it into “Any other business”.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  Hear, hear!

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I am honoured to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for securing the debate. I worked in international development for many years, specifically on water sanitation and hygiene, so I also appreciated the remarks of the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew). I echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury about our strong support for the BBC. I would like to thank all the FCDO staff currently working very, very hard on behalf of my constituents who are in the middle east. The very quick response we have been able to put up, with flights coming in straight away, is commendable. It just shows the strengths and abilities of our embassies across the world, and how important they are. I am delighted that after years of weakness, isolation and decline in our international standing under the Tories, Britain is firmly back on the international stage, leading on the international response to Ukraine, making the forgotten war in Sudan a priority, and transforming our relationship with Europe—worth mentioning on the day that the FAC released our report on the UK-EU reset.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  This is not a party political issue. We have led on Ukraine for many years and we still are doing so. I am very proud of the role we have played, under both Governments. The Labour Government are now moving forward far further and far faster. I am also proud that we recently signed the global ocean treaty. This debate is on the spending in the Department. I am concerned about the continuing cuts in aid, and that they are undermining our strong, and growing, international position and undermining our security. I am concerned about the false division that has been put up between defence and development. It is not defence or development. Defence and development are important for our strategic interests and security. Development spending is not charity; it is strategic investment. Our development budget is one of the most effective tools we have for sustaining British influence. Defence and development should not be seen as competing priorities, but I fear that they are seen as such. Defence responds to crises; development works to prevent them. Development underpins our conflict prevention around the world. A defence posture without sustained development investment risks becoming permanently reactive to events. Good development is good defence. I am very concerned that the FCDO’s workforce faces reductions of up to 25%. The FAC has repeatedly asked where those cuts will be made. Which staff? Which programmes? Do the cuts match the priorities given by Ministers? I am concerned that they do not. We are not given the answers that we need to scrutinise this very big change in our country’s priorities, and at a crucial time in international relations that are so important for our security. It is important for my constituents to know what our foreign affairs priorities are and whether they are being matched in terms of staffing and budgets. This is called an estimates debate for a different reason, but estimating is all we can do as a Committee—if MPs cannot see that the priorities given by Ministers are being backed up by spending and action, we cannot properly scrutinise their work. It is also a real concern for development agencies and local organisations on the ground in the countries where we are working, which are not able to plan their work as they do not know what the spending will be. In the past year, £500 million has been cut from the ODA budget. Aid to Africa, at the time of the Africa strategy being released, has fallen by £184 million. Support to Sudan has been reduced by roughly 18%, at the very moment it faces the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, despite it being a stated priority. Global health is also a priority for this Government, and rightly so. As I said, I previously worked in water and sanitation. I went to work for WaterAid before I was an MP because, when I had worked with other aid agencies, I had seen the impact that conflict and water have on a community. With action on both those things, a community can have peace—if a community has the water needed for crops and its health, it frees up girls and women from having to go off to get water; instead, they can go to school. It leads to development and resilience against insecurity, which stops conflict. That is what we should be seeing. However, £550 million has been cut from global health programmes. Let us not forget the lessons from covid. Some £206 million has been cut from education, gender and equality programmes. There is a 25% reduction in women, peace and security funding, despite a feminist foreign policy being a stated priority. I am glad that the proposed cuts to the BBC World Service have been highlighted as well. We have a huge benefit in our BBC World Service. Trust in this service has built up over decades, and any reduction in that gives space to China and Russia. Cuts to development leave room for the Chinese Government to step in, as I have seen in countries across Africa. Cuts in poverty reduction fuel instability and conflict. Cuts in conflict prevention programmes that have been built up for years, which are locally led and are working, are dangerous. The 0.7% target was not a vague aspiration, but a manifesto commitment that this party stood on. It remains important for our security. I know that these are difficult times for development spending, but we need to keep talking about that as an aspiration. I am concerned that the official policy of His Majesty’s Opposition is now to reduce spending to 0.1% of GDP. I do not know where that will leave our country. Will the Minister confirm that this Government are committed to the soft power superpower we have in the BBC, to conflict reduction, to the education of girls, to water, sanitation and hygiene, and to global health? Will he confirm that we are committed to working with the poorest countries, not using the move towards investment as a move towards working only with middle-income countries? Lastly, will he confirm that all these commitments will be backed up with funding and our fantastic staff in our embassies on the ground?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q4. Given the recent challenges to the Equality Act 2010, will the Prime Minister commit to protecting laws that prevent discrimination at work and in society, make sure that women are not fired for being pregnant, and ensure that everyone is treated fairly, regardless of their sex, race or disability?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  Questions of genocide are among the gravest that Parliament must consider, and I thank the many constituents who have written to me in advance of this debate. In the case of Gaza, the International Court of Justice ruled two years ago that there is a “real and imminent risk” of genocide. The Court is still deliberating, with a final judgment expected next year, but in the meantime, this risk requires action. In the short time I have, I would like to focus on one of those actions. There is a strong case for the Government to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements on the west bank. No further legal judgment is needed to do that. Although global attention has focused rightly on Gaza, settlement expansion, land confiscation and violence have continued on the west bank and in East Jerusalem. More than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed there, and economic activity linked to settlements risks undermining the UK’s long-standing position on their illegality and on the viability of the Palestinian state. The Minister has been clear that settlements are illegal, and I thank him for meeting me to talk about this previously. The mechanism exists to do this. The UK-Israel trade agreement already differentiates settlement goods, denying them preferential tariffs—postcodes are already provided to show exactly where goods come from. The Government should now consider moving from differentiation to prohibition, using legal tools already available under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, as we have done in relation to Crimea. There is legal precedent, and there is the technical ability to do it. Palestinian civilians—Palestinian children—have endured extraordinary suffering, displacement, hunger, trauma and loss. They are entitled to not only charity but the protection guaranteed under international law. A ceasefire alone is not enough. The absence of bombs is not the presence of justice. Without reconstruction, accountability, justice and a viable political and economic path, the suffering will continue. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether the UK will now support the collection and preservation of evidence of war crimes that will be needed for the justice system to do its work, and when the Government will introduce the legislation that is needed—perhaps secondary legislation—to stop trade with illegal settlements on the west bank, in line with the UK’s stated policy and international legal obligations.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  On recent developments, my grandfather fought for our country in Palestine. There are reports that the IDF has destroyed a cemetery in Gaza containing graves of allied troops from both world wars. Would the Minister condemn that?

• 5 Feb 2026 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Minister on this excellent plan and invite her to congratulate Young Lives vs Cancer, which has long campaigned for the travel fund for children and young people with cancer. I have joined the charity in its campaigning and am absolutely delighted to see the travel fund in place. Can she confirm that she will continue to work with Team Margot and Anthony Nolan to increase stem cell donation from people from ethnically diverse communities, where there is a shortage, in memory of Margot, who died from leukaemia aged two?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, her visit and her announcement about new money and the sanctions. Children are being deliberately and systematically targeted by both sides in this conflict: boys are being forcibly recruited, girls are subject to sexual violence, and even infants have been raped. Will she confirm that what we have seen during this conflict are not spontaneous acts of violence by the warring parties, but the orchestrated, industrial-scale use of rape as a weapon of war, deliberately designed to strike fear into the civilian population? Will she confirm that she will ensure that women are at the table during the peace negotiations?