Monica Harding MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I speak today to new clause 42, which is in my name. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sitting days in the Crown court and to lay a report before Parliament. I am pleased to bring this issue before the House. Our criminal courts are crippled under the weight of their caseloads. A system once respected for its fairness and efficiency is now struggling to deliver timely justice. One major cause is the limit imposed on the number of sitting days available to judges. In effect, we are deliberately rationing justice. Successive Governments have chosen to restrict Crown court sitting days. The previous Conservative Administration cut them drastically up to 2020, and then reintroduced a cap in 2021. The current Labour Government, disappointingly, have continued that practice, fixing the number of sitting days for 2024-25 at 108,500. That figure, announced only in December, was thousands below what the courts had planned for, and nearly 5,000 days short of the 113,000 days that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service advised were needed to meet basic operational capacity. Even 113,000 sitting days would not open every courtroom; as Sir Brian Leveson’s review made clear, we would need at least 130,000 sitting days to bring all courtrooms fully into use. Anything less is a conscious choice to leave some courtrooms dark, some judges idle and thousands of victims waiting. Meanwhile, the backlog grows. The Crown court caseload has reached historic highs, with more than 73,000 outstanding cases, and it is only growing. In the first quarter of 2025, 2,000 more cases were received than were disposed of. One in four open cases has been waiting for over a year, and in some instances trials are not being listed until 2029. I saw the impact at first hand when I visited my local Kingston upon Thames Crown court. It is one of many courts across the London region that suffer as the region sees its backlog increase by 25%. Staff spoke of the frustration of empty courtrooms, which could be hearing trials but are instead shuttered by bureaucracy. For my constituents in Esher and Walton, that means longer waits for justice for victims of assault, of burglary and of sexual violence, who are left to relive their trauma every time that their trial is postponed. Witnesses lose faith, memories fade, and confidence in justice evaporates. Caps on Crown court sitting days are not a matter of efficiency, but a false economy. We are paying for court buildings, for security, for staff and for judges, yet we prevent them from working to full capacity, and the consequences are severe. Victims and witnesses wait months or even years for closure, and defendants on bail remain in limbo, their futures in the balance. Some guilty defendants plead not guilty in the hope that delay will work in their favour. In the process, public faith in the criminal justice system and politics deteriorates. Justice delayed is justice denied. Each time a case is adjourned or pushed back, a victim’s faith in justice dies a little more. Communities lose confidence that the system will protect them, and that loss of trust is corrosive—it undermines everything from police co-operation to jury participation. It is deeply disappointing that the Government have not attached a money motion to this Bill, meaning that Parliament cannot directly remove the cap today. However, new clause 42 offers a constructive step forward. It would require the Government to confront the evidence and to assess, transparently and publicly, whether the cap serves justice or undermines it. We cannot continue to ignore a crisis that every practitioner, every victim and every judge can see unfolding before their eyes. Removing the cap would not solve every problem in our courts, but it would allow them to function at their full capacity; it would mean fewer empty rooms, more trials heard, and faster justice for those who need it most. New clause 42 is a vital amendment that shines a light on the cost of capping justice and would begin the work of restoring confidence in our criminal courts. Justice delayed is justice denied, and it is time to stop denying justice to the people we serve.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s stated first objective in this review is to support the physical and mental health of women after they have given birth to a child. One cannot overestimate the amount of mental stress caused by living in poverty or without enough resources for one’s family. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrat policy to double statutory shared parental pay to £350 a week is the right move?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Recent studies from Stanford university and others have shown a clear link between excessive phone use, addictive social media algorithms and deteriorating mental health outcomes for young people. Technology in this area is evolving at an extraordinary speed, meaning that legislation such as the Online Safety Act 2023 is not being implemented fast enough before new harms emerge. Our NHS is picking up the pieces. In my constituency, over 6,000 young people are waiting for a first contact with mental health services, and that takes eight months. Will the Leader of the House please find space in Government time for a debate on how we can protect young people by addressing the growing connection between digital addiction and mental health?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Heathrow: National Airports Review · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents, particularly those along the river in Molesey and Ditton, are concerned about an increase in the noise pollution that already affects us from a third runway at Heathrow. How can they be reassured that their views will be taken into account, unlike in the top-down centralised planning policies that this Government have implemented? Will the four tests be transparent, meaningful and readily available to constituents? Can I please ask again: should it be shown that the climate commitments of the UK will not be met by this expansion, will the Minister U-turn?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Lady agree that it is outrageous that Members of this House should hold up a judge’s wig at a party conference, and that judges therefore have increased security risks?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Alex’s mother, Sally, is a constituent of mine in Esher and Walton. She shared Alex’s story in one of my surgeries, so I am very pleased that his story is being considered today in Parliament. The new clauses put forward by my hon. Friend will help to ensure that people such as Alex have a route to justice. Sally is battling on behalf of her son against a law that is obsolete. All of us can only imagine how heartbreaking and frustrating that is and the unfairness of what my hon. Friend has described. I urge Members across the Committee to support the new clauses so that there is a course to justice.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s focus on vocational skills, but I fear that schools in my constituency will struggle to keep pace with qualification changes, and that 2027 is too soon for the transition to V-levels to be completed. Colleges such as Esher sixth form college deliver BTECs, and have done so successfully for many years. What assurance can the Secretary of State give to those colleges that they will be supported in that transition, and how exactly will it be implemented by 2027?

• 14 Oct 2025 · COP30: Food System Transformation · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for bringing this critical debate to the House. Next month, the eyes of the world will turn to the Amazon and Brazil for the COP30 climate conference. The choices made there will define the world that our children and grandchildren inhabit. That is why it is imperative that the conference delivers real, sustainable progress. Achieving that, however, requires much more ambition from the UK. It requires proper climate financing, a faster roll-out of clean energy and greater leadership on the world stage. So I ask the Minister: will the Prime Minister attend COP in Brazil? Just a few years ago, the Prime Minister rightly accused his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), of a failure of leadership for not attending the COP summit—so will the Prime Minister attend? As Liberal Democrats, we have long championed international climate diplomacy. We have championed the Paris agreement, a landmark and historic agreement that remains the central framework for global climate co-operation. It is deeply disappointing that the United States is once again withdrawing from it under President Trump, joining the likes of Iran, Libya and Yemen. Climate change is not some distant, far-off risk. We already feel its effects here, with the hottest summer and the second-worst harvest on record, higher food prices, soaring insurance premiums and increasing water bills. The effects are being acutely felt throughout the world. Zero hunger is the second of the sustainable development goals—the world’s blueprint for a better world. However, the SDGs have been casualties of the Trump Administration. According to the latest UN development reports, we are nowhere near that target. Over the last five years, climate change has contributed to driving 150 million more people into malnutrition, a reminder that this crisis strikes hardest at the world’s poorest. That is why the Liberal Democrats would champion reform of the international finance system, easing the debt burden and unlocking green investment in low-income countries. We would back the UN loss and damage fund to ensure a just transition for those who are suffering the consequences of a crisis they did not cause. Climate change is not just an environmental challenge; it is a threat multiplier, fuelling displacement, conflict, hunger and disease from the Sahel to the Pacific. As an example, following the 2022 floods in Pakistan, the country’s malaria burden quadrupled. This Government have cut international development spending to 0.3% of GNI, the lowest level this century. But they have none the less claimed that international climate finance will remain a priority. Can the Minister confirm not only that the target of spending £11.6 billion on international climate finance between 2021 and 2025 will be met, but that the Government will make a bold new commitment to lead on climate finance and use development finance institutions to accelerate decarbonisation in low-income countries?

• 14 Oct 2025 · COP30: Food System Transformation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right, and I ask the Minister to guarantee that that is ringfenced. What we do in Britain sends signals to the world about whether we are serious or simply posturing. Renewables are the greatest economic growth opportunity of our time, bringing jobs, investment and lower bills to the nation. However, in a crass, short-sighted attempt to imitate President Trump, the Conservatives and Reform have turned against renewables. Their attacks on green energy will scare off investors, destroy jobs and relegate Britain to the sidelines of the industries that will define our future. Both parties have abandoned our net zero target, a reckless move that will shatter our credibility on the world stage. The Liberal Democrats believe that there is no trade-off between climate sustainability and food security. They can both be achieved if the right framework is put in place. The UK food security report warns that climate change, water insecurity and nature loss threaten global food supplies. Liberal Democrats would champion investment in sustainable agriculture, helping farmers in low-income countries build resilience to droughts, floods and changing weather. We would work through international institutions to build a fair and resilient global food system. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire laid out, will the Minister commit to signing the COP30 declaration on food systems, when it comes, and to adopting the priorities of deforestation-free supply chains, nature-positive farming and support for family farms?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to flood Gaza with aid. The UN estimates that $4 billion is needed this year to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, of which just 28% has been pledged. The UK’s contribution to humanitarian relief this year will total only $116 million, so with the entire population of Gaza in need of some form of humanitarian assistance, does the Prime Minister believe that the UK’s contribution to Gaza’s relief is adequate?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Great British Energy: Public Sector Renewable Energy Use · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency of Esher and Walton is home to the UK’s largest floating installation of solar panels; there are 23,000 on the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir, helping to support public services by powering a Thames Water treatment plant. It is a fantastically innovative renewables project, but very few of my constituents know about it. How will the Government use Great British Energy to argue more effectively for the benefits of renewables for communities and public services across the UK?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have now delayed their decision on local government reorganisation in Surrey. Can the Minister assure me that the Government are using this delay to protect my constituents in Esher and Walton from the Tory debt of neighbouring councils with which they might be grouped? Will the planned elections in May go ahead?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the tributes paid to those who were killed in Manchester and to the invaluable work of the Community Security Trust, whose headquarters I have visited. I pay tribute to my constituents, who have sent a wall of love and support in messages to our local synagogue, showing how they absolutely reject antisemitism. The Manchester attacker was wielding a knife. My local police force has stressed to me the ease with which someone—even with a pattern of criminal behaviour—can obtain a lethal knife. We do not know what kind of knife was used or how the attacker obtained it, but we do know that the Southport attacker purchased a 16-inch machete from Knife Warehouse, a retailer which, in the words of the inquiry chair, showed “no curiosity” at all about whom it was selling to. It is clear that those who intend to commit violence can arm themselves with alarming ease by exploiting online loopholes that treat lethal weapons as ordinary products. Does the Secretary of State agree that we now need a far stronger and clearer approach to tackle the online sale and circulation of these knives and to close the gaps that allow sellers to profit from them?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. and right hon. Members for bringing this debate to the Chamber today. I thank other speakers for their moving remarks, and it is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I thank her for sharing her story, on behalf of all those untold stories. I speak for all my families in Esher and Walton who have dealt with baby loss. Their stories are many, their grief is unlimited, and I pay tribute to them and those families with us today who are intent on turning their grief into others’ hope. Your bravery humbles us all. Today, I will focus on one family. Last week I was visited by my constituents, the wonderful, brave parents of Jimmy Alderman, whose story reminds us that there is still so much we must do to protect our youngest and most vulnerable. Jimmy was just six weeks old when he died last October. He had been breastfed while being carried in a sling at home, which many parents understandably see as practical, safe and nurturing. Tragically, Jimmy slipped into an unsafe position and lost consciousness. Despite his parents’ desperate attempts to save him, he died three days later. Following the inquest, the senior coroner issued a prevention of future deaths report, which found that guidance available to parents on the safe use of baby carriers and slings, particularly when feeding, was wholly inadequate. The coroner highlighted the absence of clear NHS advice, the lack of visual guidance showing safe versus unsafe positions and the limited awareness of suffocation risks, especially for newborns and premature babies. In response, the National Childbirth Trust and the Lullaby Trust have both updated their advice, warning that hands-free breastfeeding or bottle-feeding when using a sling is unsafe, particularly for babies under four months old. Their message is now clear that if a baby needs to feed, they need to be taken out of a sling. Those are important steps, but it should not fall solely to grieving parents and charities to close such critical gaps in public information. National guidance must keep pace with modern parenting practices, and it is vital that the NHS clearly sets out the risks and best practices around baby carriers and feeding safety. Jimmy’s parents have shown extraordinary courage, and in Jimmy’s memory they are calling for a couple of simple, but vital reforms. First, they want a national awareness campaign to promote the safe use of slings and carriers. Secondly, they want consideration of tighter regulation in industry standards for baby carrier safety. Those sensible, achievable measures could save many lives. That is what Jimmy’s parents are motivated by. Nobody should have to go through entirely preventable grief, as they have. Will the Minister agree to meet with Jimmy’s parents and me to discuss how the Department of Health and Social Care can support this campaign, including through updated NHS guidance, a national awareness initiative and a review of safety standards for baby carriers? By working together, we can ensure that Jimmy’s short life leads to lasting change and that no other parent has to endure the unimaginable pain that his family has faced.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  This really is not hard. Is it not enough to know that Lord Mandelson enjoyed the patronage of a convicted child sex offender by staying in his houses? Was that not enough to prevent his appointment as our most senior ambassador?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to stop the hon. Lady’s very well delivered speech mid-stream. Does she agree that we need to hear from not only families but educators? Teachers in schools are up against the system, and families come into our surgeries in tears because they cannot get provision. Some 1,800 children in Surrey are missing education because they do not have provision from Surrey county council.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this important debate. I am pleased that each time Liberal Democrat MPs raise this issue, the Government back the fund. I want the Government to hear what the ASGSF means for one family in my Esher and Walton constituency. Two of my constituents adopted a two-year-old boy. They were his seventh family. He had already suffered physical abuse and was displaying behavioural issues. It was clear to my constituents that significant professional support was needed to prevent this adoption from breaking down. That was provided by the ASGSF. Without it, my constituents do not believe they could have coped. Now, their son is six and attends a mainstream school. The delay in announcing money for the ASGSF this year led to a five-month gap in support for my constituents’ son. During this time, he became more aggressive and disruptive. Without the ASGSF’s continuation in April, they would have struggled to maintain the adoption. However, even while extending the ASGSF for one year, the Government cut it by 40%. To cover the resulting shortfall, my constituents have had to use some of their savings. They cannot afford to do so next year. For my constituents, there is no alternative to the ASGSF. They applied for mental health support for their son from Mindworks Surrey. They have been on the waiting list for three years. They waited more than two years for an appointment through developmental paediatrics, but health professionals did not understand the child’s case and nearly misdiagnosed him. The services unlocked through the fund have given this boy a chance of happiness. He has been through more than most adults will go through in their entire lives. To restrict support and leave him and his family in limbo is cruel. When the Minister lays out the details of the fund’s future, I urge her as strongly as I possibly can to secure it for the long term, reverse this year’s cruel and damaging cuts, and secure this child’s future.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has talked about social mobility. Does my hon. Friend agree that when a company cuts hours, it is those who work part time—some of the most disadvantaged members of society—who lose out, and lose their jobs?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Pavement Parking · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for securing this debate. I recently met the Walton-on-Thames macular degeneration support group in Esher and Walton to discuss some of the challenges faced by my constituents with sight loss, including pavement parking. I urge the Minister to finally take the step of banning pavement parking. I recognise, however, that poor parking is often due to carelessness more than malice, so I suggest to the Minister that a public education campaign about how to park more considerately is in order—perhaps some Tory MPs would like to attend, since they do not seem to think it is a problem. A number of my constituents have written to me specifically about the prevalence of pavement parking around schools in pick-up and drop-off hours, which is dangerous for children. Part of tackling this issue is proper enforcement of the rules. What steps is the Department taking to support local authorities in dealing with improper pavement parking? I want to flag another issue: placing street furniture such as A-boards on streets in Surrey does not require a licence, yet it presents huge obstructions to visually impaired constituents. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on dealing with it—maybe she could share what happened there with Surrey county council. Finally, on many social housing estates, which were often built in the 1950s and ’60s when cars were small and there was probably only one, if that, many cars are now parked on pavements and on green spaces meant for children. What can the Government do to encourage social housing providers to knock down the derelict garages that are not being used to provide proper parking?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Humanitarian Situation in Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate and on putting Sudan in the spotlight, where it needs to be. This war is the greatest humanitarian catastrophe since the advent of the modern age, with 25 million people in acute hunger, famine abounding and a war on civilians and women and girls. It has displaced 13 million people. It directly affects us in Britain, too: about 10% of those arriving on small boats are Sudanese. I would like to focus on three questions: is our response to Sudan’s humanitarian need enough, are our diplomatic efforts enough, and is our work to support the establishment of a democratic civilian Government enough? Across a world of proliferating conflicts, we are observing a growing disregard for international humanitarian law, with warring parties increasingly seeing access to humanitarian aid as a weapon to be wielded. The UK has attributed famine conditions in parts of Sudan to systematic aid obstruction by both the RSF and the SAF. We must continue to push for aid to get in and for warring parties to respect international humanitarian law, but we must also recognise that under these conditions, local groups are often best placed—and better equipped than international NGOs—to meet civilian needs. Sudan’s emergency response rooms have become the international symbol of such groups. They are community kitchens, shelters and medical centres; they provide clean water; they treat and protect victims of sexual violence. Currently, they are reaching more than 4 million people. In response to my recent written question on the ERRs, the Government directed me to the £120 million spend announced by the Foreign Secretary at the London conference and said that a “portion of this uplift” would go “to local responders…through the Sudan Humanitarian Fund”. But so far this year, the Sudan Humanitarian Fund is just 23% funded. The total shortfall is over $3 billion, and a cliff edge looms because of cuts to USAID and other international donors. Our current contribution, although welcome, does not touch the sides of what is required. I understand that the Government are still assessing how best to support ERRs and local actors, but I ask the Minister: since USAID has done the hard work of due diligence and bureaucracy, can we not step up now and do more? This Government have slashed Britain’s international development budget to its lowest level this century. Again, I urge the Government to reverse that. Ministers claim that Sudan will remain a priority, but it is unclear whether they will have the resources necessary to make a real impact. The Government’s cuts now require us to rethink and reform. Localisation has risks, but we must acknowledge that when it comes to Sudan, the old ways may not work. The emergency response rooms may be an example of how to do it. Can the Minister please provide an update on how much of the £120 million pledged at the London conference has been allocated, and through which channels? Does that include support for displaced Sudanese in the region, particularly in Chad and South Sudan? I turn to the subject of diplomacy. Before the International Development Committee, the Foreign Secretary told me that since the London conference he has had separate conversations on Sudan with the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He did not elaborate, however, so perhaps the Minister can. Have these conversations produced any tangible progress? If not, should the Prime Minister become involved to drive action at a higher level? The war in Sudan is being worsened by outside state actors offering diplomatic, financial and sometimes military support to the warring parties. I am pleased that Britain has consistently expressed opposition to such behaviour, but words are not enough. It has been consistently reported and alleged, most prominently by The New York Times , that the UAE has been funnelling weapons to the RSF. The UN’s panel of experts on Sudan told the Security Council that those allegations are credible. The UAE is a significant buyer of British military exports, so its purported actions raise serious concerns in relation to the strategic export licensing criteria. Not only are they a material consideration in relation to the risk of diversion, but they violate the spirit of other criteria. The FCDO is vital to decisions made by the export control joint unit, so I ask the Minister what assessment she has made of the reports that the UAE is supplying weapons to the RSF. That is a question that I have asked of her and the Foreign Secretary, and I have since received an inadequate response from the Minister for Africa. I will be grateful if the Minister can say what view the Government take of the compatibility of such actions with the strategic export licensing criteria. It is not only arms that are fuelling this war; it is also gold. In response to a written question in June, the Government told me that since the war began, “the UK has frozen the assets of nine commercial entities linked to the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces.” With the exception of the November sanctions on two RSF commanders, all those measures were imposed under the last Government. It has been more than a year since this Government took office—a year in which famine conditions were confirmed, and in which almost nothing has been done to address Sudan’s war through further sanctions. Why? It is good that three Russian entities linked to Sudan’s illicit gold trade have been sanctioned, but Russia is not the only implicated nation. It is not even the most significant. By far the most important player in the global trade of Sudanese conflict gold is the UAE, so why have no steps been taken to impose consequences on the UAE for its role in that trade? To make a dent on the global trade in Sudanese blood gold, Britain would have to use sanctions strategically with a view to dismantling entire systems, as opposed to merely punishing one or two offenders. We will have to work closely with willing partners, particularly the EU, Canada, the Nordic states and the United States. Can the Minister assure me that these conversations are ongoing? Simultaneously, we must drive high-level initiatives to bring key commanders and external actors to the table. There are reports of a new peace framework taking shape in Washington—one built not on inclusion and democracy but, it seems, on power sharing, resource control and the legitimisation of the SAF and the RSF. A deal must not be made by outside states over the head of the Sudanese people, so I am glad to see the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to a Sudanese-led transition to civilian government and to extending the UN fact-finding mission to Sudan, investigating human rights abuses and crimes. However, the Government can and should be doing more to support Sudanese civil society and democratic groups, both in Sudan and in exile. I am aware that the Government, through Global Partners Governance, help to fund the anti-war, pro-democracy coalition. How is the Government ensuring that these groups in exile remain representative and accountable to the Sudanese people? Can the Minister outline the recent work of the UK special envoy to Sudan? How is the special envoy engaging with pro-democracy organisations and diaspora groups, particularly those in exile throughout the region? We must work with as many like-minded partners as possible and with willing allies such as Canada, the Nordic states and others. Can the Minister share how Britain is building diplomatic support for an inclusive peace process, centred on the civilian democratic voices in Sudan for a sustainable peace?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  The ongoing war in Sudan is the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe and the biggest since aid began. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, but I regret that in the past seven months there has been only one statement on Sudan from the Government. Local and community-led emergency response rooms are central to the on-the-ground response. Will the Minister outline how the UK is increasing support to those ERRs? Since the London conference, what bilateral conversations have the Government had with regional actors and the US about Sudan? War crimes are being committed on an almost daily basis. The two principal warring parties oppose a democratic Sudan, so what are the Government doing to support Sudanese civilian groups and civil society fighting for the democratic future? Since 2023, The New York Times has repeatedly reported that the United Arab Emirates is funnelling weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, and the UN’s expert panel on Sudan deemed those allegations credible. What are the Government doing to address the proliferation of outside weapons in Sudan, and to uphold and expand the arms embargo? How are they clamping down on the illicit international trade in Sudanese gold, which is financing this war? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the American judgment that chemical weapons are being used in Sudan?

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that we do not fix a financial problem by giving away a right? For many parents and families battling the system, an EHCP is the only protection that a child gets to a right to education.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my fellow Surrey MP for his thoughts. Last year, nearly half of Surrey’s high needs block of £122 million was spent supporting SEND places at non-maintained independent schools. Placing those children in state-maintained school is often half the cost. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we need to put more money into state schools rather than independent schools, which are often run by private equity firms taking money out of local authorities and making profit on the backs of very vulnerable children?

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  In Surrey, for example, 1,800 children with special educational needs are missing education because there is no provision. They are sliding into poor mental health as a result, and that needs to stop. Does my hon. Friend agree?