Monica Harding MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 21 Apr 2026 · West Bank: Illegal Settlements · Hansard source

  More

  Alongside what is happening on the west bank, in Lebanon, more than 1 million people have been forcibly displaced. The Guardian has reported that Israeli strikes on medical facilities in Nabatieh have killed health workers and ambulance crews; it notes that such incidents are becoming increasingly common. The UN is clear that the forced displacement of civilians and the targeting of civilian infrastructure may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under international law. What concrete measures are the UK Government putting in place to ensure that Israel ceases targeting civilian infrastructure, and stops forcible displacement in Lebanon?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on opening this important debate. I want to reflect the strength of feeling on this issue among my constituents in Esher and Walton; the fact that 568 people from my constituency added their names to this petition reflects a very real and deeply felt concern among families in my community about the state of maternity care in this country. I am a mother of four, and I am very lucky to have given birth four times, but three of those were traumatic. My first birth was an emergency C-section, the second was a vaginal birth after caesarean that needed lots of intervention and the third was absolutely fine, but during my fourth the crash team had to attend because the midwife failed to pay attention to what I knew, as an experienced mother, was a problem. When I took baby Tom, who is now 14, home— [Interruption.]

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for that clarification, Sir Alec. I am trying to do my best on protocol. When I took baby Tom, who is now 14 years old, home, hugging him ever more tightly, I told only my very close friends and family what had happened. I fear that the stats we see are only the tip of the iceberg, because many are not shared. Behind all the signatures are stories—of women who feel they were not listened to, of traumatic births and, in some cases, of long-term psychological impacts. There are testimonies in my inbox. One constituent, Lisa—a paediatric nurse with nearly two decades of experience in the NHS—wrote to me after developing PTSD following a traumatic birth. She spoke not only as a mother, but as a healthcare professional who understands the system from the inside yet still feels let down by it. Another constituent, Rosie, who has worked for over 20 years supporting women through pregnancy and childbirth, described a system where too many women feel they must fight to have their voices heard, where decisions are not always fully respected and where trauma is becoming far too common. Sadly, those are not isolated accounts; they are consistent with what we see in the national data and across the many reviews that have been conducted. One in three women now describes their childbirth experiences as traumatic. PTSD affects about one in 20 mothers. Maternal mortality has risen over the past 15 years, and the CQC has found that a majority of maternity units require improvement or are rated inadequate for safety. We should be clear: the problem is not a lack of understanding of what is going wrong. Over 700 recommendations have been made across more than a dozen reviews of maternity services. They point again and again to the same issues of training time, poor communication, failures to listen to women, and systems that do not learn effectively. All the while, workforce pressures are intensifying. At the end of 2025, the Nursing and Midwifery Council found that growth in the nursing and midwifery register had slowed sharply, driven by a nearly 50% drop in international recruitment. That risks putting further strain on maternity services that are already struggling with staffing and retention. Further behind the headlines on staffing numbers, there is a quieter crisis in the day-to-day reality of the job. A constituent who works as a midwife told me that her colleagues work 12-hour shifts without proper breaks, often not stopping until 5 pm after starting at 7.15 am. They are expected to juggle the workload of two people, stay behind beyond their hours and move between demanding day and night shifts with little flexibility. At the same time, they are navigating constantly changing guidance, a heavy administrative burden and a culture where, too often, the fear is that if something goes wrong, the blame will fall on them. It is a toxic combination of pressure, exhaustion and anxiety, which is totally unsustainable and is driving people out of the profession. The question is not whether there is a problem, but whether we are prepared to act on what we already know. That is why I support the call for a maternity commissioner, who would provide national leadership, accountability and, crucially, oversight of the implementation of the many outstanding recommendations. Without clear ownership, it is all too easy for reports to be published, welcomed and then quietly set aside. Many of the constituents who have written to me are healthcare professionals themselves. They speak of a system under intense pressure, of understaffing and burnout and of not having the time or resources to deliver the level of care they know that patients deserve. If we want to support those staff, we must fix the system in which they are working. That is why the Liberal Democrats have set out a maternity rescue package to make Britain the safest place in the world to have a baby. It includes appointing a maternity commissioner, and would ensure that we had a 24/7 consultant presence on maternity units and one-to-one midwifery care during labour. It would invest in the workforce, including hundreds more midwives, restore funding for vital services and guarantee access to perinatal mental health support. It would address the unacceptable disparities that persist in maternal outcomes, with black women three to four times more likely to die during pregnancy or shortly after birth than white women. And it would ensure that when things do go wrong, families are treated with compassion, transparency and proper support. While the Amos review is important and should be welcomed, it is the 14th major review of maternity services. We need delivery. The families in my constituency who signed the petition are asking not for more reports, but for change. They are asking for a system where they feel safe, listened to and cared for at one of the most important moments of their life. No birth is easy; it is a major, demanding, intense and very painful process, but in 2026, in the fifth largest economy in the world, it should not be dangerous, and it should be equitable.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Rail Prices: Contactless Payments · Hansard source

  More

  Of course it is really important that we bring fares down, but we also need to make sure that the trains actually work. In February, 5.82% of all South West Railway services were cancelled on the main line that runs through my constituency. I wonder whether the Minister thinks those figures are accurate, but they are very poor figures for a commuter line, where anything over 3% is considered poor. Will he comment on that?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Rail Prices: Contactless Payments · Hansard source

  More

  This is such an important debate. My constituency is the single biggest contributor to the Exchequer of any constituency outside London, yet we were completely missed out from the tap in, tap out roll-out. I wrote to the Minister to ask why, and he did not tell me when we would be included. On behalf of my constituents who are working really hard for that elusive growth, I ask the Minister when that might happen.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the mother of four teenage and young adult children, about 50% of my parenting involves placing limits on my children’s phones or devices to limit the time they spend on them. In so doing, I am, like so many parents in my Esher and Walton constituency and across the country, doing battle with a pernicious, invasive and overwhelming force, for which my kids are proxies and against which I can never win. That force has billions and billions of dollars, and the desire and capability to make content more and more addictive every day, so that children spend more time online. The result, as so many studies show, is a negative effect on our children’s wellbeing, mental and physical health, and attention in class and at home. Those tech companies and their algorithmic content are killing kids. It is a public health crisis, and unfortunately, the Government are moving far too slowly to deal with it. My eldest child was born in the year Facebook began, so my children have spanned the whole Gen Z Instagram generation. My youngest child is part of the TikTok generation. For me, the battle gets harder with each child, but I count myself lucky for not having had an “iPad kid”—a child who receives a device around the age of two. Gen Z children use that pejorative term to refer to younger children who are glued to devices, have short attention spans and throw tantrums when screens are taken away—these are children of two years. The curious thing about Gen Z and Gen Alpha children is that many of them will say that they wish there were more controls over their screen use and time. They find algorithmic content too much to deal with, and it is having a negative impact on their mental health—so the children are asking us to act too. This generation is growing up with more anxiety and more exposure to harm, and children are less attentive. Every single day it gets worse, so we need to act now. I have received over 2,600 emails from parents in my constituency asking me to ban social media for under-16s and to address their use of smartphones. I have spoken to school heads about the effect of the technology on their pupils, and parents are overwhelmed and feel completely powerless. A University of Birmingham study has shown that teachers spend 100 hours a week trying to control smartphone use. Headteachers tell me that teachers are doing battle with children as well as with their parents. Children pick up their phones in class to answer calls from their parents. They say, “I have to answer this because my parents are calling me.” That is time away from classroom learning. Unfortunately, the amendment does not meet those challenges. It gives the Secretary of State optional powers, which they may or may not use, to restrict access to certain online services, and asks only for a six-month progress update. There are no requirements to act, and no timeline for doing so. That is not decisive action; it is a license not to do very much. A delay is being justified through a consultation that is flawed, as many Members have pointed out, and there is a reliance on small-scale pilots when much larger studies already exists. It looks very much like the Government are unwilling to take on the tech giants.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Tech companies have billions of pounds, and the consultation also asks children 62 questions. How on earth can a child whose attention has been taken by a phone answer 62 questions? Meanwhile, the world is moving faster than the Government. Even if people think that we should wait, watch and learn from Australia, as others have pointed out, in the United States they do things differently to us and sue. Juries in the United States returned landmark verdicts against Meta and Google. In New Mexico the case against Meta for misleading the public about the safety of its platform, and enabling child sexual exploitation through its design practices, resulted in a penalty that covered 75,000 separate violations of state law. In Los Angeles a jury found both Meta and Google liable for negligence and a failure to warn users about the dangers of their products, and a further 2,000 cases are pending in California alone. Evidence in those cases included internal documents that were disclosed by the social media companies involved, explicitly acknowledging that their products are addictive, that addictive behaviours harm children’s mental health, and that the design features driving those behaviours—endless scrolling, autoplay, notifications, slot-machine tactics—were made not in spite of their damaging consequences, but precisely because of their addictive effects. That is outrageous, yet the Government are letting them get away with it every day. What more evidence do the Government need before they act quickly? They are letting down our young people, and parents in my constituency of Esher and Walton are demanding action, not down the line but now. If children cannot resist this content, through no fault of their own, the Government must act for them so that they are not able to access it. Time is not on our side, so for once will the Government please act boldly and quickly, and use powers in the Bill to protect all our children?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I had the opportunity to go out with the local police in my constituency on an operation to combat youth crime. One thing I found most distressing was the liberal ownership and unthinking use of knives among teenagers, which I know the police in my constituency are desperate to sort out. Following the Government’s consultation on knife sales, will the Minister reassure my constituents, the police and the public that the Government will put forward a knife licensing scheme, whereby all knife retailers, including online, bricks-and-mortar and private sellers, must be registered to sell any kind of knife in order to prevent attacks from taking place?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The presumption in favour of development at transport nodes and on the so-called grey belt means that in my constituency of Esher and Walton, which is half green belt and has a disproportionately high number of stations—everybody lives within 15 minutes of a station—everywhere can be developed under the Government’s proposals. What should I say to my constituents who are facing concrete everywhere?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Today, the US President impersonated Jesus Christ. Last week, he pledged to wipe out an entire civilisation. His warmongering in the middle east is piling on the pressure for my constituents in Esher and Walton, from prices at the pump to mortgage increases in the midst of a cost of living crisis. Given the disturbing utterances from the occupant of the White House and the squeeze on our living standards, surely the future is across the channel towards Europe, and I note that the Prime Minister gave a line, presumably for the local elections, about alignment with Europe, but can he give more detail on what this means for defence, for security and for prosperity?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Gurkha Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  One of the most favoured spots in my constituency on a Friday evening is The Ferry in Thames Ditton, a wonderful Nepalese restaurant run by Cepe, who served with the Royal Gurkhas for 19 years. Around the restaurant are pictures of VCs, a proud reminder of the many Gurkhas who have served our country loyally and bravely, without hesitation, in some of the most dangerous theatres of war. With thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing this debate to the Chamber, I want to speak today about something that I think cuts to the heart of what we stand for as a country: fairness, honour and how we treat those who have served under our flag. For more than two centuries, the Gurkhas have stood shoulder to shoulder with British soldiers. From the trenches of the first world war to the jungles of the second and the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan, they have fought with a courage and loyalty that should inspire us all. The Gurkhas are not a peripheral force; they are an integral part of the British Army. Yet, despite that sacrifice, we have not treated them as equals. That is the uncomfortable truth at the centre of this debate. Let me be clear about the scale of the problem. Around 25,000 Gurkha vets who retired before 1997 remain on the Gurkha pension scheme, a system designed not for life in the UK but for retirement in rural Nepal. As a result, they receive pensions that are significantly lower than those of their British counterparts, despite having done the same job, worn the same uniform and faced the same dangers. These are not marginal differences; they are life-defining disparities. Many Gurkha veterans living in this country are surviving on incomes that would be considered unacceptable for any veteran of our armed forces. Some are living in poverty, some are struggling to heat their homes and some are making impossible choices between basic necessities. The argument has long been that the Gurkha pension scheme was designed with a different purpose and that retrospective changes to pension arrangements are uniquely difficult, but that no longer holds, and here is why. In 2009, after a sustained and powerful campaign supported by Members across this House, Gurkha veterans secured the right to settle in the UK. That was a landmark moment, but it created a new reality—one that our pension system has simply failed to catch up with. We cannot invite people to live in one of the most expensive countries in the world and then continue to pay them as if they were living in Nepal. It is not sustainable or defensible. This is not a new complaint; it has been raised repeatedly by campaigners, vets themselves and Members on all sides. We have seen hunger strikes, protests outside this building and legal challenges, but the fundamental injustice persists, and that should trouble every one of us. When people who once risked their lives for Britain feel that their only remaining tool to be heard is protest or starvation, something has gone very badly wrong. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent in this fight. In 2009, we used an Opposition day to force the House to confront the issue of settlement rights. That vote sent a clear message, and the Government of the day were forced into a U-turn. That showed what this House can achieve when it acts with conviction. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) has written to the Minister for Veterans and People demanding action. We are not raising this issue for the first time; we are raising it because it remains unresolved. There are wider pressures bearing down on this community. Many ageing veterans face language barriers that make it genuinely difficult for them to navigate the system. Many are unaware of entitlements that they should be receiving, and many struggle to access NHS services or social care. Mental health provision is often inconsistent and inadequate. Families face high visa fees and significant financial strain when trying to reunite with loved ones. This is not only about pensions; it is about a broader failure to support a community that has given so much. We must confront the deeper issue here: the current system is rooted in a colonial-era arrangement, the 1947 tripartite agreement between the UK, Nepal and India. That agreement may have reflected the geopolitical realities of the moment, but nearly eight decades later, those realities have changed. The Nepalese Supreme Court itself recently called for a review of the arrangement, highlighting the unequal power dynamics under which it was created and questioning its continued relevance. It has made it clear that the current system does not adequately protect the rights and welfare of Gurkha soldiers, and we should take that seriously. The armed forces covenant promises that those who serve or have served in the armed forces and their families should be treated with fairness and respect—it is a promise of no disadvantage—and yet, for Gurkha veterans, that promise has not been fulfilled. They are, in effect, excluded from the full application of that principle. That is not right, and we have a responsibility to do something about it. Fairness before the state should depend not on where someone was born, but on what they have given. Where do we go from here? The answer is not overly complicated, but we require political will. First, we need a comprehensive pension justice review that seriously examines how we can move towards parity for Gurkha veterans who served before 1997. Secondly, we need to address the financial barriers that continue to affect Gurkha families through reductions in visa fees and, where appropriate, waivers. Thirdly, we need a targeted support package for ageing veterans to ensure that they can access healthcare, social care and mental health services without unnecessary obstacles. These are not radical demands; they are reasonable steps towards fairness. At the end of the day, this comes down to a simple question: do we believe that equal service deserves equal treatment? If the answer is yes—and it must be—the current situation cannot continue. The Gurkhas have served this country with extraordinary courage. They have done so without hesitation and with a loyalty that has become the stuff of legend. But loyalty is a two-way street, and for too long we have not upheld our side of that bargain. Let us act. Let us match their service with fairness, match their sacrifice with justice, and ensure that the values we so often speak about—honour, duty and equality—are reflected not just in our words but in our actions. If we cannot do right by those who have fought for us, the claim that we are a fair and honourable nation begins to ring hollow, and that is something this House should never accept.

• 19 Mar 2026 · International Development · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by asking the Foreign Secretary why this extremely important statement on Britain’s commitments overseas is being announced on a Thursday, when most MPs are not here? Is it perhaps because the Government are ashamed of these cuts and want them to slip out unnoticed? Something has gone badly wrong when a Labour Government cut the foreign aid Budget more deeply than Donald Trump or the last Conservative Government. This shameful moment is not only a moral catastrophe, but strategically illiterate. The cuts to the bilateral aid budget will be a direct and severe hit to Britain’s long-term interests, to our influence and our ability to shape events in regions critical to our national interest, and to growth in new markets, leaving a vacuum for Russia and China to fill. The Foreign Secretary makes great play of defence, but when the world is on fire we need more work on prevention of conflict, not less. By cutting aid and development, she weakens our security and will therefore need more defence spend down the line. If she does not believe me, she may like to believe the defence chiefs who have said so, including Lord Richard Dannatt. We Liberal Democrats oppose these appalling cuts and have set out credible alternatives to fund higher defence spend, including defence bonds and a higher digital services tax. Does the Foreign Secretary not see the contradiction between her desire for a world free from extreme poverty on a liveable planet and these savage cuts? Where is the bravery and leadership that previous Labour Governments and the coalition Government showed to the poorest in the world? Where has the Government’s full commitment to address climate change gone? Where are the Labour party’s values, where did it mislay its moral compass and where is its strategic logic? When and how will she return to the 0.7% of GNI target enshrined in law by the coalition Government?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Flood Preparedness: Esher and Walton · Hansard source

  More

  11. What steps she is taking to support flood preparedness projects in the Esher and Walton constituency.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Flood Preparedness: Esher and Walton · Hansard source

  More

  The Thames runs the length of my constituency, making flooding a significant issue. The Thames Ditton flood group has brilliantly secured funding for temporary flood barriers but cannot deploy them because, despite its efforts, it is unable to obtain public liability insurance. It has contacted Flood Re, the British Insurance Brokers’ Association and the local flood authority, but there is no viable public liability insurance. The group has explored and exhausted all leads provided by the Environment Agency. What does the Minister suggest to the Thames Ditton flood group to enable it to get insurance so that it can use the flood barrier?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Iran: US Plan for Sustainable Peace · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are deeply concerned about further escalation in the middle east and the UK being pulled further into a conflict with no clear objective. They are also concerned about the impact on their energy bills, inflation and interest rates. President Trump is attempting to pull us into his war of choice, urging UK deployments to the strait of Hormuz and asserting that NATO’s future depends on allies committing to deploying assets. Will the Minister rule out the deployment of military assets to the strait of Hormuz, and will he do so as strongly as our German and Spanish allies have done? Does he agree that de-escalation is key, as any further military action threatens a sustainable peace? Does he also agree that a better way forward would be for the UK, as penholder on the UN Security Council, to present an emergency resolution to get the strait of Hormuz open through UN channels?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Iran: US Plan for Sustainable Peace · Hansard source

  More

  11. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the US plan for sustainable peace in Iran.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Consular Assistance · Hansard source

  More

  The illegal war started by Trump and Netanyahu has now engulfed the entire middle east, and Iran’s reckless retaliation against our partners in the region is putting British lives at risk. There are 300,000 Britons still in the region, yet only 140,000—less than half—have registered with the Government. For families in my constituency of Esher and Walton and across the country who have relatives in the region, the uncertainty is agonising. One of my constituents from Walton is stranded in Abu Dhabi and is six months pregnant. Her flight home has been cancelled and her only option is to book a taxi to Oman and then walk up to 4 km in the heat, in the hope of catching a flight. More of my constituents are stranded in Dubai in the Fairmont hotel, which was struck last week. They have registered, as instructed, but have said that the comms are poor and that they cannot get information on how to register for the Government flights. Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to encourage more Britons to register their location? Will he also update the House on what contact the Government have had with Lindsay and Craig Foreman, who remain imprisoned in Iran? What steps are being taken to confirm their safety and wellbeing? Even as the Government’s immediate focus must be on protecting and repatriating UK citizens in the region, I pay tribute to the officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office who are working so hard on this. We cannot, however, ignore what appear to be catastrophic errors in the Government’s readiness for this crisis. The Minister says that this is a consular challenge on the scale of covid, but the Government knew it was coming. Reporting by The Spectator and The Telegraph overnight suggests that the Government were asked for use of British bases on 11 February. There has been a huge deployment of US assets over the last month, and I also assume that the Government were not oblivious to the USS Gerald R. Ford steaming towards the eastern Mediterranean in late February. With so many signals suggesting that war was potentially imminent, why did the Government not move sooner on preparing repatriation plans for our citizens, or prepare for the defence of our base in Cyprus, with HMS Dragon still sat in Portsmouth?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making such a powerful speech. I wish to draw attention to Princess Alice hospice in my constituency. It receives 20% of its funding from the Government, and the rest through selling woolly jumpers. Most constituents are not aware of this, but the hospice says that it can provide only a quarter of the provision that is needed in Esher and Walton because of the state of its funding. Does the hon. Member agree that the situation needs to change, not least if we are to make things equitable for everybody in our society?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Commonwealth Troops: First World War · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this important debate. I, like him, want to start by sharing the story of Khudadad Khan for his extraordinary courage in holding off wave after wave of German infantry in 1914. He became the first soldier of Indian origin to receive the Victoria Cross. What makes his story even more remarkable is the moment at which it occurred. In late 1914, the British Expeditionary Force had lost around 70% of its original strength. Germany’s armies were pushing through the channel ports. Had they broken through, the war could very well have been lost in its first months, and mainland Europe would have likely fallen under the dominion of imperial Germany. But the line held and it did so in part because 45,000 soldiers from India arrived on the western front just in time. Those soldiers had travelled thousands of miles from the subcontinent. Many arrived still wearing cotton uniforms designed for the heat of the Indian frontier, when they were suddenly thrown into the freezing mud of Flanders. They had never seen trench warfare before. They faced artillery barrages, barbed wire, machine guns and the bitter and unfamiliar cold of a Belgian winter. Yet they stood firm. That moment tells us something fundamental about the first world war. This was not simply a British story, but very much one of the Commonwealth. More than 3 million soldiers and labourers from across the empire fought alongside Britain in the first world war. The war memorials in my constituency of Esher and Walton bear testimony to a generation who fought not alone, but shoulder to shoulder with men and women from across the Commonwealth. The numbers alone are staggering. More than 1.4 million came from India, nearly 630,000 from Canada, over 410,000 from Australia, almost 130,000 from New Zealand, and many thousands from the West Indies, Africa, Fiji and beyond. More than half a million Commonwealth soldiers lost their lives. This was not a marginal contribution; it was decisive, and it altered the course of the war. Britain entered the war in 1914 with a relatively small professional Army. There were about 700,000 trained soldiers in total, including reservists and territorials. Set against the vast conscript armies of the central powers, particularly Germany and Austria-Hungary, this force was tiny. Without reinforcements from across the empire, Britain could not have sustained the war effort. The wartime Prime Minister David Lloyd George put it clearly. He said that, had they stayed at home, the issue of the war would have been very different and the history of the war would have taken a different course. We often hear that the arrival of the United States in 1917 tipped the balance of the war, and there is truth in that claim, but there is also a powerful argument that without the Commonwealth’s contribution, the war might not have lasted long enough for the Americans to arrive at all.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Commonwealth Troops: First World War · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is entirely right, and I will shortly come on to the forgotten stories of this war. From the mud of Flanders to the deserts of the middle east, from the jungles of East Africa to the mountains of the Balkans, Commonwealth soldiers were present in almost every theatre of the conflict. Their bravery and resilience, too often forgotten and overlooked, was one of the most notable features of the conflict. Canadian troops faced chlorine gas for the first time at the second battle of Ypres in 1915, holding the line. At Vimy Ridge in 1917, four Canadian divisions fought together as one for the first time, and in just four days they achieved what the French and British had spent years and over 100,000 lives bravely failing to do. This courage was not confined to the trenches. In the skies above Europe, Canadian airmen distinguished themselves with equal daring. Fighter aces such as Billy Bishop, who was awarded the Victoria Cross, played a crucial role in securing allied control of the air. Australian troops bravely fought for eight months on the steep cliffs of Gallipoli, before playing a decisive role in the final offensives of 1918. New Zealand, with a population of barely 1 million people at that time, sent more than 120,000 soldiers overseas, nearly one in five of whom never returned. My own constituency of Esher and Walton has a profound historical connection to New Zealand, dating back to the first world war. During the conflict, Walton served as a major centre for treating injured soldiers from the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, particularly those wounded in the Gallipoli campaign. The Mount Felix mansion was converted into the first New Zealand hospital in the UK. Some 27,000 New Zealand soldiers were treated there, and 21 New Zealand soldiers unfortunately died and are buried in St Mary’s churchyard in Walton. We remember this connection, such as through our roads; New Zealand Avenue runs through the middle of Walton, and we have Adelaide Road too. Since 1920, an annual Anzac Day service is held at St Mary’s church. The Mount Felix tapestry features the soldiers at the hospital, and a kowhai tree donated by the New Zealand Government in 1970 stands at the former site of the hospital. My brilliant constituents in Esher and Walton ensure that the sacrifice of those from New Zealand who served in the great war is remembered. Soldiers from the Caribbean served in the British West Indies Regiment, operating across Europe, Africa and the middle east. Many of them were denied the chance by the British Government to fight as equals. Instead, they were often assigned labour duties, such as digging trenches, unloading ships or carrying supplies. Despite that discrimination, they served with courage and dignity. African soldiers and porters were indispensable to the campaigns across the continent, carrying ammunition and supplies through terrain that would have stopped any conventional army. They suffered catastrophic losses, but they were the logistical backbone of the campaign, and their story remains one of the least known chapters of the war. Women across the Commonwealth were also vital to the British war effort, serving as nurses, driving ambulances, working in munition factories, and keeping farms and industries running. In many schools, our students still learn about the Somme, Passchendaele, and the western front but hear very little about the role played by Indian, African, Caribbean, Australian, Canadian and Chinese forces. As Baroness Warsi powerfully put it, “Our boys weren’t just Tommies—they were Tariqs and Tajinders too”. When we speak of those who served in the first world war, we are speaking about people from every corner of what was then the British empire—people who crossed oceans to fight for a country they had never seen, people who fought in climates and conditions utterly alien to them, people who believed that they were fighting for principles, freedom, justice and the defence of small nations. Yet the response of the British Government in the immediate aftermath often fell far short of the ideals that these men believed they had fought for. West Indian soldiers were excluded from the London victory parade. In India, promises of reform made in return for wartime loyalty were followed by the brutality of the Amritsar massacre. The first world war reshaped not only Europe but the political map of the world. The modern Commonwealth and the family of nations that it represents today has its roots in the sacrifices made during that war. That brings us to the present. We must honour the shared history that binds us to the Commonwealth. Let us ensure that their contributions are fully recognised. Their service must be fully integrated into our national commemorations, and their stories taught in schools so that young people understand that the first world war was not fought by Britain alone. We must uphold the vital work of organisations such as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its volunteers, whose quiet dedication ensures that the name of the fallen, regardless of their nationality, faith or background, are remembered with dignity. We fought alongside a brave coalition of nations and peoples—millions of individuals whose courage, labour and sacrifice made victory possible. They fought in the mud of Belgium, the deserts of Palestine, the mountains of Greece and the jungles of East Africa. Tragically, many of them never came home. They were asked to fight and, sometimes, to die for a country that they had never seen. Let us, a century later, remember why they came and the bravery with which they fought not as a footnote to history but as an essential part of the story of how that tragic war was fought and won.

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

  More

  I want to express my thanks to the FCDO and officials for their hard work helping British nationals overseas during the conflict in Iran and the middle east, including helping my own constituents get home. This debate comes at a moment of extraordinary global crisis. More than 130 conflicts are active, 120 million people have been forcibly displaced, and over 300 million face acute hunger. There is war in Europe, and the middle east now stands on the precipice of full-scale regional war. It is against this backdrop of a world on fire that the Government are pushing through with the deepest cuts to British aid and development in a generation, bringing aid to its lowest level this century—from 0.7% when the Liberal Democrats were in government to 0.5% under the Conservatives, and now to just 0.3% under the Labour Government. This is a far cry from the Labour Government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who made it their aim to make poverty history. This Labour Government’s cuts will contribute to more than 600,000 additional deaths by 2030. Let me pre-empt the Minister telling me that times have changed, and remind him that the legally enshrined 0.7% was designed to slide up and down with GNI and was made after the 2007 financial shock. This Government’s cut was made two days before the Prime Minister went on his first visit to Donald Trump, taking with him a cut that mirrored the one that the President had made to his own foreign assistance budget the previous month, at the start of his Administration. Congress has pushed back on that now and partially reversed the cuts, and now the cuts to ODA by this UK Labour Government run deeper than those of the United States. When today’s USA shows more restraint than this Government, something has gone badly wrong. Development is no longer treated as a pillar of British foreign policy; it has been quietly demoted to an inconvenience. Let us be clear about what that framing of the cut gets wrong. The decision to slash aid budgets to shore up defence spending is a false economy—and a strategically illiterate one at that. Defence, diplomacy and development are mutually reinforcing pillars of a coherent foreign policy. One cannot be hollowed out without the other two being weakened. Getting defence spending to 3% of GDP as soon as possible is vital, and the Liberal Democrats have laid out ways to get to that figure with the defence budget as it is now. I can point the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) to the debates in which those ways are laid out, and I would be very happy to go through them with him. He may not agree with the ways that we are going to get to that figure, but they do exist. Leading voices in defence, including former chiefs of staff and two former heads of MI5, have criticised the decision to slash development in order to increase defence spending, warning that it risks making us weaker and making it harder to prevent conflicts in the first place. Prevention is cheaper than war. Aid stabilises fragile regions before crises require military intervention. It addresses grievances before they become insurgencies and builds good will, which supports diplomacy and trade. It sustains UK influence.

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

  More

  I would love to, and I will come back to the hon. Member with those at another point, but I am up against the clock at the moment. As I go through my speech, there may be some examples. Aid is not charity, as the Minister for International Development suggested to the International Development Committee. It is a strategic tool that makes Britain safer and secure. It reduces the drivers of migration to these shores and strengthens health systems before pandemics cross borders. While we retreat, China and Russia expand their influence across Africa, the middle east and south Asia, filling the vacuum that we leave. UK aid to Africa has already been reduced by £184 million. Countries such as Ethiopia, Syria, South Sudan, Somalia and fragile Sahel states—tinderboxes—have seen significant bilateral cuts, alongside a very thin Africa strategy released quietly before the Christmas recess. Africa has the world’s youngest and fastest-growing population and a projected $30 trillion economy by 2050. It represents a huge future trading opportunity, but our cuts risk weakening those relationships—relationships on which our country’s growth relies. Even international climate finance, which has been rhetorically protected, could fall by nearly £3 billion, we are told by The Guardian . Programmes such as the biodiverse landscapes fund, the blue planet fund and the climate and ocean adaptation and sustainable transition programme are under threat, and support for Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility, which we co-designed, has yet to materialise. Intelligence chiefs have warned that the collapse of ecosystems like the Amazon and coral reefs will not just risk our climate obligations but trigger food shortages and unrest and lead to war reaching our shores. In reality, the cuts are even worse than they look. Around 20% of the aid budget is projected to be spent on in-donor asylum costs by 2027-28, meaning that the amount reaching people overseas could fall to just 0.24% of national income. Is the British taxpayer aware that the money earmarked for the poorest in the world is being spent on asylum hotels in this country? What is most striking about these supplementary estimates is not only their scale but the absence of a coherent strategy underpinning them. There has been no clear argument made, no case put forward and no honest reckoning with what is being lost and what the impact will be. There is no published road map explaining which capabilities we are prepared to lose and whether we intend to rebuild them later. There has been no serious articulation of why slashing bilateral aid strengthens Britain’s long-term interests. There is just a quiet hope that the cuts will land without anyone looking too closely. In fact, the future of the very organisation tasked with scrutinising the UK’s aid and development spend—the Independent Commission for Aid Impact—is in doubt. One of its inquiries is on the impact of the Government’s ODA cuts. The very oversight mechanisms that hold the Government to account are being dismantled. I will briefly turn to our soft power institutions. I will not dwell on them because other Members already have. The BBC World Service and the British Council—two of Britain’s most powerful instruments of influence, funded at a tiny cost to the taxpayer—are having their budgets eroded, the latter burdened by a Government loan with interest payments of up to £15 million a year. Then there is the vital question of capacity and expertise. The FCDO is planning staff reductions of up to 25%, and the Department for Business and Trade, which works in-country to promote trade relations, is facing a 20% staffing cut, yet the Government have failed to produce a workforce plan before the cuts. It is cuts for cuts’ sake. All of this represents a hollowing-out of capability. Rebuilding that expertise later is neither quick to do nor cheap, and it is very difficult to bring back once it has been torn down. The question is unavoidable: what is the plan? The Government must change course and set out a clear, binding timetable to return to 0.7%. I look forward to the Minister updating us on how he will do that. The Liberal Democrats will take a different approach to funding the defence uplift, and we have laid it out in this House. In the meantime, the Government must act to limit the damage that these cuts will cause. That means backing meaningful debt relief for low-income countries, redirecting the share of the aid budget spent on in-donor asylum costs back to aid, and safeguarding vital accountability mechanisms such as the ICAI. In an era of intensifying geopolitical competition, rising instability and growing humanitarian need, Britain faces a choice: we can be an engaged, outward-looking power, shaping events, building partnerships and investing in prevention; or we can shrink our presence, reduce our expertise and hope that the consequences do not rebound on us—a decision to retreat, a decision for the short term, not the long term. The Government’s cuts show that we are drifting towards the latter. Once expertise is lost, once trust is eroded, and once influence is surrendered, it is far harder to recover than it is to protect. Britain still stands tall in the world, but these cuts threaten to diminish that. Britain does not lead by retreating. We lead by showing up, keeping our word and standing with our partners when it matters most. I urge the Government to reclaim our moral authority, rebuild our global influence and lead once again on the world stage.

• 2 Mar 2026 · School SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  Children with SEND do not conform to neat packages and definitions, and those with complex needs require fluctuating levels of support. There is real fear among my constituents that the Government’s proposals will downgrade the level of support available to those with high needs, and may not be flexible enough to respond to changes in children’s needs. Will the Secretary of State define “complexity”, and reassure parents that education, health and care plans will remain open to any child whose needs are not met by individual support plans?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Prime Minister confirm the exact limits of defensive operations and guarantee that those limits will not change, and will the UK withdraw consent to use our bases if there is proof that they are being used by the US to carry out offensive missions?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Any contribution to this debate must surely start with a tribute to the remarkable courage of the Ukrainian people. Four years ago, at the start of Vladimir Putin’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many people expected Russian tanks to be on the streets of Kyiv within days. They did not come because brave Ukrainian troops held them back. Today, four years later, there are still no tanks on the streets in Kyiv and Ukraine is not broken. Ukraine still holds around 80% of its territory and the Russian troops move at glacial speed, with an astonishing and tragic number of Russian dead: young men sent to fight for an imperialist autocrat, whose self-indulgent dream has become his nightmare, stopped by the resistance of the Ukrainian people and their extraordinary resilience, innovation and sacrifice. We have heard already about that sacrifice. Ukrainians have suffered more than half a million military casualties, at least 15,000 civilians have been killed and millions have been forced from their homes. Towns and cities have been relentlessly bombarded, and hospitals and schools targeted. The line that Ukraine has held for four years is the line that separates all of us in Europe, including here in the UK, from a brutal authoritarian dictatorship and a threat to our liberal democracy. Putin wants to destroy that liberal democracy because it threatens him. Britain has stepped up. I am proud to sit on these Benches and look around at the cross-party consensus that means Ukraine is not alone in its fight. We stand with Ukraine. As Putin seeks to reduce Ukraine to a dependent and weakened state, we must be absolutely clear: sovereignty is not a bargaining chip and any peace must be shaped by the Ukrainians themselves. I urge the Government to continue to work closely with our allies to ensure that Ukraine is not strong-armed into an unjust and unstable peace. The war has given rise to Europe’s largest displacement crisis since the second world war. Some 7 million Ukrainians now live abroad as refugees, with a further 5 million displaced within their own country. I say to the 700-odd Ukrainians in my constituency of Esher and Walton: you are very welcome and we are proud to have you. I pay tribute to residents in my constituency who have generously opened up their homes, and to Elmbridge borough council and our local charities, including the brilliant Elmbridge CAN, that have housed families and helped them to integrate. Ukrainians are making Esher and Walton richer. They teach in our schools, including at Walton Leigh; they are chefs, carers and nurses; and Father Ruslan Kurdiumov is the parish priest at St Erconwald’s Catholic church in Walton. Among them are Tetyana and Lena, who once ran their own tourist company in Kyiv. When war broke out four years ago, they put their children in cars and drove across Europe to stay with host families in my constituency. Today, they are rebuilding their lives, running a gardening business and studying garden design, while one of their husbands continues to fight on the frontline. One of their boys is at Esher college, having excelled in his GCSEs. We are lucky to have them with us. Another Lena, living in Thames Ditton, has three children, two at secondary school and one at university. She told me: “We are deeply grateful to the UK for the safety, support, protection and kindness we have received. We are doing everything we can to rebuild stable, productive lives, working, paying taxes, learning the language and our children are growing up in British schools. We want to not only rebuild our lives but also to give back to the country that helped us in our most difficult times. The greatest challenge we face today is uncertainty about our future. If we were required to return because the war is considered ‘over’, my greatest fear would be for my children. They have already integrated here. They have friends, education, routines and a sense of emotional stability again after displacement and trauma. Forcing them to start over for a second time would be a profound psychological strain. For many families the end of active war does not mean life is safe or normal. Homes have been destroyed, communities damaged. Some people simply have nowhere to go back to.” The 24-month visa is welcome, but it still leaves many families living with uncertainty. We Liberal Democrats are calling for an automatic visa extension, a clear route to long-term status, trauma-informed education for children and real stability for families who are already contributing so much to our communities. Another of my constituents, Graham, offered his home to a Ukrainian guest, Kristina Hotsyk. She is desperate to reunite with her parents, but the reintroduction of biometric requirements, forcing people to travel to cities under nightly attack, is making that process extremely dangerous. I urge the Government to address this issue as soon as possible. Let me turn to the aid situation. It is reassuring that the Government have decided to protect the overseas aid spend for Ukraine this year, but while that is welcome, the increase is modest. At a moment when global aid flows are collapsing, it will not do as much as we would like. At the same time, the Government have decided to slash overseas aid, meaning that it will become harder for us to sustain aid flows to Ukraine in the coming years. That is a strategic mistake, because overseas aid is not charity; it is an investment in our own security. A stable Ukraine deters Russian aggression across Europe, sends a clear message that borders cannot be redrawn by force and raises the cost of future wars. Poverty and hardship in any country send people into the arms of those who offer a populist, easy message. Aid stabilises societies and prevents crises from spiralling into conflict, displacement and insecurity that ultimately reach our shores. Ukraine shows what continuous, serious aid flows can achieve. Our support has helped to keep a country under siege functioning. It has strengthened civilian morale and reinforced a frontline state standing between Europe and authoritarian expansion. That is what properly funded aid looks like. I hope the Government do not throw away the progress that they have made and reverse course on the aid cuts as soon as possible. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to take bolder action. First, we must scale up our military and bring forward plans to reach 3% of GDP being spent on defence as quickly as possible, instead of waiting until the next decade. Our armed forces have been hollowed out, such that we now have the lowest troop numbers in more than 200 years, while stockpiles have become depleted. That weakens support for Ukraine and makes us feel less safe here at home. Let me be clear that defence must not come at the expense of development; it is a false and dangerous narrative to pitch the one against the other. As the US general and former Secretary of Defence, Jim Mattis, said: “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition”. Secondly, we must hit the Russian war machine where it hurts. More than £30 billion-worth of frozen Russian assets sit in the UK alone. The Liberal Democrats have introduced legislation for those to be seized and redirected to Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction, and I urge the Government to put it into law as soon as possible. We should also work with G7 partners to lower the oil price cap, cutting directly into Putin’s war profits. Thirdly, accountability matters. The war crimes that we have seen in this tragic conflict, from the attacks on humanitarian convoys and the missile strikes on churches and children’s playgrounds to the abduction of an estimated 35,000 Ukrainian children, have shocked the conscience of the world. I went to see the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva and saw the records of soldiers and the work that it is doing to reunite families and children and identify the missing so that their families can have closure. I applaud its quiet work. International law must be upheld, and war criminals like Putin must not be allowed to act with impunity. The rules-based order is under attack—a climate that makes the work of vital international institutions such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and NATO even more important. Putin would like nothing more than for the UN and NATO to collapse, so we must protect them. I urge the Government to continue their full-throated support for those vital entities and resist pressure from the United States to ignore or defy them. Today, four years on, we are proud to still stand with Ukraine. Let us not allow Ukraine to be forced into a settlement that rewards aggression and leaves all of us less safe, because the Ukrainian people are fighting not just their war, but our war. They deserve nothing less than our full and unwavering commitment. I will end with a poem written by a Ukrainian constituent, Nikita Balakin. He is nine and is at Cleves school in Oatlands. It reads: “Mum, me and one suitcase Three of us only I left my cat, I left my dog And all my dreams behind in the fog I was just five but looked like more Because I knew the world of war New country, language, school and friends. Thanks to everyone who helps. I started to smile and play the games And I can start to hope again. I want the world to see my joy PEACE is the biggest dream of a Ukrainian boy!”