Monica Harding MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Mar 2025 · Nutrition for Growth Summit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing the debate. The Nutrition for Growth summit is an opportunity for the UK to reaffirm our country’s commitment to eradicating hunger. Since 2012, when we founded and hosted the inaugural Nutrition for Growth summit in London following our hosting of the Olympic games, Britain and British leadership have achieved so much. We helped to raise £17 billion to fight malnutrition and between 2015 and 2020, we surpassed our goal of reaching 50 million people with food assistance and nutrition-relevant programming, saving countless lives. But now we are at an inflection point, and there is a risk that progress on nutrition and the development goals is slipping. In the UN’s recent report, we were warned that the world is on track to meet just 17% of our 2030 targets. On a further 17%, we have regressed, and nowhere has there been greater regression than on sustainable development goal 2, on zero hunger. Driven by spreading conflict, worsening climate change and the disruption of the pandemic years, the number of those suffering from malnutrition—

• 25 Mar 2025 · Nutrition for Growth Summit · Hansard source

  More

  It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As I was saying, driven by spreading conflict, worsening climate change and the disruption of the pandemic years, the number of those suffering from malnutrition has risen by 150 million in five years. At this moment, we have a broader challenge. The Government have chosen not to redouble efforts to fight hunger, but to slash the official development assistance budget to its lowest level this century. We believe that that is a moral and strategic mistake that will exacerbate food insecurity and render all of us here in the UK less safe. Since the Prime Minister’s announcement in February, there has been little clarity about UK development priorities or about what existing promises this Government intend to honour. The Nutrition Action for Systemic Change report published last year found that the Government were then tracking to meet our nutrition for growth commitment, made following the 2021 summit in Tokyo, of spending £1.5 billion on nutrition objectives between 2022 and 2030. Just one week before the development budget was cut by 40%, the then Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), again affirmed the UK’s commitment to that £1.5 billion figure. Will the Minister today repeat that pledge and assure us that the UK will not renege on the resources promised by multiple Governments to fight hunger? In addition to worsening levels of hunger, the overall nutrition picture is growing increasingly complex. The so-called triple burden of malnutrition, obesity and vitamin deficiency requires solutions that combat all three issues together. Those solutions must encompass ready-to-use therapeutic food, vitamin A supplementation as well as other nutrients, and health interventions targeting obesity. Will the Minister share the specific steps that the FCDO is taking to ensure that UK nutrition policy addresses all dimensions of that triple burden, including by requiring that the development finance investments made by arm’s length FCDO bodies align with UK nutrition goals? Nutrition-specific ODA, often delivered in a context of urgent humanitarian need, is indispensable. It is regularly the difference between life and death for some of the world’s poorest. As we speak, the UN World Food Programme is closing offices in Africa. That agency received about half its funding last year from USAID—the United States Agency for International Development— so is now facing acute financial pressures, cutting the delivery of lifesaving RUTF and other supplies. The impact of USAID’s gutting is already devastating. In the coming year, reduced food assistance could result in as many as 550,000 deaths, according to The New York Times . We Liberal Democrats believe that there is a moral imperative for the UK to act in the face of that looming catastrophe. We believe that filling some of the funding gaps left by the retreat of USAID will require the UK to play a vital convening role, so could the Minister inform us of what conversations the UK is having and leading with partner nations, NGOs and other philanthropic organisations, aimed at catalysing targeted nutrition interventions? At the same time, we must recognise that highly focused, specific interventions are capable of addressing only about 30% of the most persistent nutritional challenges, such as child stunting and child wasting. Progress on the other 70% requires progress on a wide range of nutrition-sensitive development areas, including maternal health, agricultural productivity, WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene—and climate change, and vice versa. A pregnant mother experiencing malnutrition and unable to access multiple micronutrient supplements is far more likely to give birth to a stunted child. Even vaccines are less effective when delivered to children experiencing malnutrition. As the International Development Committee argued in its most recent report—as a Committee member, I must declare an interest—nutrition and food security are cross-cutting themes across UK ODA programming, so success requires not only highly targeted interventions, but a strategic approach that integrates nutrition throughout development work. I know that this integration is a priority for the FCDO, and I am pleased that the Minister will be championing a global compact on nutrition integration in Paris. However, according to the NASC’s 2024 report, from 2021 to 2022, the nutrition-sensitive share of the FCDO’s ODA spend actually declined. For humanitarian spending it fell from 27% to 22%, for health spending it fell from 11% to 5%, and for education spending it fell from 4% to just 1%. What concrete steps is the FCDO taking to reverse that trend and to model nutrition integration going forward? Moreover, what accountability mechanisms will be tied to the global compact on nutrition integration such that it changes behaviour and produces results? There may be no area of development linked as closely to nutrition as conflict. The World Food Programme found that conflict was the key driver of food insecurity last year, and it showed that two thirds of those facing acute food insecurity did so in fragile or conflict-affected locations. Not only do violence, conflict and instability lead to displacement and migration, and create a breeding ground for terrorism that can threaten us here in the UK, but they undermine our professed nutrition objectives. Yet the integrated security fund, which addresses acute national security threats and is partially funded through ODA, is facing significant cuts due to the Government’s decision to slash aid. Will the Minister therefore assure us that the Government’s development cut will not result in cuts to the ODA-funded portion of the ISF? I am also concerned that the cut will mean a further hollowing out of the UK expert capacity. When the Department for International Development was merged with the Foreign Office in 2020, it was expert teams that gave Britain the know-how on how to lead on areas such as nutrition, which were chronically under-resourced. Our capacity suffered as a result, and I urge the Minister to prioritise protecting the UK’s health and nutrition expertise, embedded in-country and in the FCDO. I am very pleased that the UK will be represented by a Minister at the Nutrition for Growth summit. I give our envoy all our support and encouragement in convening and corralling support for a compact on nutrition integration, yet it is difficult to lead on global nutrition policy when we are stepping back from funding nutrition. I remain deeply disappointed that no new financial commitments will be announced by the Government to mark the summit. Nutrition is foundational for development. Investments in nutrition are low cost and high impact, representing one of the highest value development initiatives. We also know how to do it. Indeed, we have achieved remarkable success, halving the proportion of people suffering from undernourishment in developing regions between 1990 and 2015. We have led that, but we are now in retreat. I urge the Government to renew that ambition, because nutrition is foundational. Without it, progress on global health, gender equality and peace building is nearly impossible, and the need for that is greater than ever.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing the Bill before the House, and pay tribute to him and to the hon. Members who have already spoken so movingly on this subject, including the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her tireless advocacy. The many forms of cancer categorised as rare according to the Bill might each strike a small number of people, but taken together rare cancers make up almost one in five of all cancer diagnoses. Each incident, each diagnosis, each prognosis has the same devastating impact on families throughout the country, my own being no exception. My brother-in-law, Group Captain Pip Harding, who was 53, was diagnosed with stage 4 glioblastoma this time last year. At the time, he was serving in the Royal Air Force with the US Indo-Pacific command, one of his many tours, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was given nine to 12 months to live. For his wife Claire and his five children, the news changed everything. In September, I joined Pip, his family and over 400 other loved ones at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire for what was called a “dining out” or farewell ceremony, an event to allow everyone to be together with Pip, potentially for one last time. You can imagine how difficult, yet how moving, that was. A few weeks later, Pip was lucky enough to come across the pioneering brain surgeon Dr Paul Mulholland, who has been trialling a treatment called oncothermia. This employs radio frequencies to target and heat malignant cancer tumour cells while avoiding healthy cells. Oncothermia is not currently available on the NHS and each one-hour treatment costs £1,000. A tumour like Pip’s requires 36 sessions. For most people, indeed for almost all of us, that kind of money and, consequently, that course of care, is out of reach, but the 400 friends and family who attended Pip’s farewell dinner set up a GoFundMe page, which is now covering the cost of the treatment. We love Pip, which is why we all put in as much as we could to fund it. Cancers like this, with a brutal and bleak prognosis, bring people together to fight it. I want the Government to share that resolve. Since starting the monthly oncothermia sessions in December, the first MRI scan showed that Pip’s brain tumour had reduced in size from 7 cm to 1.7 cm. Pip is, thank God, still alive and watching today. European studies now suggest that oncothermia can extend life for four to five years. For Pip’s five children, that time is everything. But that is not the whole of my experience with glioblastoma. In 2021, my husband John’s best friend Ian died from the disease. His widow Nicola is in the Gallery. Almost unbelievably, Nicola’s sister Karen, who had done so much to help Nicola through the loss of Ian, was herself diagnosed with a stage 4 glioblastoma last year and died a few months later. I know that others in the Chamber and in the Gallery have had their lives touched by glioblastoma, too. I am sure they will agree that in the past three decades there has been an unacceptable lack of progress made on this disease: a lack of progress in developing new treatments, making them widely accessible and keeping those diagnosed with glioblastoma here with their loved ones. In the past 50 years, cancer survival rates in the UK have doubled. Whereas in the 1970s only 25% of those diagnosed were expected to live 10 years, today over half do. That is a record of staggering success and represents countless lives extended, made richer and fuller, and even saved. When it comes to glioblastoma, however, there is far less to celebrate. The chances of living a decade with the disease are one in 100. The gains in life expectancy over recent decades can be measured in months—precious, yes, but not nearly enough. Glioblastoma is a rare cancer, but also an exceptionally lethal one. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and of adults under the age of 40, yet in recent years, glioblastoma has been apportioned only around 1% to 2% of UK cancer funding. In 2018, to honour Dame Tessa Jowell, the Government announced a doubling of funding for research into brain tumours, but six years later, it was widely reported that less than half of the pledged £40 million had actually been spent. During each of those years, as funding was being delayed and sluggishly deployed, more than 3,000 people in the UK were diagnosed with glioblastomas. Will the Government update the House on how the remaining funds have been and are being spent? Will the Minister assure me that as the national cancer plan is developed alongside the NHS 10-year plan, deliberate and specific consideration will be given to glioblastomas? The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency incentivises research on orphan drugs, granting exclusivity for manufacturers and making it cheaper to bring drugs to market once they are developed, but clearly, when it comes to glioblastomas, it has not had adequate success.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would of course support such a move, and I urge the Government to listen and take action. Getting it right on glioblastoma is vital. Despite minor breakthroughs, exciting innovations and apparently promising research leads, for this disease, there has simply not been the improvement in survival rates that most cancers have had. To put it bluntly, glioblastoma remains a death sentence—an increasingly common one. In the UK, cancer diagnoses have increased, but although there are some worrying sub-themes, this trend is largely due to increased life expectancy. However, that is not the case with glioblastoma. In the past 30 years, rates in the UK have more than doubled. There has been far more of an uptick than is attributable to us all living longer. More people are developing this disease, yet we have failed to make meaningful strides on treatment and cures, or even on giving those with glioblastoma a little more time with those dearest to them. Now is the moment to do something about that. I welcome the Bill. I welcome its emphasis on improving research—I have already touched on drug development—and the provisions to facilitate clinical trials, because the grim reality is that for glioblastoma, those trials are hard to conduct. There are too few patients, and frequently their life expectancy is too limited. Anything that can be done to connect eligible patients with researchers faster and with less friction is valuable. I emphasise that there are great opportunities in front of us for accelerating research and making broad advances in the battle against rare cancers. Along with almost half my parliamentary colleagues, I am proud to have pledged my support for the Lobular Moon Shot project, which advocates a boost of around £20 million over five years for research on the basic biology of invasive lobular breast cancer, with a view to developing new treatments. Despite being the second most common form of breast cancer, lobular breast cancer is in many ways treated like a rare cancer. It is under-researched, difficult to diagnose through the standard screening mammogram, and often presents fewer symptoms than invasive ductal carcinoma, which makes up the overwhelming majority of breast cancer incidents.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Yes, lobular breast cancer is treated in many ways like a rare disease. I recently met my constituent Kate, who was diagnosed with lobular breast cancer in 2023. She explained to me that because almost all breast cancer research is based on the ductal variant, women like her are diagnosed later and often receive treatment oriented towards a cancer with a different biology from lobular cancer. Those two factors result in higher recurrence and lower survival rates. Kate has been in remission for more than a year, and has become an advocate for research. On her behalf, I ask the Minister whether she has met with the Lobular Moon Shot campaigners. What steps are the Government taking to increase research into the cancer? What consideration has she given to updating guidelines for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to encourage the use of MRIs to diagnose lobular breast cancer earlier? The moon shot idea is the right one. In fighting cancer we should set ambitious goals, and we should innovate until we meet them. Moreover, as the Apollo project shows, research into seemingly narrow things often has spillover effects, producing vast, unanticipated benefits. That is often true when it comes to orphan drugs. To take just one example, Gleevec has changed the game, and not just for one rare form of leukaemia; it is now used to treat a range of other cancers and conditions. The British pharmaceutical development sector is exceptionally strong, and now is a moment of potential. On genome mapping, artificial intelligence, biotech, immunotherapy and cancer vaccines, the UK is in a position to transform and save lives. I recognise the limited scope of the Bill, but I believe it to be vital. This House must take a keen interest in accelerating and incentivising research into rare cancers, including glioblastoma. This legislation meaningfully advances that goal. I will speak briefly about young people and children, and specifically a lovely girl called Maddie Cowey. At the age of 18, Maddie was diagnosed with an alveolar soft part sarcoma. Sarcoma is an uncommon cancer that can occur anywhere in the body. All cancers in someone of Maddie’s age are considered rare, but in her case, the classification was ultra-rare. Partly in consequence, it took five months for her to receive a diagnosis. Maddie had just started university. She recalled that at the time it “felt like my life was falling apart. In many ways it was and it did. It was a very lonely place.” Maddie was diagnosed almost 10 years ago now. There are no approved treatments for Maddie’s type of rare cancer, and she is undergoing a clinical trial. It is likely that she will remain on treatment for life. Maddie is amazing; she is brave and she will not let cancer define her. I bring up her story because cancer in young people is so uncommon that often it is diagnosed later. Neither medical professionals nor young people expect it, but the later a diagnosis comes, the more likely the cancer is to be lethal. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the rare cancers afflicting young people are caught earlier? Finally, I am reminded of something that Emily Dickinson once wrote about hope: “I’ve heard it in the chillest land, and on the strangest sea”. We must get this right. We must give sufferers hope. We owe that to Pip’s family—his wife Claire and his five children—and to Nicola in the Gallery, and her and Ian’s sons Adam and Oliver, and to so many others who have suffered and who are here with us. I believe that we can.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s legislation contains welcome provisions to address some of the behaviours that plague my constituents, which were allowed to flourish under the previous Conservative Government. My constituents will welcome a serious and renewed focus on combating shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, because the Conservatives decimated our police community support officers—in Surrey, they fell by 29% between 2015 and 2022—and eroded the close relationship between the police and the communities they serve. Ultimately, the provisions in this Bill that are intended to make places such as Esher and Walton safer must be backed by a genuine and sustained commitment to community policing, and by giving officers the time and resources to build trust and understanding with those they protect. In the past 12 months, arrests made by Surrey police for shop thefts have more than doubled. This is not merely a case of officers solving a higher percentage of crimes; in fact, the number of thefts detected by the police has also more than doubled. Surging levels of shoplifting are utterly corrosive for high streets in places such as Esher and Walton. They impose costs on retailers and may undercut residents’ faith in law enforcement and the ability of politicians to get things done, so I hope the Government will pursue this issue with urgency. The same is true when antisocial behaviour is not dealt with. I have received far too many emails and letters from constituents struggling with the conduct of neighbours. In such cases, the actions of a few can impose severe strains on so many. As one constituent wrote to me, there is an issue of fairness: ordinary people come for a quiet life, have work to do and have been left exhausted by noise, disruptions and even threatening behaviour coming from a small group. I recognise that this Bill accordingly highlights housing providers as relevant agencies with a role to play in tackling antisocial behaviour. However, when people feel threatened, there is no substitute for recognisable neighbourhood police with deep links to the community. Given the criminal sanctions attached to breaches of a respect order, can the Minister assure the House that community police will receive funding in line with the vital role they have to play in ensuring that the Government’s new orders do not become meaningless? Finally, I will address the protection of police officers. The police deserve protection from abuse. The Public Order Act 1986 was enhanced in 1998 to allow racially and religiously motivated abusive language or behaviour that is directed at emergency workers to be treated as an aggravating factor. However, there is a loophole in the legislation such that if this particular form of abuse occurs when both parties are in the perpetrator’s private dwellings, it is not treated as an aggravating factor. That is wrong. It leaves the mistaken impression that there are some circumstances in which the racial abuse of emergency workers is acceptable, and it fails to deter such behaviour. Will the Minister therefore commit to re-examining that issue and exploring the possibility of finally removing the anomaly?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Syria · Hansard source

  More

  The reports from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that at least 1,000 Alawites have been killed over the past few days are deeply concerning. This escalation in violence undermines Syria’s fragile transition from dictatorial rule under Assad, and it harms efforts to encourage religious and sectarian tolerance. At this stage, it is critical that we understand whether the violence represents spontaneous clashes between different sects or is the product of state-directed policy. This must inform the Government’s position on whether to lift sanctions to support Syria’s development and reintegration into the global community. I note that the interim Syrian Government have announced the establishment of an independent committee to investigate the violent clashes, but this must be followed up with concrete steps to protect Syrians of all ethnic and religious groups and ensure they are represented in the new Administration, as well as action to bring justice to those who have perpetrated violence in this conflict. The international community must also work with partners in the region to support Syria’s transition away from dictatorial rule, including by emphasising the importance of embedding religious and sectarian tolerance, as well as the rights of women, in the new Syrian regime. Will the Minister update the House on what he is doing to engage with partners in the region, including the Syrian Government, to promote respect and support for religious and sectarian tolerance in Syria? It is important, too, that this Government recognise that neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon have generously welcomed Syrian refugees, but they face immense challenges in providing food, shelter and essential services. Can the Minister outline how the cuts to international aid will impact our ability to support Syria’s economic development, including the cuts to bilateral aid to neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, where many Syrians have sought refuge?

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very pleased to speak in support of the safer phones Bill. I speak as the mother of four teenagers who goes into battle nearly every day on screen time, as a governor for eight years at a local school who has seen the damage that screens can do to young people’s mental health, and as a Member of Parliament who might be able to do something to turn the tide on the damage to our young people, who are being used as guinea pigs in the rapid advance of technology. We are well into the tech revolution, which will change everything. It is a force for good but, as with previous industrial revolutions, there are victims. In the first industrial revolution the victims were the children in the factories, and today our children need protection against a tsunami of tech and its attendant harm. The Bill, as originally intended, was a crucial step in safeguarding the wellbeing of children in our digital world, and I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for all his work to date in campaigning for safer smartphone use for children. As many Members have pointed out, the evidence before us is undeniable, and I will not rehearse what has already been said. However, I want to pull out a few facts. A total of 2.5 million children in the UK are using social media under age, and, crucially, before they have developed the necessary skills to navigate complex and risky online environments. Extended screen time has also spiked rapidly and become the norm for most young people. I commend the report from the Education Committee, which revealed that nearly a quarter of children now use smartphones in a way that is consistent with a behavioural addiction, and in some cases screen use starts as early as six months. By the time children reach the age of 12, nearly all of them have smartphones. Social media and mobile applications are not just tools for communication; many are inherently addictive by design, engineered to keep users engaged, whatever the cost, and I know this through my children. I echo the words of many Members today on the addictive nature and the battles that parents have. This is placing huge pressure on parents, who are in a battle with addictive algorithms that they cannot possibly win. I wholeheartedly supported the initial provisions in the Bill, as did hundreds of my constituents in Esher and Walton who wrote to me in support of the campaign behind it. Although I continue to support the Bill, I must express disappointment that it has been significantly watered down. What could have been a bold step in child protection has been reduced to mere provisions for Government research commitments and guidance revisions—actions that do not require legislation. The Government already committed to commissioning academic research on smartphone use last autumn, partly in response to the very welcome campaigning by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington, and we already have overwhelming evidence supporting stronger regulation. How much more evidence do the Government need? Headteachers across my constituency and parent groups in Molesey, Esher, Walton, Thames Ditton and Hersham have convened local campaigns, with nearly 1,000 signatories to parliamentary petitions on this issue, expressing huge concerns about excessive smartphone use, unregulated social media and the inadequacy of current regulations. I know that schools in my constituency were particularly encouraged by initial indications that the Bill would require schools to be mobile-free and would ensure Government support for schools as they seek to enforce effective and safe learning spaces. The headteacher of Esher high school, Andy King, illustrated to me just how much creative problem solving teachers are having to adopt in order to keep children focused on learning, when they are walking around with such an addictive invention right in their pockets. His school has been compelled to enforce a “closed backpacks only” rule, as opposed to open bags such as handbags, so that children are not distracted by seeing a notification pop up in their open bags in class. All the headteachers I met in my constituency talked about the inattention caused by phones and the inability to focus on a whole book. Research shows that it can take up to 20 minutes for pupils to refocus after engaging in non-academic digital activity. The rise in screen time has also been linked to declining attention levels, language skills and sleep quality. It is both a learning distraction and a serious health concern. As we celebrate International Women’s Day tomorrow, we should not ignore how children’s access to smartphones can undermine healthy relationships and the safety and wellbeing of women and girls. The Children’s Commissioner for England found that 79% of children had encountered violent pornography before the age of 18, with the average age of first exposure being just 13 years old. I know of a constituent whose child saw extreme pornography at 13 and was so traumatised that his efforts to clear his mind caused him to develop OCD. We also know that online sexual crimes against children have risen by 400% since 2013, and a staggering 81% of girls aged seven to 21 have experienced some form of threatening or upsetting behaviour online. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington has done to build the case for Government action, but it is a pity that we will not be able to test the will of Parliament for a much more ambitious approach to online safety from this Government. The Secretary of State has expressed frustration with gaps in the Online Safety Act and its implementation. This Bill could have been used to make urgent amendments to it. Why have the Government not used that opportunity, particularly when the Secretary of State indicated that there would be no new legislation any time soon? I urge the Government to stop hiding behind endless reviews and take concrete steps—including two specific ones—to protect young people now. First, services must be required to ensure minimum age limits on their platforms. Unfathomably, Ofcom’s draft children’s codes do not impose an obligation on regulated services to enforce their own terms of service on the minimum age of users on their platforms. In consultation on the codes, children’s charities argued for that and have campaigned on it ever since. Ofcom is not listening, and the Government are doing nothing to address this. The Bill could and should have been used to plug that gap, regardless of any additional evidence the Government feel they need before making further policy or legislative commitments. Will the Government commit to doing that? Secondly, with Meta’s announcement in the last couple of months that it is removing protections for vulnerable users from its content moderation policies, the Online Safety Act should be amended to introduce a mechanism preventing regulated services from rolling back protections in their terms of service, and setting minimum standards. Without a prohibition on reducing protections—even for children—under the Online Safety Act, platforms can keep rolling back on their user safety protections until they hit the level that is harmful for children. That cannot be right, but it can be fixed with an amendment to the Online Safety Act. Will the Government agree to use the Bill to do that? The Bill could have been a vehicle for real policy action. Although its provisions are not as powerful as I initially hoped, some progress is better than none, so I will be supporting it. I urge colleagues across the House not only to support the Bill, but to push for the stronger, bolder reforms that our children desperately need. To say that it is inevitable is not enough. Every day that we wait is another day that a child spends 18 hours online, potentially at grave risk. I urge the Government and us all to act.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  This month marks 10 years since the passing of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, which committed this country to spending 0.7% of our national income on international development. It was a proud moment that represented the culmination of almost half a century of effort and advocacy by my party, the Liberal Democrats. However, that legislation was created through a political consensus across the House, which built on the work of the reforming Labour Government of 1997, who committed to make poverty history, and was continued by a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Britain is a leader in international development due to both our expertise and our generosity, and our influence on the world stage has grown as a consequence. Development opened opportunities for trade and growth, and worked alongside defence and diplomacy as a third element of our foreign policy to keep us secure at home. The Prime Minister’s cut to the international development budget last week to 0.3% of GNI puts an end to that shared consensus. Let me be clear: Liberal Democrats support the increase in defence spending. We called for the uplift to 2.5% of GDP even before the Prime Minister committed to it, but we have laid out alternative funding plans. The world is changing fast, not least in the past six weeks, so we must adapt. But this diminishing of our development spend will make us less, not more, secure. International development serves our national and border security interests. It is our investment in a more stable world and it pays dividends. By contrast, when we retreat, actors whose values and interests are not ours seize the opportunity. Even as we watch, President Trump and Elon Musk gut USAID, which was responsible for a fifth of global development spending. China is moving to fill the gap, deepening its partnerships in the Indo-Pacific and Africa, where, in 2024 alone, Beijing agreed more than $50 billion in loans and aid. As we have heard, when budget cuts forced the closure of the BBC World Service’s Arabic radio in Lebanon, Radio Sputnik—the Russian-backed radio service—moved in. Development spending serves our health here in the UK, and that is put at risk by the Prime Minister’s cut. Through our support for multilateral organisations, such as Gavi and the Global Fund, we have not only saved millions of lives, but prevented diseases such as Ebola from reaching pandemic proportions and causing devastation on British shores. As Anneliese Dodds’ resignation letter makes clear, last week’s decision will make it impossible to maintain all of the UK’s development commitments. It may mean cutting strategic programmes that make vital contributions to UK security, including peacebuilding and deconfliction work in fragile states. This will only produce more violence, more failed nations and more refugees and, in the breeding grounds of instability and extremism, risks the emergence of new terrorist groups that could threaten us here at home. The development cut will mean scaling back the climate finance that develops resilience and mitigation measures for countries on the frontline of climate change and reducing anti-poverty programmes for those very same nations. We know that for every 1% increase in food insecurity, there is a 2% increase in migration. The interaction of climate change and poverty with the high birth rates and extremely young populations in much of the global south is a recipe for the vast displacement of people. We know that in the next 10 years, 1.1 billion young people across the global south will become working-age adults, yet in those same countries we expect only 325 million jobs to be created, so supporting these economies is in our interests. More conflict will only exacerbate the situation. Last year, even as the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe unfolded, more than 2,000 people from Sudan crossed the channel on small boats. We already have the highest levels of refugees and migration since the end of the second world war, and the Prime Minister’s decision risks further displacement. Will the Minister clarify why no impact assessment was done in advance of these cuts? When will it be done, and when will this House see it? In 2023, the UK spent 0.2% of GNI on official development assistance within the UK, more than £4 billion of which was used to host in-country refugees. If anything like that continues, we will be left with just 0.1% of GNI to finance our overseas aid objectives. That would make our aid spend the smallest of any of the 32 countries that comprise OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, save for Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, and lower than the rest of the G7. That is a long way to fall from being a global leader in development spending and the second biggest donor of the G7. Will the Government reconsider their decision to count in-country refugee costs as ODA, so that what little remains after this cut can be used to advance UK interests abroad? Will the Minister confirm that, in view of the Government’s statements in the other place yesterday, the money for the Integrated Security Fund will be ringfenced? Can he also confirm that, to safeguard British soft power, the current level of ODA allocated to both the BBC World Service and the British Council will be protected? Will the Minister clarify how much of the total 0.3% has already been assigned to multilateral commitments? Is the money still ringfenced? If it is, how much will be left available for bilateral assistance? How will this cut affect UK-run programmes in Sudan; in Gaza and the west bank; in Jordan, where UK ODA is used to support displaced people and prevent future waves of refugees; in the DRC; and in Myanmar? Most importantly, is 0.3% the floor or the ceiling? In the past, Britain’s overseas aid spending, which has reached 13.8 million people with food aid, helped 95 million people to cope with the effects of climate change and inoculated 15 million children with lifesaving vaccines, has reflected the deep generosity of the British people—we see that again and again in just how much is donated to appeals in response to natural disasters across the world—but we should never mistake development for charity. We reap the benefits of a safer, richer world through increased trade and growth and—critically—through our security, national health and border security. I had hoped that the Government would reset the UK’s place on the world stage, as they promised. I had hoped that they would return us to the 0.7% target, as promised in their manifesto. In the past, Labour Front Benchers, including the Prime Minister, spoke with vigour about the importance of development for security and the short-sightedness of previous Conservative cuts. Now, in dereliction of its values, Labour has gone further than the Conservatives ever did. The world is becoming ever more dangerous. The norms of the international order have been turned on their head. Only yesterday in the UN, the United States denounced the sustainable development goals developed collaboratively in pursuit of a better world. The Liberal Democrats had hoped that the UK would step up and lead on development, recognising its vital importance to our future security. Instead, the Government have cut development to its lowest level this century. That is a short-sighted, strategically unwise decision that will leave us less safe. It is not only the millions of the world’s poorest who will feel that, but our constituents, too.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  What message does the Minister think the Government send about their commitment to international aid in Gaza—and, indeed, anywhere else—by not only cutting it to 0.3%, which is its lowest level this century, but removing the ability of this House to scrutinise that cut or any remaining spend by moving ministerial responsibility for aid and development from this Chamber to the other place?

• 4 Mar 2025 · NICs Increase: Impact on Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the planned increase in employer national insurance contributions on economic growth.

• 4 Mar 2025 · NICs Increase: Impact on Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Alison runs Stepping Stones nursery school, which has been operating in my constituency for 30 years, offering wraparound care to busy families. The increase in employers’ national insurance contributions alone will cost it £16,000 a year and it is still struggling with an increase in utility costs, while other nurseries in the area are also struggling and, indeed, closing. Headmasters, a hairdresser in Walton, is struggling with £15,000 of extra costs, owing primarily to this tax rise. Can the Minister explain to businesses in Esher and Walton how the Government’s national insurance policy will deliver growth or higher living standards, given that it seems to be doing neither?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Palestinian Rights: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for bringing this critically important debate. Late last year, I also visited the occupied territories and the west bank, and I share his and other hon. Members’ strength of feeling. I also pay tribute to our officials in East Jerusalem, who work so hard to tell and navigate the story, to all those there who are seeking peace—there are many of them—and to all those who are living under the daily horror of conflict. In this debate, I reaffirm the Liberal Democrats’ unwavering commitment to human rights, international law and a lasting peace for both Palestinians and Israelis through a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. First and foremost, the Liberal Democrats support the UK Government in their efforts to uphold the current ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Negotiations to move from phase 1 to phase 2 of the ceasefire deal must occur as quickly as possible. In the meantime, I urge the Government to do everything they can to secure the unconditional release of hostages, all the while ensuring that humanitarian aid flows unhindered into Gaza. They must do that. Last weekend, Israel blocked further humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, which is a contravention of international humanitarian law. It also imperils the delicate but essential cessation of hostilities, and will impose yet more suffering on Gazan civilians, who have already suffered so much. Israel must act in line with its obligations under international humanitarian law and permit aid in. I also note with concern developments in the west bank. Despite the ceasefire in Gaza, there are strong indications that the Israeli military are refocusing efforts on the west bank. Israel’s Defence Minister, Israel Katz, confirmed last Sunday that 40,000 residents were displaced from refugee camps in the north of the west bank, and that Israel will not allow the return of the Palestinian residents. Will the Minister condemn this forced displacement, particularly in view of the comments of Minister Katz? Moreover, the UK must respect and act upon the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the occupation, cease all trade with illegal Israeli settlements, and work to end the arbitrary administrative detention of Palestinians by the IDF. The continued expansion of settlements in occupied territories is an obstacle to peace, and the UK must stand firm in its condemnation of those illegal actions. On arms exports and human rights, I want to re-emphasise that it is indefensible that the UK continues to export arms to countries in which human rights violations are rampant. The Liberal Democrats have long been calling for an immediate suspension of all arms exports to Israel, in line with the Foreign Office’s own human rights priorities. The UK must also take a stand by immediately recognising the state of Palestine. When I visited, I saw for myself the rapidly shrinking state. Before it disappears, we must recognise it. However, recognition alone is not enough; we must actively work with international partners to support democratic leadership in Palestine, invest in peacebuilding initiatives, and use trade as a tool for economic co-operation and stability. The international fund for middle east peace must be supported, and the UK should lead efforts to bring together Israeli and Palestinian peacebuilders who are dedicated to the future of co-existence and mutual security. As we debate, leaders of the Arab world are meeting in Cairo to develop counterproposals to President Trump’s destabilising rhetoric. They intend to provide a peaceful, long-term solution for the people of Gaza. President Trump has previously advocated for the permanent resettlement of Gaza’s 2.2 million residents, calling to “clean out” the strip. Such a policy would violate international humanitarian law and severely damage relations with the Arab nations, whose support and commitment will be essential to any lasting peace agreement. Will the Minister therefore affirm that the British Government oppose President Trump’s proposal for Gaza? Will she also outline how the UK is working with partners in the region to help secure lasting peace? I cannot leave out the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Beyond the immediate violence, the long-term effects of the conflict, if left unaddressed, will devastate generations of Palestinians. It is alarming to think that we might see that devastation start to bite far more quickly than we previously feared, now that the UK and the US have cut back on their overseas aid budgets. The UK must seriously reconsider that shameful decision to reduce overseas aid to 0.3% of GNI—the lowest level this century. In her resignation letter, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made it clear that one of the areas of UK development spending potentially affected by the cut to aid is Gaza. By putting that vital work at risk, we are not only diminishing our ability to alleviate vast amounts of human suffering—in Gaza, more than 80% of hospitals have been reduced to rubble—but we are also rolling the dice on a more dangerous world. Failed states create more Hamas. I want to include Jordan, which has for so long been a refuge for so many Palestinians fleeing their home, and who we have supported for so long. I regret that the UK follows where other countries cut aid or stop aid. I ask the Minister to outline how she intends to ensure that the UK can continue vital development work in view of these major cuts. I share the outrage and concern of Members of this House at the violence against Israeli and Palestinian civilians. The UK has a moral duty to uphold human rights and the principles of justice on the global stage. The Government must strain every sinew to uphold the ceasefire, get the hostages out, condemn all violence and war, and they must recognise the Palestinian state. It is way overdue. I will leave hon. Members with the words of a Palestinian Catholic priest who visited my constituency at the weekend to tell the story of the children of Bethlehem. He said to me, “I am not political, but I am here to ask you to work for peace.” He reminded me of the teaching of St James, that faith is nothing without action. The peacemakers in the region need our action. I call on the Government to act.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who secured this debate, and I thank those who signed today’s petition. I would like to point out, as other Members have done, the unintended consequences of this policy, which are affecting my constituents in Esher and Walton. For context, independent schools serve around 20% of pupils in Surrey. First, I am concerned that this Government’s policy will put at risk the many valued partnerships between state and independent schools, which work so well in my constituency. In Esher and Walton, the independent sector supports some of our state schools with capital projects, such as redecorating and renovating, and state primaries make use of independent schools’ playing fields to open up sport and outdoor activities. I wish that there was more of that, and I was encouraging my independent schools to do more, but they now say that the VAT increases make it unaffordable. Secondly, alongside other Members, I want to focus on how this policy will impact the more than 40,000 pupils in Surrey who receive support for special educational needs. Surrey’s SEND system is in crisis. The six Liberal Democrat Surrey MPs have been shining a light on this fact ever since we were elected, even in meetings with the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), and the Education Secretary. However, this Government’s policy is only putting more pressure on an already strained and even broken system. To understand that clearly, it is important to look first at the situation in Surrey, which my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) alluded to, where more than 3,000 children are in limbo awaiting diagnosis for autism and ADHD, many for almost two years. These are colossal waiting lists at a critical juncture in a child’s education. As recently as last year, Surrey was delivering fewer than one in six EHCPs on time. The quality of provision is so poor that more than 1,800 children are missing at least a third of school days because their needs are not being met. In despair, parents are turning to the independent sector, knowing that their child is unable to access education and, critically, sliding into poor mental health. These are not rich families but families in desperation, who cannot watch their children being unhappy and not attaining. As has been pointed out, often simply the smaller class sizes help an autistic child or a child who has ADHD. The Government’s position is that local authorities will be able to reclaim the VAT on fees for a pupil with an EHCP who attends the independent school named in their plan, but that leaves a critical blind spot. Almost 30,000 children are receiving SEN support without having an EHCP, and it is increasingly difficult for strained state schools to give them adequate provision. Following a lack of appropriate funding for schools from previous Governments, it is only in the past year that real-terms funding per pupil has reached the same level as in 2009. When we factor in the drop in capital spending on schools in the last 15 years and the fact that schools’ costs have risen faster than overall inflation, we are faced with the bleak reality that there is significantly more pressure on state school budgets than there was 15 years ago. We see the interaction of ballooning costs for state schools with rising demand for SEN support—even excluding ECHPs, that has risen by 50% in the last decade. Schools are therefore being asked to do more with fewer resources. Although this policy may be intended to give schools more money, my understanding is that none of the money will go to better special educational needs provision. Indeed, the £1 billion that was put aside for that in the Budget does not even touch the sides of the £4.5 billion overspend in local authority budgets on special educational needs, let alone the ballooning cost of special educational needs provision. Thirdly, at this particularly challenging moment for our economy, the Government have chosen to impose further burdens on families. Independent school fees have risen by 13%—a surge in costs so severe that, alongside other factors, it has powered an uptick in inflation across the entire economy. That is due to the addition of VAT to fees and the decision of many schools not to absorb any of the costs, but rather to pass them along almost entirely to families. For many hard-working parents, sending a child to an independent school has been made more unaffordable, and that particularly hurts families with SEN children who are looking for an alternative to a school in Surrey’s failing system. That risks placing more financial strain on families at a time when the pain of inflation is still being felt, harming the mutually beneficial partnerships between state and independent schools and leaving more children languishing in a failed SEN system. No headteacher I have met who complains about the strain that SEN places on their budgets has asked for the private sector to pay. They ask for the radical overhaul in education that the Government promised but are yet to deliver.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Online Safety Act: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for organising this important debate and for his continued work scrutinising this legislation. The Online Safety Act was a landmark step towards making the internet a safer place, particularly for our children, but its implementation has fallen far short of what Parliament intended, hampered by Ofcom’s slow pace and limited ambition. Initially, the Act was designed to ensure that tech companies take responsibility for protecting users, especially children, from harmful content, but the current approach taken by Ofcom undermines that intent in several ways. We have waited more than a year for Ofcom to complete its consultation on the illegal content codes of practice, but those codes fail to enforce a robust safety-by-design approach. Instead of proactively mitigating risks, many of its measures focus only on responding to harm after it has already occurred, and the children’s safety codes, which are still in draft, appear to follow a similarly disappointing trajectory. Features such as livestreaming, ephemeral content and recommender algorithms—tools that are frequently exploited for the purpose of online abuse—are also not meaningfully addressed in the current framework. The Act has significant shortcomings in that it also allows companies to be deemed compliant simply by following Ofcom’s codes, regardless of whether their platforms remain unsafe in reality. This means that tech giants are permitted to hide behind a regulatory shield rather than being forced to address known risks on their platforms; all the while, children continue to be exposed to harm. The Act also explicitly requires protections tailored to different age groups, but in its implementation of it, Ofcom treats a seven-year-old and a 17-year-old as if their online safety needs are identical. In doing so, it has fundamentally failed to recognise how children’s development affects their online experiences and their vulnerabilities. The action on fake and anonymous accounts has been slow and weak. This was a huge area of focus for parliamentarians before the Act was passed, and Ofcom itself identified it as a major risk factor in crimes such as terrorism, child sexual exploitation, harassment and fraud. As we approach 18 months since the passage of the Act, there has been no change for UK users. Instead of prioritising verification measures, Ofcom has pushed them to a later phase of implementation, delaying real action until at least 2027. That is unacceptable, especially when Ofcom’s own research shows that over 60% of eight to 11-year-olds are active on social media, despite existing age restrictions prohibiting it. The Government’s and Ofcom’s delays in introducing user identity verification measures are unacceptable. The harms associated with fake and anonymous accounts are deeply personal and painfully real, with millions of Britons suffering from online abuse, scams and harassment each year. I hope the Minister can provide a robust explanation for the timidity and delay, and rule out any suggestion that the delays were a result of lobbying pressures from platforms. The best assurance she could give today would be a commitment that the introduction of verification measures will be brought forward to 2026, so that UK internet users are better protected. In short, I ask the Minister to recognise the urgency of taking the following action. Ofcom must revise its codes to require proactive risk mitigation; tech companies should not be allowed to claim compliance with the regulatory framework, all the while continuing to expose users to harm; platforms must be held accountable if they fail to meet the real safety standards; and protections need to be specific to different age groups, so that younger children and teenagers receive appropriate levels of safety and access.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Online Safety Act: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister explain what she meant when she said that Ofcom had to ensure that the codes were as judicial review-proofed as possible? Surely Ofcom’s approach should be to ensure that the codes protect vulnerable users, rather than be judicial review-proofed.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. President Trump and Elon Musk slashing US aid was a great day for Russia and China. Will the Foreign Secretary avoid giving them another great day by committing to protect the UK’s development budget, even as we raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP? As he knows, preventing wars is cheaper than fighting them.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  The former United States Defence Secretary Jim Mattis once said: “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.” Can the Prime Minister not see that funding this uplift through official development assistance is short-sighted and a strategic and moral mistake, because prevention is cheaper than wars, because this gives more leverage to Russia and China, and because we do it on the backs of the world’s poorest? In fact, it is something that I never thought I would see a Labour Government do, and a pitiful inheritance from 1997. Given that it is a policy choice and not a retrospective fiscal one, and given that it is in direct contravention of the law passed here in 2015, which rules out the link between levels of defence and development funding, will this Labour Government be repealing that law?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Social Media Use: Minimum Age · Hansard source

  More

  As a parent of four teenagers, I do battle on screen time every single day—so much so that my children actually thought I was coming into Parliament to give screen time to the nation. I think it is grossly unfair to blame parents or attribute responsibility to them when most parents are having this battle every single day. With the addictive algorithms on social media platforms, it is impossible for children to resist. I have a child who was 16 last week and is sitting his GCSEs. He is finding it very difficult to look away from his phone and concentrate on his studies because of these algorithms.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud that more than 600 Ukrainians have been hosted in my constituency through the Homes for Ukraine programme. Three years on, my constituents stand with Ukraine. They know that Ukraine has protected Europe’s frontline for three years. They know that Ukraine’s fight is one that affects us all, and that if Ukraine loses, Europe loses, and they know that Ukrainians are fighting for the values of our forebears: the British values of democracy and freedom. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to stand by Ukraine steadfast, even when others do not? In his meetings in Washington tomorrow, will he ensure that he points out the folly and the danger of the US Administration’s new approach to Russia?

• 11 Feb 2025 · US Global Public Health Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Twenty years ago, Nelson Mandela stood in Trafalgar Square waging a war on poverty. As my hon. Friend will know, he was also the first chair of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which has inoculated more than 1 billion children and saved 18 million lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government must fulfil their commitment to Gavi, and not fall behind? Even the Conservative Government said that they would fund Gavi properly. Mandela’s life reminds us, does it not, that the great victories are often in times of darkness, like today?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Global Health and Immunisation · Hansard source

  More

  3. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs on the UK’s leadership on global health and immunisation.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Global Health and Immunisation · Hansard source

  More

  The NHS and the UK reap the benefits of our work in global health. Gavi is one of the UK’s greatest success stories: it has inoculated 1 billion children worldwide, but it has also strengthened our health security, keeping us safe from diseases such as Mpox and Ebola. What leadership will the Secretary of State and his Department take to strengthen organisations such as Gavi to keep us safe here in the UK?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for bringing this important issue to the House, and I praise his work on raising awareness of it. For decades many low-income nations have struggled under the weight of unsustainable debt, spending billions servicing debt that prevents them from addressing the needs of their people or responding to the climate emergency, threatening a wave of political instability. It also prevents them from long-term investment in healthcare, education and infrastructure—the essential pillars of progress and stability. Lower-income countries have been facing increasingly unsustainable debts since the 2008 financial crisis, with debt payments increasing by over 200% between 2010 and 2025—reaching the highest level since the mid-1990s. That is no surprise when we consider the combination of the covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the global monetary tightening that has exposed vulnerable economies to insurmountable debt challenges, as private capital inflow stopped and sovereign defaults ensued for already vulnerable frontier communities. The Liberal Democrats were the first to call for debt cancellation and have been calling for faster and stronger action on the global debt crisis ever since, because the case for debt cancellation is clear. It provides immediate relief, allows Governments to prioritise social investment and fosters long-term economic growth. Over the long term, it allows those countries to become less reliant on overseas development assistance from countries such as the UK. History shows that when debt relief is granted, countries are able to improve public services, reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development goals. When countries are crushed by debt, however, that leads to instability, mass migration crises that end up in the UK, and economic stagnation that affects us all. Faster and stronger action on the debt crisis is particularly important in Africa. In 2023, African countries spent over 50 times more on external debt than they received in aid from the UK, and 50% more than the total aid to the region. That is why we are clear in our support of aligning the UK with the African Union’s push for full debt cancellation. The current mechanism for debt cancellation, via the common framework, has been too slow in its progress on cases, with only four countries having applied and only three reaching agreement—Zambia, Ghana and Chad, with Ethiopia still in talks. Clearly, the Government must improve those mechanisms, and I note that the International Development Committee 2023 report on debt cancellation for low-income countries made recommendations for the previous Government. Many of those remain outstanding, so I hope the Minister will address that today. I hope that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s upcoming development review will focus closely on the critical interplay between debt and development in its strategy. That is essential, because this Labour Government have presided over a further real-terms cut to the official development assistance budget, making it even lower than it was under the last Conservative Administration. Under this Government, there has been an absolute cut in the level of support being provided to the world’s poorest people. Low-income countries have been put between a rock and a hard place for too long, forced to service ever-increasing debts with less and less overseas development assistance from the likes of the UK and now, of course, the US. That has compelled such countries to service debt rather than helping their most vulnerable people, plunging those nations into further poverty. I sincerely hope the Minister can reassure us today that the Government will return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA. I hope that the news that there will be no new funding at the Nutrition for Growth summit this month is not a harbinger of the trajectory of the Government’s spend on international aid, and that the UK will return to its role leading on international development, particularly given the USA’s apparent retreat. I look forward to hearing what she has to say shortly. I draw to a close by re-emphasising that although the UK’s ability to act independently is limited by international agreements, it has significant influence over debt restructuring, with 45% of all sovereign debts governed by English law. I look forward to hearing how the Government intend to strengthen the common framework and address the root causes of debt accumulation, including unfair trade policies, exploitative lending practices and lack of financial transparency. It is time for a new financial framework that stops the cycle of debt dependency, and it is time for Britain to restate its commitment to the world’s poorest.

• 6 Feb 2025 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s statement on closer co-operation with the EU on defence and security, but on the day the Bank of England cut its growth forecast from 1.5% to 0.75%, does the Minister agree that the single biggest thing we could do to turbocharge our economy in the medium and longer-terms is to form a customs union with the EU?