Monica Harding MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Nov 2025 · COP30 · Hansard source

  More

  Other countries in straitened fiscal circumstances did pledge to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, so will the Secretary of State explain why the Government failed to commit a single penny, despite the fund being conceived and designed with British minds? There was even talk of it being headquartered here in the City, yet not a penny of official development assistance is being used. That damages our climate credibility as well as our relationship with Brazil and with our own future generations. What should I say to schoolchildren in my constituency who are involved in student politics and who asked me to go to Belém to help save the rainforest?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. This is an important and timely debate. I thank colleagues for their powerful contributions. I also thank the petitioners, including 479 of my own constituents in Esher and Walton, and those who have written to me about the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Two years of brutal war have unleashed unimaginable suffering. The ceasefire may have quietened the shelling, but it has not rebuilt homes, recovered food supplies or restored the basic systems needed to sustain life. Violations continue on both sides and the reality on the ground remains desperate. After an estimated 70,000 deaths, a million people are sheltering in overcrowded, unsafe displacement sites, some without shelter, and the entire population is in humanitarian need. Food, water and healthcare networks have broken down. Famine conditions persist in northern areas, driven directly by the obstruction of humanitarian access. Clean water is scarce, disease is spreading and hospitals across the strip are shut or barely functioning. The atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023 were abhorrent; the violations they have continued to commit, even after the ceasefire, are abhorrent and a complete breach of international humanitarian law. The deliberate murder of civilians, the abduction of hostages and the refusal to release the remaining deceased hostages are all blatant violations of international humanitarian law. But let me be absolutely clear: what we are seeing in Gaza today is the horrific consequence of the laws of war being treated as optional. International humanitarian law exists to shield civilians from the worst excesses of war. All parties have a legal and moral duty to uphold it. The International Court of Justice has again confirmed Israel’s binding duty, as the occupying power, to guarantee effective humanitarian access. International humanitarian law in Gaza has been breached and disregarded over the past two years. Aid should never have been prevented from entering Gaza. Gaza now needs hundreds of aid trucks every day to meet basic survival needs, but only a fraction reach their destination. Barely half of UN humanitarian missions have been permitted to proceed. That is completely unacceptable. We were meant to see the scale-up of humanitarian assistance, but some £50 million-worth of international non-governmental organisation relief sits outside the crossing, unable to enter. Aid agencies warn that, without fully opening all land crossings and guaranteeing predictable access, genuine humanitarian recovery will remain impossible. Thousands need urgent medical evacuation, but only a tiny number have been evacuated since the ceasefire. Winter will make an already dire situation even worse. Several crossings are open for limited humanitarian cargo, but the volumes allowed through fall far short of basic needs. The vital crossing point at Rafah remains closed, blocking civilian movement entirely, while key internal routes, especially into northern Gaza, are still restricted. We must also acknowledge that some aid has been diverted or obstructed by Hamas, further undermining humanitarian efforts and deepening civilian suffering. Humanitarian access must never be a bargaining chip, never subordinated to political agendas and never used to engineer local governance outcomes. Its neutrality is the only thing that ensures the protection of civilians. International organisations such as the World Food Programme have been absolutely clear that they have the food, the staff and the systems ready to deliver at full scale. They now need a ceasefire that genuinely upholds and guarantees uninterrupted humanitarian access. With sustained, predictable access, the WFP can feed up to 1.6 million people for three months, and start restoring Gaza’s food systems and dignity through digital payments. Donations to Gaza have fallen sharply since the October ceasefire, creating a catastrophic funding gap just as winter arrives, and leaving millions facing hunger, illness and collapsing infrastructure. Since the ceasefire, the UK has provided only £24 million in additional humanitarian aid for Gaza, while UN member states have met just 37% of the $4 billion sought under the 2025 flash appeal to support the 3 million people across Gaza and the west bank. That comes on top of the wider decision to slash overseas aid to its lowest level this century, with funding for the Occupied Palestinian Territories falling sharply; it is 21% smaller than it was last year. Countries such as Germany and Ireland are stepping up with more serious humanitarian leadership and have shown greater urgency. The UK should do the same. Our people are no less generous than theirs. The British care deeply about Gaza, as shown by this petition. At a moment like this, Britain should also be at the vanguard of diplomatic efforts. The Government must engage proactively with our international partners. Will the Minister tell us what conversations the UK is currently having with the Israeli Government to get aid in, and what conversations it is having with the United States, our European allies and other like-minded partners to secure unhindered humanitarian access into Gaza? What diplomatic conversations are under way to ensure that all parties comply with international law and allow aid to reach civilians without obstruction? It is vital that UN agencies are not scapegoated or weakened at the very moment when they are most needed. The UK must be unequivocal: we stand with the UN system, including UNRWA; removing it without a viable alternative will plunge millions deeper into crisis. We cannot allow humanitarian agencies to be dismantled in the middle of a catastrophe. The Liberal Democrats believe that Britain must reclaim its humanitarian leadership. I therefore urge the Minister to take the following steps. First, the Government should restore the legally enshrined target to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid. Doing so would restore the UK’s ability to deliver lifesaving assistance at the scale required. Can the Minister assure us that there will be no further cuts to official development assistance in the autumn Budget or thereafter? Will he confirm whether he intends to go beyond the £24 million pledged to Gaza since the ceasefire? Secondly, the Government should ensure that lifesaving humanitarian aid flows freely into Gaza. They must use every diplomatic channel to secure the full opening of land crossings, predictable UN approvals, the restoration of Rafah for civilian movement and an end to the unlawful restrictions that breach international humanitarian law and violate ICJ orders. How do the UK Government plan to engage with the Israeli authorities to ensure neutral, UN-led humanitarian delivery, free from political interference, and to press for all land crossings, including Rafah, to be fully opened so that aid can reach those who need it? Have the Government raised the new registration restrictions with the Israeli authorities? If so, what specific assurances have they sought to ensure that no more barriers are created to the work of international NGOs? Thirdly, should access continue to be denied, the UK must work with international partners to secure alternative delivery channels. Britain must co-ordinate pressure for sustained access to all crossings, while scaling up alternative routes in parallel. That requires pressing the US and Israeli authorities to open the crossings and urging the United States and partners in the region to use their influence to secure predictable humanitarian access. Fourthly, the Government must continue to push for a lasting two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. Those on all sides must be held accountable for war crimes. While we hold our breath on Gaza, violence and restrictions in the west bank have escalated sharply. The situation is deeply alarming and continues to deteriorate. More than 1.2 million people there need assistance, around 40,000 are displaced and more than 200 Palestinians, including around 50 children, have been killed this year, alongside Israeli casualties from attacks. Large-scale Israeli operations, ongoing demolitions and severe movement restrictions are driving further displacement and disruption. Settler violence remains at crisis levels, with repeated attacks damaging homes, mosques and vehicles and further eroding livelihoods. I ask the Government to end all trade with illegal west bank settlements and insist on full humanitarian access and protection for Palestinian civilians across the west bank. The situation in Gaza is a moral disaster, one made worse by deliberate choices. This is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe. Britain must lead with aid, with diplomacy, with integrity and with urgency to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld, that civilians are protected and that this country is remembered as one that chose to act, not one that chose to look away.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Modern Day Slavery: Pakistan · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this important debate to the House. Modern slavery remains one of the greatest violations of human dignity in the world. In Pakistan, an estimated 2.34 million people—more than one in 100—are affected by modern slavery. That figure places the country among the top 20 worst affected globally. Debt bondage, exploitative labour practices and gender-based inequality are driving millions into coercion and abuse. Pakistan’s vulnerability score of 80 out of 100 demonstrates the scale of systemic risk—from the effects of conflict and poverty to weak governance and entrenched inequality. Although Pakistan has made some progress, its Government response score sits at just 37 out of 100—below the regional average—according to international humanitarian rights groups. Victims continue to be trapped in cycles of exploitation, with women in agriculture and children in bonded labour facing the harshest conditions. Natural disasters, including the devastating 2022 floods, have intensified that vulnerability; they have destroyed livelihoods and forced many into debt bondage simply to survive. The United Kingdom has a unique and historic relationship with Pakistan. Our two nations share deep ties through trade, and we continue to work with the new Government of Pakistan for the benefit of all Pakistanis. That partnership gives Britain an opportunity but also a responsibility to speak up for those whose voices are silenced. We should be deeply concerned by Pakistan’s lack of action on modern slavery, as well as its lack of action to safeguard human rights, protect religious freedoms and defend minority communities. The UK must use its influence to encourage genuine reform and work with international partners to ensure that all Pakistani citizens enjoy the fundamental freedoms and protections they deserve. The hon. Member for Strangford laid out the evils of bonded labour in Pakistan. Pakistan has one of the highest numbers of bonded labourers in the world, with over a million workers in brick kilns. Bonded labour is an abuse analogous to slavery. As we have heard, Pakistan’s Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992 was enacted to outlaw bonded labour, but its implementation has been a significant challenge, perhaps because of a lack of political will or capacity. What help is the UK giving to Pakistan to implement the 1992 Act by encouraging will and assisting with capacity? What conversations have the Government had with the Government in Pakistan about ending modern slavery, and what support can the Government give to Pakistan, given their own commitment to achieving sustainable development goal 8, which targets modern slavery? We must also remember, however, that modern slavery is not a tragedy that happens only overseas; it is happening here in the UK, often hidden in plain sight. It is present on our farms, in our care homes, in nail salons and even in drive-through restaurants. Modern slavery is not a crime of the past. Last year alone, more than 19,000 potential victims were identified in Britain. That rise has been fuelled by deepening inequality and increasingly sophisticated criminal networks that exploit vulnerabilities and target victims through online platforms and social media. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was rightly hailed as a landmark piece of legislation and demonstrated that the UK could lead the world in confronting this abuse, but nearly a decade on, charge and conviction rates for offences under the Act remain too low. The result is a system where victims slip through the cracks and too many perpetrators escape justice. If we are serious about ending exploitation and working with our partners in other countries, we must strengthen our own enforcement, protect survivors and ensure that the law delivers accountability as promised. We Liberal Democrats believe that the fight against modern slavery must begin with action, both at home and abroad. Primarily, we would introduce a business, human rights and environment Bill that would establish a clear duty of care on companies, financial institutions and public bodies. The legislation would require businesses to carry out due diligence to prevent human rights abuses, including modern slavery and child labour, across their global supply chains and to report openly on their actions. Will the Minister commit to exploring similar legislation, and will she ensure that UK-linked supply chains in countries like Pakistan are not allowed to rely on vulnerable or exploited labour? The UK also has a major role to play in demanding fairness in global supply chains. The fast fashion industry, including major sourcing from Pakistan, has long been associated with unethical labour practices. I hope the Minister will set out today what steps the Government will take to ensure that no product entering the UK market is tainted by exploitation. Beyond supply chains, more can be done nationally. I would welcome a promise from the Government that they will review the modern slavery strategy to help them to address modern and evolving trafficking methods and take a victim-centred approach. They should restore the modern slavery fund to support innovative approaches to tackling modern slavery and back it up with a multi- year funding model. Our message is simple: Britain must not profit from exploitation. That means holding corporations accountable where they are complicit in abuse abroad and ensuring that our trade and foreign policy reflect the values we hold dear: justice, dignity and human rights for all. For the Liberal Democrats, human rights and preventing violations of international law such as modern slavery are the centrepiece of foreign policy. We continue to work tirelessly to abolish the death penalty globally and end the use of torture, and we would ban imports from regions complicit in egregious abuses. However, it is not enough to react to abuse; we must build the conditions in which dignity and liberty can thrive—from Pakistan to China and from Ukraine to Sudan. On Pakistan specifically, I would like to turn to the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. Ahmadis are among the most persistently and brutally persecuted people in Pakistan. Their crime, in the eyes of the law, is simply to call themselves Muslim. Under Pakistan’s constitution, Ahmadis are legally defined as non-Muslims. They are forbidden to use Islamic terminology, barred from voting and denied freedom of worship. Last week, I met the leaders of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in the UK, who described to me the grim reality of state-sponsored persecution. Fourteen Ahmadis are currently imprisoned, some for more than five years, for practising their faith. Their schools have been nationalised, their literature banned and their mosques destroyed. In the past two years alone, there have been over 50 attacks on Ahmadi places of worship and over 420 desecrations of Ahmadi graves. For the Liberal Democrats, freedom of religion means freedom for all faiths whenever and wherever. I ask the Minister to make this issue a diplomatic priority. The UK must use its close relationship with Pakistan to press for immediate change, to hold perpetrators of mob violence to account, to release prisoners of conscience, to restore Ahmadi voting rights and to return nationalised schools. Britain’s voice matters and it must be used to defend those whose only wish is to live and worship freely. Modern slavery and persecution thrive where the rule of law is weak and indifference is strong. We will not turn away. We stand for a world in which every person in Pakistan and beyond can live with freedom, dignity and hope. Britain must once again lead with moral clarity and compassion, using its influence to not only condemn exploitation, but confront it, and building a future where human rights are not the privilege of the few but the inheritance of all.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to shine a light on one of those many stories. My constituent in Esher and Walton paid over £16,000 for a kitchen remodelling that was never delivered, and the same company is alleged to have defrauded other constituents, including one this year who lost £20,000. When fraud occurs on this scale, it is theft from honest people, but consumers find that the civil courts are slow, complex and costly. Does the hon. Member agree that the Ministry of Justice should ensure accessible routes to redress, which may be small claims courts or an ombudsman scheme, so that consumers can get justice quickly?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Sudan: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises an important point in his powerful speech, and I would like to take it further. Even if British-made weaponry is not being diverted and ending up on the battlefield in Sudan, the UK is still breaching sections 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of its own arms export licensing criteria. Those rules not only prohibit the export of weapons that are proven to be misused, but they also restrict their sale to any country that may use arms to violate international humanitarian law. Does my hon. Friend agree that in exporting arms to the UAE, the Government have been acting contrary to international humanitarian law, and that we must stop selling arms to the UAE?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to raise the plight of hairdressers. Angels in Thames Ditton in my constituency told me that this Government are hitting small businesses with higher employer costs, rising business rates and wage hikes that are already squeezing very thin margins. They are facing not just one increase, but a combination of high utility supply costs, wage rises, NI hikes and business rates that are all adding up, and they are really struggling to survive.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Official Development Assistance Reductions · Hansard source

  More

  It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this debate on a critical issue. It is critical because we are at a cliff edge. This year, with 120 armed conflicts, more than at any moment since the second world war; this year, with nearly 320 million people facing acute hunger; this year, when 2024 was the hottest year on record; this year, when the deadly trio of climate, conflict and hunger collide to force the displacement of 123 million people, this Government decided to slash the aid budget to the lowest level this century—after, because of or in spite of the United States Administration’s decision to close USAID, cut the foreign assistance budget by 85% and shed 10,000 jobs. This year, under a Labour Government, we surrendered our global leadership on aid and development. That represents one of the most consequential and devastating decisions of recent years, with long-term consequences for our stability, security and prosperity, and it will cost hundreds of thousands of lives. It is a mistake, both morally and strategically—strategically, because aid is not an act of charity, as we have already heard today. It is a long-term investment in our future; it is not a cash machine in the sky, but a deposit account from which we withdraw for our own prosperity. There is a reason why some of the most vociferous voices against these cuts are those of former military leaders. In contradiction of the Government’s attempt to reframe the cuts as a choice between defence and development, they argue instead that the two are mutually supportive. To undermine one, is to weaken the other; as former US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis said: “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.” These are short-term decisions with long-term repercussions—easy now, but so hard further down the line, and costing Britain more in the long run. Through our development spend, we invest in peace and resilience building. We know that when fragile states collapse, they create breeding grounds for extremism and terror, and that preventing wars is cheaper than fighting them. The ONE campaign has emphasised that every dollar invested in conflict prevention saves more than $100 in emergency response. However, funding for the UK Integrated Security Fund has been reduced by over £130 million this year, leaving vital peace building efforts without support. Strategically, cutting aid is a mistake because aid keeps our borders safe. When we invest in the economic development of a nation, we give people opportunity and a stake in the success of that nation, so they will choose to stay there rather than feeling compelled to seek those things in Britain by migrating to these shores. As the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world unfolds in Sudan, in 2024 alone more than 2,000 Sudanese nationals crossed the channel on small boats. Strategically, cutting aid is also a mistake because development spend protects our health and security, and the NHS, keeping disease from our shores. Strategically, it is a mistake because development spend creates the conditions for trade and partnership, strengthening economies that become markets for British goods and services and promote growth. Strategically, cutting aid is also a mistake because development is an investment in our soft power—the global influence that comes from being a trusted partner. When Britain leads on aid and development, our voice carries further in diplomacy, trade and security; when we withdraw, our influence diminishes and our adversaries, who watched us jealously, knowing the value of that influence, move in. As we cut our soft power tools, such as the British Council and the BBC World Service, China and Russia cement their influence across the African continent. Those are the strategic arguments against cutting aid, but the moral arguments alone are enough. Government projections show UK aid spending falling from £14 billion to around £9 billion by 2027, a near one-third reduction in real terms, and the actual numbers are far worse. In-country donor refugee costs, or asylum accommodation costs, are consuming a fifth of our entire aid budget. What right have the Government to spend taxpayers’ money—including that of my Esher and Walton constituents—money that had been allocated to help the poorest in the world, in our own country to balance the inefficiencies of the Home Office? Will the Minister ensure that the FCDO follows the International Development Committee’s recommendations, as set out in its report on the FCDO’s approach to value for money, published last week, that formal steps should be taken to cap the ODA that the Home Office can use for in-country donor refugee costs, including capping those costs at a fixed percentage of total ODA, and make a formal commitment that unspent ODA funding by other Government Departments is channelled back into the FCDO? Analysis by Save the Children estimates that UK aid cuts will leave 55 million of the world’s poorest without access to basic resources, 12 million without access to clean water or sanitation and 2.9 million fewer children in education. This year’s cuts to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, alone will mean 400,000 fewer lives saved. Let me be clear about what all that means on the ground: in the DRC, a flagship girls’ education programme that we supported will close early next year, and 170,000 children, mostly girls, will lose access to education. Other hon. Members have mentioned Yemen. In the DRC, around 27 million people face acute food insecurity, while cholera and measles spread unchecked. In Afghanistan, half the population—23 million people—require humanitarian assistance. All those are unprioritised by Government cuts. I could go on. The Liberal Democrats believe Britain can and must reclaim its leadership on development. We need a clear road map to restore the legally enshrined 0.7% aid target. I ask the Minister: will the Government rule out any further cuts, and set out a plan to return to 0.7%? We must embrace the role that the US has abandoned as the facilitating and convening power. I urge the Government to take up that mantle again, as successive Governments have done before, including Prime Ministers from the Minister’s own party—Blair and Brown, pledging to make poverty history. Before she retorts that those were the good times, I remind her that the coalition Government reached 0.7% for the first time, after the financial crash of 2008. Those were choices. This Government’s choice is to follow Boris Johnson, but to cut deeper, and to join the Conservatives and Reform in a race to the bottom. I urge the Government to retrieve their progressive mantle; reverse these cuts; restore our legally enshrined commitment and reclaim our leadership on the world stage. Let us make sure that Britain’s generosity, leadership and belief in humanity remain not only a lifeline but a light in our ever-turbulent world.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this vital debate and powerfully laying out the success of the Global Fund. Stepping back now and cutting our contribution to the fund, just as the United States is abandoning vaccination programmes altogether, would be devastating for some of the world’s most vulnerable people, and a step back in the progress made. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government do not commit to replenishing the Global Fund sufficiently this year, that not only betrays our extraordinary progress and leadership but, as co-hosts, gives a signal that it is okay for others to do the same?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Gaza and Hamas · Hansard source

  More

  Renewed violence in Gaza continues against a backdrop of unimaginable human suffering. Millions remain in desperate need of food, water and medical supplies, yet aid convoys continue to face unacceptable obstacles. The UN reported yesterday that many of the 177 aid trucks that entered Kerem Shalom were limited by congestion on coastal roads, in part because of damage to that aid route, meaning that they were forced to limit their supply of aid far below what was agreed. As yet, aid routes are not fully open, but Gazans cannot wait any longer. Aid restrictions should never have been there in the first place. What specific pressure are the Government exerting on Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli authorities to get the routes fully open and the aid in?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 13 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

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

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?