Monica Harding MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · West Bank: Forced Displacement · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this important debate. For the almost six decades that the west bank has been occupied by Israel, the UN Security Council has been calling for Israel to withdraw, but instead it has expanded, with now more than 500,000 settlers living in the west bank and a further 200,000 in East Jerusalem—a physical barrier obstructing the realisation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Palestinians are often required to seek permits to travel through the west bank; they are subjected to a combination of bureaucratic and physical barriers that consume their time and attack their dignity. Indeed, those movement restrictions constitute just one element of a patchwork of policies and laws that, taken together, have been described by the ICJ as “systemic discrimination” against Palestinians. Liberal Democrats are profoundly concerned that the deteriorating situation in the west bank, in particular during the last two years, poses a fundamental threat to a two-state solution that could finally deliver the dignity and security that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve. The UK must recognise a Palestinian state now—immediately. Will the Minister update the House on UK plans to recognise Palestine? What discussions are taking place with Canadian and French leaders regarding a possible joint recognition? There is an urgency here: from the beginning of 2024 to April 2025, more than 41,000 Palestinians were displaced in the west bank and 616 were killed. On almost 2,000 separate occasions, attacks by violent Israeli settlers resulted in Palestinian casualties or property damage. There has long been a culture of impunity around settler violence; few crimes result in indictments, and fewer still in convictions. The most recent activity has been fuelled by the far-right extremists in Netanyahu’s Cabinet, who have emboldened the most brutal settlers. It is right that two such inciters, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, have been sanctioned, but, frankly, that took far too long. The Government have not moved quickly or strongly enough to disrupt settler violence in the west bank, so will they now clamp down on settler violence and will the Minister listen to the Liberal Democrat calls for an import ban on goods from illegal settlements? The Israeli Government have also mounted a systematic campaign against the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in the west bank. Since its banning, UNRWA has been unable to co-ordinate aid deliveries, and its delivery of health and education has been disrupted. Palestinian education has come under attack.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Safety Education · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this important debate today. As we have heard, every year in the UK, more than 200 lives are lost to accidental drowning. In fact, it claims more lives each year in the UK than house fires or cycling accidents. That must be a wake-up call. We have an opportunity and a responsibility in this House today to bring those numbers down. The problem is as clear as it is urgent: too many people grow up without being taught how to stay safe around water. Swimming must be a core life skill, as we have heard, and yet, according to the Royal Life Saving Society UK, one in three children leave primary school unable to swim properly. That statistic should concern us all. Of course, children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are most likely to miss out. In other words, those at greatest risk are the least protected. This is not just about learning to swim, although that is essential; it is about knowing what to do when things go wrong—when someone panics, when cold water shock sets in and when every second counts. Every summer, every bank holiday and every heatwave, like this week, the risk increases. Rivers, lakes, canals and coastlines become magnets for young people and far too often, lives are lost. My constituency of Esher and Walton has seen three tragic drowning deaths in the past four years. Two of them occurred during the fierce heat of the summer of 2022—a heartbreaking testament to the risks that rise with each heatwave. These are tragedies with unimaginable pain for the families and profound effects for schools, emergency services and the wider community. As a river- based constituency, we owe it to our residents, visitors and local businesses to prioritise water safety. The risks are all around us, particularly this week. The Thames threads through our towns, the River Mole runs through our parks, and reservoirs sit at the heart of our communities. Addressing the root causes is so important. One of my constituents, Nell Hickman, took up the cause by leading a local water safety campaign along a stretch of the Thames between Thames Ditton and Hampton Court, which I have heard referred to by school children as the Barbados of south-west London. Determined to prevent further tragedies, Nell partnered with the RNLI, Elmbridge borough council and other stakeholders. Together, they installed safety signage and emergency throwlines. They also expanded water safety training, advising swimmers to stay parallel to the riverbank instead of swimming across the River Thames. That is a powerful example of community-led action, backed by the right support, saving lives. There is more that we can do. The RNLI plays a vital role in my constituency and I pay tribute to its tireless work. Some schools in Esher and Walton are already leading the way by teaching key life skills through personal, social, health and economic education and citizenship. However, we must do more to ensure that water safety is embedded in our children’s education, especially in areas such as mine, with rivers and open waters.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to concentrate not just on purely rural areas, but on places like Surrey. In my constituency, the 514 bus connects Esher and Molesey, two important centres of our community, but it runs only twice on weekdays and once on a Saturday. On Sundays it is never to be seen. The service was severely cut back in 2016. To travel a distance of a mile and a half, people have to get a bus more than five miles into London and out again, which takes 40 minutes—

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza, now exceeding 70 days, is utterly unacceptable. Will the Government now recognise that the blockade constitutes a clear violation of international law? The Government must respect whatever determination the ICJ reaches regarding genocide. There are already clear obligations on the Government to prevent genocide in Gaza arising from the ICJ’s January 2024 order. Have the Government taken any steps to meet those obligations? Will they commit today to banning the export of all UK arms to Israel? Will they reconsider sanctions on extremist Israeli Ministers like Bezalel Smotrich, who called for Gaza to be destroyed? Will the Government commit to the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state? As the UN’s British relief chief told the Security Council yesterday, if we have not done all we could to end the violence in Gaza, we should fear the judgment of future generations. Does the Minister agree?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Safety of Humanitarian Workers: Conflict Zones · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing this very important debate. Our world is becoming more dangerous. Today, more than 120 conflict zones scar dozens of nations. The UN estimates that almost 90% of the resulting casualties are civilians, and the International Rescue Committee calculates that more than 300 million people are in need of humanitarian aid right now. That need is disproportionately concentrated in just a handful of countries. It is in those places, which are some of the world’s most dangerous—Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine, Myanmar and others—that humanitarian aid workers are most needed and most under threat. The most dangerous year on record for aid workers was 2024, in which at least 325 lost their lives, the overwhelming majority of whom were national, rather than international, staff. We face a difficult confluence of proliferating conflict, even as we reduce funding for development, stability building and humanitarian response. Conflict is changing: fewer wars are being fought between states, and more are fought within states by various armed groups, particularly in urban areas. Efforts towards conflict prevention and peacebuilding are not working, and global tensions are rising. The UK holds an important position in upholding and calling out abuses of international humanitarian law, and in its responsibility to fund development and aid in conflict zones. I regret that the Labour Government have made the deepest cuts to international aid this century—a shameful retreat from previous Labour Government’s legacy. It is shameful that the UK is not opposing but following the global trend of abandoning international solidarity, certainly when it comes to funding overseas development. I urge the Government to row back on their cuts to aid and stand steadfast as a global development leader. Although development work needs money, it also requires the heavy lifting of diplomacy, not least to ensure adherence to international law, since aid workers today are facing increasing harm. Aid workers make personal sacrifices and place themselves in harm’s way to deliver lifesaving assistance. It is deeply worrying, therefore, to see a growing disregard for humanitarian workers—indeed, for humanitarian law—in conflicts around the world. Last month, I took part in the International Development Committee’s trip to Geneva, where we met UN agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The IDC is investigating the protection of aid workers, and I look forward to the Minister receiving and reading our report. I was reassured by the ICRC that international humanitarian law is robust, strong and protective, and that there is no need for a renegotiation of the Geneva conventions, but I was concerned to hear that its implementation is becoming more and more problematic. The problem is not with the law but with non-compliance and attempts to undermine it. There must be more, and stronger, measures of accountability. The Aid Worker Security Database counted 247 major attacks against aid workers in 2022, 281 in 2023, and 402 in 2024. Insecurity Insight has calculated that instances of drone-delivered explosives directed by named state forces towards aid or health programmes rose by a factor of 25 between 2022 and 2024. In written evidence to the International Development Committee, the organisation also testified that the expansion of violence in major conflict zones has coincided with rising attacks on humanitarian operations, particularly health facilities, camps for refugees and internally displaced people, and aid offices. There have been far too many horrifying examples. Last year in Sudan, the ICRC lost two drivers to gunmen, and the World Food Programme lost three aid workers following aerial bombardment. Gaza has been by far the deadliest single location for aid workers, with over 212 losing their lives in the strip last year. The whole House was horrified at the end of March by Israel’s killing of 15 aid workers, as mentioned by many Members. The UK must lead on efforts to stop all attacks on aid workers. The recent cancellation of the conference of the high contracting parties to the fourth Geneva convention due to “profound differences” only underscores the growing challenges for those committed to upholding international law. The Government have repeatedly said they are using their Security Council seat and bilateral relations to encourage aid access and aid-worker protection; will the Minister share what specific bilateral meetings the Government have had with state and non-state actors regarding the protection of aid workers in Gaza, Sudan, South Sudan, Ukraine and Myanmar? What specific steps are they taking to build international support in multilateral forums for protecting aid workers and strengthening the legal frameworks that bind the actions of combatants? Accountability is critical, both for justice and for deterrence. The UK provides funding for the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court through ODA. Will the Minister confirm whether, once most of the cuts occur in 2026-27, the UK will maintain contributions to international courts, including non-assessed discretionary spending? The UK needs to ask itself an important question: what does standing up for international humanitarian law look like? We must be prepared to roll up our sleeves and tell our friends and allies to adhere to international humanitarian law or face consequential action. Will the Minister outline what the UK is doing to ensure that there is accountability for all those who attack aid workers? Most aid worker casualties are nationals, not international, but last year three Britons were killed when Israel struck World Central Kitchen workers in Gaza. This appalling incident highlighted the ongoing need both for accountability and for the protection of the brave people who do humanitarian work overseas, including our own nationals. What steps is the Minister taking to safeguard British aid workers in conflict zones, and those who are completing British projects? I welcome the Government joining partners and allies in September to form a ministerial group focused on enhancing the protection of humanitarian personnel and reversing the growing trend of attacks on them, and urge the Government to push forward with that engagement. Even as aid workers are kidnapped, wounded and killed, aid itself is too often treated as just another instrument of war. We can see this in specific conflicts. Israel’s total blockade of all aid into Gaza, which has now been in place for more than 50 days, is deepening the already terrible suffering of Gazans. Yesterday, the ICJ opened hearings on precisely this point, and in the Chamber I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) to confirm that the Government will recognise the Court’s judgment, when it comes, on Israel’s responsibility under international law to facilitate aid to the people of Gaza. I did not receive a reply then, so will this Minister please reply today? Another conflict characterised by the denial of aid access is the ongoing war in Sudan. This catastrophe—the world’s largest—has left 25 million people in need of food aid. Throughout, all sides have blocked humanitarian assistance to civilians. Changes to warfare are having a profound impact on aid-worker safety. The more permissive environment regarding international humanitarian law threatens medical personnel and infrastructure, which are being targeted. Technological changes to warfare—particularly the use of drones and the rising prevalence of aerial bombardment—are increasing the peril faced by aid workers. Around 60% of aid-worker deaths in Gaza last year were attributable to aerial bombardment. How are the Government’s efforts to safeguard aid workers and uphold international humanitarian law taking account of these specific dangers? How is the UK ensuring that accountability frameworks cover the use of drones and related tactics, such as double-tap strikes? There is a false belief that democracies will automatically act ethically in war, but the current permissive nature in respect of adherence to IHL has shown that this is not the case. As defence investment increases, there is a need to train armed forces. The UK leads in that regard, so how can it share best practice to ensure that IHL is upheld in conflict zones? The UK has a leading role to play in diplomatic efforts to ensure the protection of aid workers through upholding international humanitarian law, and I urge the Government to do so with the vigour we would expect from a leadership so experienced in that. But that must be in concert with playing a leadership role in international development, including the funding of deconfliction and the stabilisation of nations. The cuts to UK aid will only exacerbate conflict. I urge the Government to reconsider the cuts, return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA, and continue a proud UK legacy. Now, in this deadliest year, it is not the time to row back.

• 29 Apr 2025 · River Thames: Unauthorised Mooring · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes the main point that I want to make today: I will speak about regulations and who is accountable. One resident told me: “In the past few years, my neighbours and I have been subjected to constant harassment, including threats of physical harm, theft of property, firing of catapults, fly-tipping, dog fouling and antisocial behaviour.” That is profoundly unfair on my constituents. Residents who pay their taxes have lost the river as they know it. Rowing clubs and boat hire and paddle board companies are unable to launch. Residents with boats who want to take them out and moor alongside riverside restaurants and cafés are unable to do so. The Molesey regatta, which has been a fixture of my community since 1867 and in which I declare an interest as an honorary president, has been required to alter the course of its race. In October, a single clean-up of one stretch of riverbank populated by these boats yielded more than 1 tonne of waste. The Environment Agency has failed to get to grips with the situation over a period of years, meaning that the number of such boats in Elmbridge has risen steadily. At the last count, the tally was approaching 250.

• 29 Apr 2025 · River Thames: Unauthorised Mooring · Hansard source

  More

  I have brought up those points with the Environment Agency and the council. They appear to have the statutory powers to act. Whether they have the will and resourcing to do it is the sticking point.

• 29 Apr 2025 · River Thames: Unauthorised Mooring · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way again. As I described, when the two largest overstayed boats that had occupants were removed, Elmbridge borough council was there providing support for those people. The police were also there. There was no problem with the manoeuvres that took place on that day.

• 29 Apr 2025 · River Thames: Unauthorised Mooring · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for that point. I have no intention at all of pushing the boats down to his constituency: I want them gone. There can be nothing more powerful for our constituents than us working across parties in order to fix this problem. The BBC picked up on this story this morning. The EA gave a statement to BBC Radio Surrey in which it claimed to be taking “firm, lawful and proportionate action”. That is manifestly not the case: the action is not firm or proportionate. It also said that the current situation highlights the need for a “more sustainable, systemic response” and pledged a “longer-term approach”. This is the same hot air that we have heard for years and years, waffling on about the need for long-term plans while the situation deteriorates. All in all, this is a sad indictment of the poverty of ambition, application and competence in a body charged by taxpayers with protecting our waterways. Indeed, it is hard to overstate the disappointment of my constituents at the seeming inability of the Environment Agency to deliver results, even against objectives that it or the Secretary of State has set. This is the endless cycle: the most basic promises made to residents, the council or me are jettisoned after months of prevarication; the goals that remain are without measurement or accountability. I worry from the Minister’s letter to me this afternoon that, regrettably, nothing will change, apart from her very kind ask of the Environment Agency to review its enforcement approach and her commitment to strengthening the EA’s approach. I am keen to hear how she intends to follow up on those points. I was deeply frustrated that much of the letter repeated what I, my residents and the council have being hearing from the EA for months and years: promises of new plans and more joined-up working, and recognition of past disappointments and the need for change. The Environment Agency says that it wants to regain the trust of my constituents. That trust is at rock bottom. What is needed now is far greater oversight—ministerial if necessary —and accountability against specific and deliverable goals. I recently attended a public meeting with residents of Hurst Park and Molesey on a Friday night that was packed to the rafters with constituents deeply upset and justifiably angry with the situation. The essence of what people call broken Britain is the sense that the public realm is incapable of solving problems, even the most egregious and obvious ones—those that people and businesses see and feel every single day. The Prime Minister and members of the Government have spoken repeatedly about the need to rebuild trust in the state, rebuild its capacity, and show the people that systems can work and achieve things. Something that my residents and I have found particularly frustrating is the difficulty of attaching any accountability at all to anyone at any point, despite failure after failure. A failure to act deprives these people who I am privileged to represent—those who play by the rules and pay for public services—of the land, peace and natural beauty that they have always enjoyed. I ask the Minister to give this matter her personal attention, and to work with me to solve it as a matter of priority. I would like her to work with me to show the people of Esher and Walton that good politics makes things better. Boats listed by the Environment Agency as wrecked or abandoned can, and should, be cleared immediately. Doing so quickly and forcefully, rather than piecemeal, removes one of the permanent risks of those boats—namely, that a change in river conditions could dislodge vessels and transform them into immediate hazards. Clearing overstayed boats requires taking legal steps, and it is vital that this work is consistently and properly resourced. Taking a start-and-stop approach is not an option, because many enforcement mechanisms unlocked by serving initial notices on boats must be completed within a certain period of time. Letting opportunities disappear sets everything back to square one. The local police and the local council are ready and eager to help, and have put resources aside to do their part. As such, will the Minister commit personally to driving forward meaningful action on this issue through the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; to providing the necessary energy and resources; and to giving me a point of contact with officials in her department to co-ordinate our work? Will she also commit to meeting me, either in this place or in my constituency—where the problem can be seen and believed—to discuss the progress that we can make together? The problem of overstayed and sunken boats should not be intractable; everyone can see the problem, and the solution is obvious. It is time to show that collectively, we can deliver.

• 29 Apr 2025 · River Thames: Unauthorised Mooring · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I would like the Minister to come to Esher and Walton first, although I appreciate his desire for her to visit his constituency as well. My predecessor in Esher and Walton, a previous Deputy Prime Minister, brought the former Environment Secretary to see the problem for herself. They committed to the permanent removal of these boats, but nothing happened: yet another broken Conservative promise. Either my predecessor was uninterested or he was ineffective. Like many, I had hope that the new Government would bring change. I wrote to the newly appointed Secretary of State and the chief executive of the Environment Agency as soon as I was elected, asking for action. At that point, there were 180 boats. I was pleased with the Minister’s reply, which acknowledged that the EA, as the navigation authority along the non-tidal Thames, was committed to managing the situation and to delivering a detailed action plan laying out clear steps for enforcement. I was assured that EA officials wished to regain the trust of the community. As a result of that letter, the EA towed away two of the largest and longest staying boats during an enforcement day—hooray! Elmbridge borough council housing department joined the operation and modelled a joined-up approach with the police and the Environment Agency to respond to any homelessness issues. My local council is ready and willing to play its part, but it is frustrated that the EA is not playing its part. The enforcement success in the autumn should have marked the beginning of renewed energy and action, with a long-term plan to finally get to grips with the problem. Instead, it was followed up with almost nothing, and the situation has since deteriorated. That is despite months and months of advocacy and regular meetings with the EA, in which I have heard again and again about its intention to clear the boats. It has consistently overpromised and underdelivered. I was promised a survey of abandoned vessels before comprehensive removals and a long-term strategic enforcement plan as a prelude to making progress in the spring. Well, it is spring now, but both documents were endlessly delayed. Last month, the EA finally produced the survey, but it was presented so confusingly that the council found it almost useless, and I am now told that the EA cannot resource any of it. When the plan came, it was manifestly insufficient. In today’s letter, the Minister referenced that document—the Thames waterways compliance and enforcement plan for Elmbridge—which I have read. It runs for 10 pages and makes one minor mention of taking action to reduce the number of unauthorised and unregistered boats, which should have been the central focus. As one of its tactical objectives, the plan promises to develop a clear and tactical plan. We have yet another promise, but no plan. All in all, the document marked a dramatic roll- back of previous ambitions. It has an almost complete lack of measurable targets, metrics and accountability mechanisms. In other words, there is no way to assess the progress of the EA in delivering outcomes against agreed objectives or on key concerns, such as the number of boats removed, the number of registration offences or the rubbish cleared. In fact, at our last meeting, the area manager suggested that the problem had become so big that it was too expensive to fix.

• 29 Apr 2025 · River Thames: Unauthorised Mooring · Hansard source

  More

  No issue in my constituency demonstrates more the inertia and failure of the previous political leadership than the problem of overstayed, wrecked and abandoned boats that have been left to proliferate along the banks of the Thames for the last decade. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to bring this issue to the attention of the House and the Minister. Esher and Walton is a river community. The Thames forms our boundary with London; its waters have brought Vikings to raid Walton and kings to live in Hampton Court, and it is loved by my constituents. We have rowing clubs in Molesey and Walton that generate home-grown Olympians, the Ajax and Viking sea scouts, and wild swimming groups. We have riverside businesses that contribute to our local economy and provide residents and tourists with access to the most famous river in our land. All these activities have been impacted by the sunken, wrecked and abandoned boats, alongside unlicensed overstay boats. They line the entire length of my constituency, from the Dittons through Molesey and down into Walton-on-Thames. There are wrecked vessels, half sunk and rusting, on the banks opposite Hampton Court Palace, visible to the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit. Next door, there are overstay boats which one constituent described as a “small village”; it is Dickensian. The overstay boats are almost always unregistered. They turn up, moor, and then stay for months, sometimes years. In addition to this impunity, they generate litter and waste. Some boats apparently operate as Airbnbs. Others have erected fences: they have fenced off public land on the towpath, put up “Keep out” and “Private” signs, and intimidated residents. Stretches of land—our riverbank, enjoyed for centuries by my constituents—have become no-go areas characterised by drug use and antisocial behaviour.

• 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?

• 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.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Education, Health and Care Plans · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate. My surgeries are full of distraught parents of SEND children. In Surrey, 1,800 children are missing education because they cannot get provision. Children are waiting an average of two years for an ADHD diagnosis. Surrey is at the bottom for getting EHCPs in on time and near the top for the number of parents going to a tribunal. Educational psychologists are assessing children by Zoom, sometimes not even meeting the child. Children are in the wrong tier and in tribunals possibly because it costs less in the short term. There is a lack of places in both specialist and mainstream environments. Money is diverted from schools’ budgets, and therefore from all children. So, yes to root and branch reform, and proper funding. Surely there must be Government accountability for local authority provision when we are so poorly served in Surrey.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are well served by the fiscal stewardship of their district council of Elmbridge, and are rightly concerned that they will be forced to take on the debt of neighbouring councils such as Woking. Equally, they are looking forward to the May elections, and kicking Conservative Surrey out. Does the Minister not agree that leaders taking devolution forward should have a democratic mandate, and will he reassure my constituents that any unitary moves will be paused until the question of debt is sorted out?

• 14 Jan 2025 · British Council · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, may I declare another interest as the officer of the British Council all-party parliamentary group? The British Council delivers more than £1 billion-worth of global impact for the UK every year. During the pandemic, it was forced to close 18 country operations, none of which has since reopened. The then Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab gave it an emergency loan, but set it out on commercial terms. The interest on this loan is costing the British Council £14 million a year. Will the Minister help the British Council keep delivering on the Government’s growth, security and soft power objectives and consider reviewing the terms of the council’s loan, extending the date for beginning repayments, reducing the commercial rate of interest, or redesignating the loan—

• 14 Jan 2025 · British Council · Hansard source

  More

  10. What assessment he has made of the British Council’s financial sustainability.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Burglary · Hansard source

  More

  In my local authority area, 92% of burglaries went unsolved, with police failing to identify suspects—that is the worst figure for any community in the country—and in Surrey as a whole, 63% of burglaries were not even attended by police. This has contributed to a decline in confidence in local policing among my constituents. How, specifically, will the Government’s new police performance unit and their neighbourhood policing guarantee ensure that my constituents can feel safe in their homes, and will the Minister join my party in committing to a statutory burglary response guarantee to ensure that all domestic burglaries are attended by a police officer?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Impact of Conflict on Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I thank the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this incredibly important debate, in which there have been many insightful and inspiring comments. We have heard today that women and girls disproportionately suffer the impact of the global rise in conflicts, forcing record numbers of them to flee their homes. That dramatically increases their vulnerability to sex trafficking, child marriage and other forms of gender-based violence, for which they are often marginalised and stigmatised by their communities. Conflict does not impact women through gender-based violence alone; it brings with it the loss of livelihoods, worsening healthcare and higher death rates. It also undermines women’s ability to give birth safely and interrupts women’s access to essential supplies, such as contraceptives. We have also seen brazen assaults on civilians, aid workers and critical service delivery points, all of which constitute flagrant violations of international humanitarian law. Essential infrastructure, such as hospitals, displacement camps and safe spaces, has also been a casualty of war, and that has cut women and girls off from vital services and emergency assistance at a time when they are most at risk. Conflict therefore increases existing structural and gender inequalities and takes decades to undo. Time and again it is women and girls who bear the brunt of the increasing number of armed conflicts around the globe. The last year has offered devastating examples. I will only touch on the current crises in Sudan and Gaza, being brief because they have been covered so much already in this debate. Nearly 70% of those killed in Gaza over a six-month period were women and children. That is, in itself, a terrible statistic and also a disproportionately high level compared with usual conflicts. Pregnant women living through the conflict in Gaza are three times more likely to miscarry, and if they do carry their babies to full term they are three times more likely to die in childbirth due to a lack of access to medical care and nutrition. We also know that women and girls, although their nutritional needs are greater, eat less and last in these conflicts, which are already plagued by malnutrition and starvation, yet none of the UK’s humanitarian funding for Gaza since October 2023 has been ringfenced for women’s needs, women’s rights and women-led organisations. That must change. In Sudan, since the start of the conflict in April 2023, the number of people in need of sexual and reproductive health services has more than doubled, yet only 6.7% of the funding needed for gender-based violence prevention and response has been provided. Neither Palestine nor Sudan were included in the UK women, peace and security national action plan—I look forward to hearing why, in the Minister’s response. From Members in this debate, we have heard harrowing accounts of sexual violence in both Gaza and Sudan. I will make one addition. We hear about women in Sudan who have taken their own lives to escape rape by paramilitaries, or because of being raped, or who have experienced sexual violence to protect their children from being afflicted. That is the shocking nature of these conflicts. Through the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, the UK has been able to provide important support to survivors in Ukraine, providing expertise and material support to document sexual and gender-based violence, including through the atrocity crimes advisory group, but NGOs are unclear whether the lessons learned from that critical work are being applied to the conflicts in Sudan and Palestine. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the atrocity crimes advisory group has been dispatched to Sudan and Gaza. If it has not been, why not? I would also like to hear from the Minister on the Government’s plans to pick up the commitments that the previous Government made through the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, so that the UK can again demonstrate global leadership in tackling sexual violence in conflict. When we consider how vulnerable and targeted women are in these conflicts, not only does it offend our morals and consciences but, as hon. Members have said, it makes absolutely no rational sense. In Gaza, for instance, women make up 70% of frontline health workers and 60% of caregivers. As we have heard, women are important advocates in conflict-torn places and are critical to building lasting peace, with strong evidence to demonstrate that the involvement of women and girls in peacebuilding is key to ending conflict and building long-term, sustainable peace and stability. I endorse the eminently sensible and practical suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) to give women a seat at the table. Women must always have a seat at the table, and there are many women at those tables today. In 2021, only 0.2% of UK humanitarian ODA went to frontline women’s rights organisations and movements, so will the Minister commit to funding for women’s rights organisations that is ringfenced within humanitarian spending? As a signatory to the UN Security Council resolution on women, peace and security, the UK must lead on this issue. The UK must be vocal, clear and more consistent in its support for international humanitarian law, and in its condemnation of all violations and abuses against all civilians, including women and girls. I hope the Minister not only agrees with but acts on my last point, which is that—as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) pointed out— increasing international development funding is the fundamental way that the UK Government can properly tackle the kind of gender-based inequality and sexual violence that we have discussed in this debate. Prioritising development funding before a conflict breaks out, and allowing programmes to tackle existing gender inequalities in peacetime, is a far more effective way of tackling the deep-rooted inequalities that women and girls often experience in those fragile states, and it can reduce some of the gendered impacts and violence when conflict breaks out. Gender-based violence is not inevitable; it is rooted in existing inequalities. UK aid for programmes that include a gender equality objective nearly halved between 2019 and 2021, with a devastating impact on women and girls. Funding for programmes supporting women and girls desperately needs to be restored immediately, as does the humanitarian relief reserve fund, and health programmes, which have also been cut. All those programmes have been eroded in the years since UK ODA was cut from 0.7% of GNI to 0.58% by the previous Government, and cut further to 0.5% in this Government’s Budget. It is no secret that the Liberal Democrats are pushing hard for the return to 0.7% of GNI, and remain perplexed as to why the Government insist on adopting the fiscal tests that they so vigorously opposed when in opposition. The point about 0.7% is that it is proportionate to a country’s prosperity. Will the Government commit to reviewing their use of fiscal test, and their declared goal, which is to return to 0.7%? In conclusion, women and girls generally do not start wars, and neither do they usually have the power to end them—but they suffer disproportionately from them. It is within our gift to empower women and girls, so let us commit to doing so.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for my hasty entry into the Chamber, which does not detract from the high importance that the Liberal Democrats and I attach to this Bill. I am pleased to welcome the Bill back to the House on Third Reading and, having listened to hon. Members over the past weeks, I acknowledge the reservoir of support across the House for both the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we want to see Britain deepening trust and building partnerships with our allies; we want to see Britain setting an example in its support for international humanitarian law; and we want to see Britain countering the rise in global authoritarianism through our commitment to institutions such as the Commonwealth. Set against the scale of these ambitions, the changes made by this Bill may seem comparatively narrow. They are, however, no less important. By altering the status of the CPA and the ICRC so they can be treated as international organisations, with associated privileges and immunities, we will safeguard the critical missions of both bodies while ensuring they can retain their particular relationships with the United Kingdom. In the case of the CPA, the importance of this is readily apparent. The CPA’s present designation as a UK charity limits its participation in the work of the Commonwealth to that of a civil society organisation and fails to respect the spirit of co-operation and voluntary association that animates the Commonwealth. This Bill is an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the Commonwealth and to continue hosting the CPA’s headquarters here in the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth charter, signed by the late Queen Elizabeth II, lays out the 16 core values and principles of the Commonwealth. These include democracy, human rights, gender equality, protecting the environment, and the rule of law. These are all principles and values that the Liberal Democrats are pleased to champion. I turn now to the International Committee of the Red Cross and its thousands of dedicated employees who, along with millions of volunteers in national and international Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, comprise the rest of the broader Red Cross and Red Crescent movement. The ICRC is an organisation without parallel. Its unique mandate is an exclusively humanitarian one: to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence, and to promote and strengthen humanitarian law. I am sad to say that the ICRC’s mission is as indispensable now as it was at the committee’s founding in 1863 and when it was affirmed by the Geneva conventions in 1949. Today the world is racked by more than 120 armed conflicts. In Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza and across the wider world, millions have been made refugees and tens of millions have been internally displaced. The UN estimates that 87% of the casualties resulting from recent hostilities have been civilians. Aid workers, such as those in the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, are increasingly at risk, and even news welcomed by this House, such as the fall of the brutal Assad regime, is accompanied by urgent humanitarian need. Since the beginning of the war in Syria in 2011, the ICRC has registered more than 35,000 cases of people who have gone missing. Now, with Assad’s prisons finally cast open, the ICRC has been working to reunite families and to support ex-prisoners. In Sudan, where some 25 million people are in urgent need of humanitarian aid, the shameful Russian veto of the UN Security Council resolution drafted by the UK and Sierra Leone, which called on both the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces to increase aid access, must now encourage the Government to redouble their efforts to see humanitarian law upheld. Since the beginning of the conflict in Gaza, the ICRC has facilitated the release, transfer and return to their loved ones of 109 Israeli hostages held in Gaza. The committee also performed the same function for 154 freed Palestinian detainees. Presently, the ICRC has been denied access to the hostages even now held by Hamas in Gaza, as well as to the Palestinians in Israeli detention. The ICRC therefore has no assurance that either the hostages or the detainees are receiving humane treatment, nutrition or healthcare. Will the Minister affirm that the ICRC must be given immediate access to the hostages in Gaza and to the detainees in Israel and the occupied territories to fulfil its mandate under the third Geneva convention? Will he also inform the House of what actions the Department is taking to ensure combatants adhere to their obligations under international humanitarian law to treat prisoners and detainees humanely? By treating the ICRC as an international organisation, we can provide it with a legal basis to protect its neutrality and continue its work in the world’s most dangerous and fraught regions, and that will be a positive step. However, we must also recognise that while changes to the ICRC’s status are necessary, they are far from sufficient to ensure that humanitarian law is upheld and humanitarian aid is delivered where, when and in the quantities that it is needed. I urge the Government to stand up to the permissive attitude in international law that we witness today in many war zones, affirm our shared values in support of international humanitarian law and impress upon warring factions the need to deliver aid without interference. I am glad that the FCDO’s support to the ICRC this year looks likely to exceed the £133 million provided last year. However, I remain concerned that the cuts to the UK’s international development spending from 0.58% of gross national income to 0.5%, announced in the Budget, will be reflected in reduced support to the ICRC in 2025 and beyond. At this dangerous time, when support for humanitarian aid organisations is so critical, I hope the Government will commit to increasing the funding next year for the ICRC and the indispensable work it does. We Liberal Democrats come from a long tradition of liberal internationalism, which prizes co-operation based on shared values. The efforts of both the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross is of vital importance. We are proud to support them and proud to support the Bill.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Home-to-School Transport: Children with SEND · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing the debate. I will give some colour on what is happening in Surrey and my constituency of Esher and Walton. My constituent Polly is 16 years old, and because of her SEND she is unable to travel unaccompanied —something that is not disputed by the council. Until the end of last term she received travel, but now she has a place at a special needs sixth form and has been denied assistance. Her parents appealed the decision and were denied again. When it rejected the appeal, Surrey’s stage 2 panel made a financial argument, asserting that it would not be sustainable for the council to provide travel assistance on account of Polly’s parents’ work commitments. Both her parents work full time at Royal Surrey County hospital. In determining what is necessary for a child, the council takes account of their special educational needs but not their parents’ or carers’ work. The current statutory framework leads to absurd economisation under which the jobs of two NHS workers cannot be considered in the allocation of a child’s transport assistance, so the choice is therefore between Polly’s education and her parents’ jobs in the NHS. That is not acceptable.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Bangladesh: Attacks on Hindu Community · Hansard source

  More

  We share the concerns of Members on both sides of the House about these attacks. I note that the Minister has spoken to her Bangladeshi counterparts, and urge her to continue to do so. The most recent Foreign Office human rights and democracy report lists Bangladesh as a “human rights priority” country and highlights “reports of harassment...particularly towards...Hindu minorities, often incited online.” The report recognises that “UK funding through civil society organisations supported freedom of religion or belief and community mediation processes”. Can the Minister update us on the progress being made, using UK funding, in combating religious discrimination in Bangladesh? Is that funding at risk of being another casualty of the latest round of cuts in overseas development assistance? Will the Government support our call for an ambassador-level champion of freedom of religion or belief, so that the UK can do more to ensure that the rights of Hindus and all religious minorities are protected and upheld?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  Some 25 million people urgently need assistance in Sudan and more than 10 million have been displaced from their homes. Will the Minister affirm that attaining a ceasefire in Sudan is a diplomatic priority for the UK? The UK is the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council and assumes the presidency of the council from Friday. Last night, I met the former civilian Prime Minister of Sudan, Dr Abdalla Hamdok, who is president of the broad civilian front Tagadum. He is pushing for safe zones for civilians. Will the UK sponsor a new Security Council resolution to designate no-fly areas for aircraft and Iranian drones, and to uphold responsibilities under resolution 2417? Will the Government increase the capacity of their mission in Sudan as a practical means of support? Will they also further increase UK humanitarian assistance, including support for the UN appeal for Sudan, which has received only half its target funding?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability · Hansard source

  More

  Esher and Walton is a river community. The Thames borders our constituency, and the River Mole, which is a chalk stream, runs through it. The River Mole is one of the most polluted rivers in the country, and a quarter of the sewage poured into is from my constituency. This amounts to a failure that impacts on our health, our environment and our democracy. Why our democracy? Because it means the public believe that our Government turn a blind eye to this outrage and the ransacking of our public utility, therefore neither representing them nor serving their interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that this must not be allowed to happen again, and that we—and the new Government in particular—must deliver clean rivers and get this right?