Monica Harding MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  My brother-in-law Pip Harding, who is with us in the Public Gallery today, was diagnosed with a glioblastoma in March 2024 and given nine months to live. He is still here today, thank God—looking amazing—because he received treatment that cost a huge amount of money, which was crowdfunded. That highlights a very uncomfortable truth in our society: the treatment is there and available, but only for those who can crowdfund or afford it. I will not go through the challenges, because I know the Minister is well aware of them, but I will talk about the needs. We need clear national accountability for improving brain tumour outcomes. We need sustained and protected investment in brain tumour research so that the funding finally reflects the devastating impact of this disease. We need brain cancer care to be recognised as genuinely time-critical, because while tumours can progress in weeks, the system responds in years. We need a truly national brain cancer clinical trials pipeline, and we need the routine collection and storage of fresh frozen tumour tissue for all brain cancer patients. For families facing diagnosis today, the cost of delay is measured not in statistics, but in lives. The science is advancing. The clinicians are ready. Patients and families are demanding action. The challenge for all of us now is to ensure that the pace of policy finally matches the pace of the disease. Will the Minister set out how the Government will deliver on these priorities: clear accountability, greater research investment, improved access to clinical trials, routine access to genomic testing and tissue preservation, and better outcomes for brain tumour patients by the end of this Parliament? How will Parliament be able to hold the Government accountable for delivering them? If the system cannot match the pace of brain cancer, it will continue to fail and “terminal” will remain the outcome. We must move from “terminal” to “treatable”, so other families can have the second chance that we have now had with our Pip.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

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

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. There is a systematic and joined-up failure that we need to unravel, and I will come back to that in my speech. When there was scrutiny after 2011, there was still a failure of oversight. What does that say about our society, how we protect privilege and what we are prepared to accept on behalf of the British state and our representatives? Can rules be broken by some people and not others? Do propriety and ethics belong to all those who represent the British state? We have a parliamentary monarchy. That means that if the Palace does not open itself to scrutiny and carry out its own inquiry, Parliament must. I have some questions. On what basis was Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor given the role of trade envoy? Who put him forward and was there resistance to it? While he was trade envoy, what concerns were raised and with whom, from what date and how were they actioned? Money was put up by the royal family to protect him. Does Parliament have a right to understand why that money was put up and that public funds were not used in the civil settlement with Virginia Giuffre? Can Parliament find out that not one penny of public money was used in that settlement? I know you will share with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, the concern about levels of public confidence in all our institutions and the people who represent them. Parliament must assert itself in this regard, and I, along with my colleagues, call for the full publication of all documents related to Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as a special envoy and for an end to negative privilege, so that MPs in this place can speak freely about their concerns and disclose information in the House of Commons, even if that individual is a member of the royal family. I will end, as I must, with thoughts for the victims of the Epstein scandal, which has triggered so much of this debate, and all those who are victims of power, privilege and deference. They are foremost in our minds as this furore continues. It is thanks to their bravery that we know the extent of Epstein’s crimes and the wider implications for our own establishment.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that it is quite extraordinary that we are urging the Parliament of a foreign country—Congress—to investigate this matter when it concerns our trade envoy and a member of the royal family?

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  I noticed that the mention of Japan took the Prime Minister one minute—the last minute—of a 10-minute speech on China and Japan. Japan is not only the largest inward investor into the UK, apart from the EU and US, but a vital liberal democracy in the Indo-Pacific and a key security partner in maintaining regional stability in the face of growing Chinese assertiveness. Given the growing security risks and strategic instability across the region, can the Prime Minister assure the House that engagement with Beijing will not weaken the UK’s alignment with Japan, which is one of our most important democratic partners?

• 2 Feb 2026 · US Department of Justice Release of Files · Hansard source

  More

  I asked the Prime Minister in this Chamber, on behalf of my constituents who were asking the same thing, why Peter Mandelson had been appointed our most senior ambassador at all, given the knowledge of his links with Epstein. By September, it was clear just how close that relationship had been, yet the PM did not immediately sack him, and there still was not a full investigation of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein. Why is that investigation happening only now? The Prime Minister has stated his commitment to restoring trust in public life; how does the Minister square that promise to uphold standards with the delay in investigating this relationship?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate, and for all his work. I also thank all the hon. Members, from across the parties, who have spoken in this debate with such clarity and conviction, and so powerfully. Next month marks four years since Myanmar’s military junta launched its brutal coup against the country’s elected Government. In the years since, Myanmar has been plunged into a brutal, bloody civil war. The consequences have been devastating, with mass killings, widespread displacement, economic collapse and profound human suffering across the country. Myanmar’s military junta has long been the principal driver of repression, including in the sham elections, and particularly in the persecution of religious minorities. What we witness today in Myanmar is not random unrest between non-state militias; it is systematic state violence with airstrikes on civilian areas, arbitrary detention, torture and collective punishment. It is a deliberate, large-scale system of repression, which has deep roots. For decades, the Rohingya Muslim population has been subjected to sustained persecution, stripped of citizenship, denied basic civil rights and subjected to repeated military attacks. Over 600,000 Rohingya remain trapped in Rakhine state, stateless, confined to camps and facing severe restrictions on movement, healthcare and livelihoods. More than 1 million Rohingya have fled the country, primarily to neighbouring Bangladesh, as we have heard. They face appalling conditions: the largest refugee camp in the world is in Bangladesh, just across the Myanmar border. Christians in Myanmar have also faced growing repression. Around 4 million Christians live in the country, many of them in ethnic minority regions that have borne the brunt of military violence. Churches have been damaged or destroyed, religious leaders have been detained, and entire communities have been displaced by airstrikes and ground offensives. Those are clear violations of the most basic freedoms—freedom of belief, freedom of worship and freedom from fear. That brings me to the central point that I want to make today. The persecution of religious minorities in Myanmar does not occur in isolation; it is part of a far wider assault—an attack on not just specific communities but civilian society itself. Nearly a decade ago, when the Rohingya Muslims were subjected to large-scale military operations that drove them into a corner of the country and across borders, that moment should have been a turning point for international resolve. Instead, it became something else entirely. It became a test, and the world failed it. What happened to the Rohingya was not an aberration but the tragic rehearsal of what was to come next. The tactics first deployed against the Rohingya, including collective punishment, mass displacement and the criminalisation of identity and dissent, have since been expanded and used by the junta against a broader section of Myanmar’s civil society. Today the junta targets not only particular ethnic or religious groups but anyone who stands outside, or stands up to, military control—pro-democracy activists, journalists, human rights defenders, teachers, doctors, nurses and aid workers. The common denominator is no longer faith or ethnicity; it is defiance, independence and the mere refusal to submit to a brutal military regime. The civilians’ bravery in the face of this is astonishing. The humanitarian picture today is dire. Millions of people are internally displaced, and entire communities have been cut off from food, healthcare and shelter. Civilian infrastructure has been deliberately attacked; aid is obstructed; local humanitarian workers are criminalised; and starvation and displacement are used as weapons of war. This is a political strategy and a man-made humanitarian crisis, which brings me to the international response, particularly the UK’s. The case for action could not be clearer. There is an urgent need for cross-border humanitarian aid, for sustained support to local partners and for far less deference to junta permission that is never given in good faith. However, the Government’s cuts to the aid budget, with spending projected to fall to 0.3% of national income by 2027—the lowest level this century—pose dire problems for Myanmar. Four years on from the coup, 22 million people require humanitarian assistance. That rise in need has also been partly driven by overlapping crises, such as the devastating earthquake this year. The Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has warned that 16 million people now require lifesaving assistance and protection, yet the programme budget for Myanmar fell in 2025-26 to £47 million. The international response is failing to keep pace with the need. The UN humanitarian response plan for Myanmar is only 17% funded, a dramatic fall from the already inadequate 36% reached at the end of 2024. Does the Minister have plans to increase the assistance to Myanmar? Where does Myanmar sit in the bilateral priority list of the FCDO, and does that not underscore the point? Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine, Yemen, Bangladesh and Myanmar—I could go on and on. In the midst of all this conflict, why are the Government now cutting aid to such a low level? The Government must get back to their legal commitment of 0.7%. As the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) said, to pile conflict upon conflict makes us less secure. The UN has found localisation extremely difficult, unlike the UK and FCDO, whose localised approach is very welcome. The UN agencies themselves acknowledge that Myanmar is a context in which local actors are indispensable, because international access is so severely restricted. Military interference through visa delays, travel authorisation refusals and access constraints has significantly hampered UN operations since the coup. The UK has avoided some of those obstacles by consistently supporting a localised approach—funding local actors outside the UN system, working through intermediaries and supporting informal delivery models, as well as working with local partners, including in areas beyond military control. The Liberal Democrats strongly support that approach. However, continued cuts to funding will inevitably undermine localisation, particularly when local actors are left without sufficient backing from the UN system. Can the Minister lay out how that support will continue? The Government’s sanctions regime also reflects a troubling lack of urgency. Sanctions have been piecemeal, slow and insufficiently co-ordinated with international partners. We need the Government to co-ordinate and enforce a new round of targeted sanctions, to cut the flow of funds and arms to the junta in Myanmar and of the aviation fuel that enables the military there to conduct airstrikes against civilians. Key economic enablers of the junta remain untouched, while accountability for atrocity crimes remains distant and uncertain. If we are serious about protecting religious minorities and about defending democracy and civilian life, that must change. The Government must support international accountability efforts and name those responsible for atrocities, rather than hiding behind diplomatic caution. Why will the Government not expel Myanmar’s military attaché as the representative of a regime committing war crimes? Given that the UK remains the penholder on Myanmar at the UN Security Council, it is in a unique position to lead the global response to the crisis in the country. It is disappointing how little sustained attention the crisis receives, both internationally and in this House—the only substantive debate about it in this Parliament followed the Government’s own statement on the earthquake. Will the Government seek a new resolution on Myanmar at the Security Council to stop attacks on civilians and on religious freedom? The Government have stated that they stand in solidarity with those calling for a return to democracy in Myanmar and they have urged the military regime to engage in dialogue with opposition groups representing the Myanmar people, including the national unity Government. I would welcome an update from the Minister on what engagement has taken place with pro-democracy actors, including the national unity Government, and on what steps the UK has taken to support efforts to achieve a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can reach those who need it most. Finally, if the junta were to fall—we have heard today how weak it is—is the UK prepared politically and operationally, with the requisite resource to respond quickly, to scale up humanitarian assistance and help support a civilian-led democratic transition in Myanmar? The persecution of religious minorities in Myanmar is not a side issue but a warning—a warning about what happens when authoritarian regimes learn that the world will look away: first from one group, then from everyone else. We owe it to the Rohingya, Christians and other religious minorities in Myanmar, and to the millions of ordinary people in the country who continue so bravely and against all odds to resist repression and to hope for a different future, to take action. We must stand with them, not step back.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Less Survivable Cancers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this vital debate on less survivable cancers. As it is for many people across Parliament and the country, less survivable cancer is a personal fight for me. My brother-in-law, Group Captain Pip Harding, was diagnosed two years ago with glioblastoma, a devastating and aggressive brain tumour. His story illustrates both hope and what is still profoundly broken. Pip received pioneering oncothermia treatment from Dr Paul Mulholland, who has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). The treatment shrank his tumour significantly; he had a prognosis of only six months to live with his five children and wife, but two years on he is still alive and well. But that treatment remains inaccessible on the NHS: he obtained it through his family and friends crowdfunding the treatment, which illustrates how those with the means and community support can access innovation while others cannot. Glioblastoma remains one of the hardest cancers to treat, with little improvement in survival rates compared with many other cancers. We know that research funding for brain tumours has historically lagged behind need, and it receives a tiny fraction of overall cancer research pounds, which is a scandal when the disease disproportionately affects younger adults. I support the sterling work of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden on trials, and I echo her ask. I have heard from many families in my constituency of Esher and Walton whose lives have been turned upside down by rare cancers. One constituent shared the anguish of watching their partner struggle with a less common blood cancer that had no clear trial available in the UK, even though promising research was under way abroad. These stories are not isolated. They reflect systemic issues, including diagnostic delays. Here, I will bring in my lovely sister Mary, who died just before Christmas. She waited for a diagnosis, but was misdiagnosed and died from bowel cancer. Trial access is limited and specialist expertise across regions is patchy. Just 82.5% of cancer patients in Esher and Walton began treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral, below the operational standard of 85%. Every per cent represents the heartbreak that my family felt this Christmas. I also want to raise lobular breast cancer. It is the second most common form of breast cancer, yet it remains under-researched and under-supported. In collaboration with the lobular moonshot project, my constituent Kate Ford has been campaigning for the Government to commit £20 million for a dedicated research programme. However, after Kate had a meeting with the Secretary of State in July, the Government chose not to commit to that. Instead, they supported a broader research base, but that largely misses the point, because the status quo of research programmes means that rare cancers such as lobular breast cancer are effectively left behind. Finally, I want to return to brain cancer and Owain’s law, which addresses issues where patients lose access to cutting edge therapies due to improper tissue preservation—

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.