Monica Harding MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  Well, here we are again. The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the Government’s historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine, which we have long called for. We have welcomed more recent statements of intent, including just 10 days ago in this House, but such statements are utterly hollow without action, especially when we know that the Israeli security cabinet’s stated aim is to make a future Palestinian state unviable. We have asked these questions before, but we will ask them again. When will the Government put forward a clear plan to halt and reverse the illegal expansion into East Jerusalem and the west bank? When will they respond to the 2024 ruling of the International Court of Justice? When will they introduce a package of sanctions including fines for any UK firms that bid for contracts for settlement construction in E1 or anywhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territories? Will they expand that to cover any UK financial institution that finances or facilitates UK companies’ involvement in construction or other services? When will the UK move fast to ban all UK trade in goods and services with illegal Israeli settlements?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Princess Alice hospice in my constituency on celebrating its 40th anniversary this year? Over the past 40 years, it has cared for tens of thousands of people and has been a staple for local families at their most vulnerable. Only 20% of its funding comes from statutory NHS funding, with the rest mainly coming from selling woolly jumpers; as a result, it is able to meet only one third of the local need. Access to palliative care will come under scrutiny once again in the autumn. Will the Leader of the House make time to address sustainable funding for palliative care to ensure that provision for all is available?

• 22 Jun 2026 · G7 Summit · Hansard source

  More

  We have been waiting for the UK-EU reset for two years, and today we have just more warm words after the UK-EU reset summit was postponed because the Labour party has decided to change its leader. On the anniversary of the Brexit referendum, when we are all poorer and our economy has taken a 6% to 8% hit because of it, what assurance can the Deputy Prime Minister give this House that the next Prime Minister will be bolder than this one and will actually positively reset the relationship with Europe, supporting our calls to join the customs union and the single market?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  They 100% do care and that is why we should support new clause 1. It would also help if constituents could access the railway in the first place. Investment in making our stations accessible for all need to be at the very heart of the programme of rail reform. Hersham and Hinchley Wood stations are completely without step-free access, while Walton, Claygate, Esher and Thames Ditton only have partial step-free access. That is why I tabled new clause 60, requiring Great British Railways to undertake and publish an assessment of the accessibility barriers at Hersham and Hinchley Wood stations. I am also pleased to support new clause 2, which does the same, requiring the Secretary of State to publish an accessibility strategy for the railway network. That brings me to Hersham station, because accessibility failures there sit alongside something much more fundamental, which new clause 3 would address. Hersham supports around 700,000 passengers every year in one of the busiest rail corridors in the country, in a constituency that contributes more to the Exchequer than any other constituency outside London. Thousands of people pass through the station every week to run businesses, create jobs and drive economic growth. The state of that station is an affront to every single one of them. It is an eyesore: ramshackle and neglected, mould climbs the fence lines, the paintwork is peeling and the station sits under exposed corrugated iron roofing. More seriously, both platforms were built in the 1960s using materials that were only ever intended to be temporary. More than half a century later, they are still there. Groups of schoolchildren step off the train and put their feet through the platform. Constituents have repeatedly raised safety concerns. The stairs visibly move beneath their feet. These passengers are not asking for luxury; they are asking for a station that is safe. There is nothing in the Bill that will give my residents in Hersham a station that they can be proud of. I therefore urge the Minister to look seriously at new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would establish a tomorrow’s railway fund, enabling local authorities to bid for funding for new stations, infrastructure and feasibility studies. This is exactly the kind of mechanism that stations and wealth creators in Hersham need. All my constituents are asking for are trains that run on time, stations they can actually get into and infrastructure that is safe to use. Performance, accessibility and condition are not separate issues. They are three sides of the same failure and the Bill must address all three. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments and show that Great British Railways will finally deliver a railway worthy of the people who depend on it every day.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Community Pharmacies · Hansard source

  More

  Accessibility is paramount. The costs that are pushed on to pharmacists mean that they cannot remain sustainable and that they resist opening pharmacies in smaller places, because it will take away business from them. Therefore, those pressures take away accessibility, which is needed.

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I know that many colleagues, like me, are frustrated by the Government’s lack of action to secure progress of a two-state solution. The UK is rightly committed to the disarmament of Hamas and Hezbollah. Those terror groups cannot be allowed to continue destabilising the region, but it is not clear that concrete action is being taken to deliver that. Can the Minister tell me how the Government are co-ordinating international efforts to disarm and disband both groups? Our influence over proscribed groups is less than over a state we call an ally. That is why Liberal Democrats have been so critical of the Minister’s failure to hold the Israeli Security Cabinet to account for its extremist actions. I was disgusted by the footage of the far-right Minister, Ben-Gvir, degrading detainees from the Global Samud Flotilla. This was after celebrating his birthday with a cake emblazoned with a noose, following the passage of a death penalty law targeting Palestinians. It was right that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office called in the Israeli chargé d'affaires to register our condemnation, but it is far from sufficient. In the west bank, settler violence and expansion accelerates. At the start of June, tenders will be delivered for the construction in the E1 area, a move that could kill the chance of a contiguous Palestinian state. In Gaza, Israeli forces push forward their yellow line, inch by inch. The entry of aid continues to be impeded by restrictive measures, while the humanitarian catastrophe only worsens and journalists are still blocked from entering. In southern Lebanon, the Israeli Defence Force demolishes Lebanese houses and entire villages—an abhorrent and illegal operation. Across those issues, the Government’s muted response and dysfunction can be summarised in a single example: the decision to cut the FCDO’s unit for the monitoring of international law breaches across Israel and Palestine. Can the Minister set out what steps the Government will take if the E1 project continues? Will the Minister ban all UK trade with illegal settlements, reverse cuts to the FCDO’s monitoring unit and press the Israeli Government to allow journalists access to Gaza so that they can collect what evidence may remain of war crimes committed there?

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Would the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Walton and Hersham football club in my constituency? They have secured promotion to the national league south for the first time in their history—an extraordinary fourth promotion in just six seasons. At a time of concern about young people’s mental health and online harms, which I know the House will debate in future, can he provide time for a debate about supporting grassroots football clubs and sports clubs? They are a diversion away from online harms and for better mental health, as Walton and Hersham show so well.

• 20 May 2026 · Child Protection Online · Hansard source

  More

  New polling commissioned by the Online Safety Act Network shows that almost 80% of the public want comprehensive laws regulating social media platforms, because otherwise those platforms will continue to prioritise their business interests over users’ safety. The Government have been weak on that and had no new online safety legislation in the King’s Speech. Will the Secretary of State at least move quickly to adopt the network’s safety by design code, in order to deliver the comprehensive reforms that the public want?

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency is the single biggest contributor to the Exchequer of any constituency outside London. It is home to almost 5,500 businesses, and their opinion matters. As their representative in this place, I want to convey the message from the small businesses, entrepreneurs and major employers that this King’s Speech and this Government are failing to protect them, failing to promote them, failing to get growth, and failing them. Businesses are struggling with everything, everywhere, all at once, with pressure from rising national insurance costs, business rates, wage increases and energy bills, and Government policies are exacerbating the pain, rather than alleviating it. Retailers are trying to keep the high streets alive, while footfall drops and costs rise. Employers want to recruit, invest and grow, but they increasingly feel that they are being punished for taking on staff and building businesses in the UK. One said to me: “It’s just too hard. I’m out. Instead of carrying on and creating wealth and jobs, I’m retiring.” At least they are still here. Some are eyeing up getting out of this country altogether and offshoring. Hospitality businesses are under enormous strain. Across much of Europe, hospitality is recognised as a strategic sector that is worth supporting through reduced VAT rates. In Britain, cafés and restaurants are still largely paying the full 20% VAT rate, while also absorbing soaring energy costs, higher staffing bills and rising business rates. The VAT rate for hospitality in this country is one of the highest in Europe, second only to that in Denmark. The high street is hurting. Laurent Trenga, who owns Thames Ditton Bakery, has described just how unsustainable things have become for many small high-street businesses. His monthly energy bill is now nearly as high as the rent for the shop. He pays around £1,250 for energy, compared with £1,000 for rent. He says it feels like he is paying “two rents”, simply to keep the ovens on. On top of that come corporation tax, VAT and rising staff costs—all in a small village, where footfall is down because of the cost of living. Business owners are working harder than ever, while being rewarded less and less for taking the risk of running a business. Daytona outdoor go-karting in Sandown Park has told me about the combined impact of rising wage costs, high VAT and soaring business rates. Its business rates have risen by £100,000 in two years, and when the minimum wage rises, every wage band goes up, so that the grades can be differentiated. That creates huge pressure on employers across the hospitality and leisure sectors. That business’s concern, which has been echoed by others, is that money will simply stop moving through the economy. Many business owners are now seriously thinking about scaling back, relocating or closing altogether. None of this has been confronted in the King’s Speech. Surely, after the local elections, the Government have woken up and smelled the coffee. They must act with urgency to tackle both the cost of living crisis and the cost of doing business crisis. This means cutting hospitality VAT to 15%, as we recommend, until April 2027, bringing energy bills down, and finally getting serious about economic growth by negotiating a new UK-EU customs union. These measures would help save jobs, support struggling high streets, grow the economy and put around £270 back into each person’s pockets by next year, giving businesses and families alike a much-needed boost in confidence and stability. I have mentioned a customs union, and it is good to see that the Government’s inertia on Brexit has finally been broken by both candidates for the Labour leadership, although it is interesting to see that the one who is not in this place has U-turned already, within 48 hours. The economic damage from Brexit is becoming harder to ignore, so why do the Government still not move to fix it more wholeheartedly? Last November, the National Bureau of Economic Research estimated that Brexit had reduced UK GDP by between 6% and 8%, with investment significantly lower and business confidence badly weakened by years of uncertainty and instability, but the King’s Speech is yet another wasted opportunity for British businesses and ambition. Of course, the biggest gift a Government can give to business is stability. Instead, business leaders are warning that investment decisions, as well as the country’s reputation, are at risk, with more infighting, more scandals and more jostling for power. It is such a shame that this Government are following the chaos of Tory Governments. It is such a shame that this Prime Minister has wasted his mandate to reform welfare, properly reset our relationship with the EU and create a business friendly environment. He promised that this would be an Attlee Government. The only characteristic they share with the Attlee Government may be having one term.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 19 Mar 2026 · International Development · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 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

  I want to speak about transparency and accountability in public life and how the system we find ourselves in has been maintained and got us to where we are. In the early noughties, I was working overseas with the British Council, as I have said. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor visited us as part of his role as a UK trade envoy. Before his arrival, senior staff in both the embassy and the British Council were rolling their eyes—his reputation preceded him. I was told that it was a “containment” exercise, that overseas missions feared putting him out there in case he said something inappropriate, that he was arrogant and that he was not on top of his brief. Rather than looking forward to his visits as an opportunity to promote Britain, it was instead thought that he would do damage. Moreover, there were rumours about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor—that he refused to stay in the ambassador’s residence, that he would only stay in the Four Seasons or similar top-end hotels, and that he took an ironing board with him when he went overseas. That was a euphemism for a massage table. That was all well known among many officials. It even inspired the BBC TV programme “Ambassadors” in 2013, a couple of years after Andrew was forced to relinquish his role as trade envoy. It seems that this was known about in the diplomatic circles that I experienced way back at the start of the noughties, and yet Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor enjoyed another 10 years as a trade envoy. Yet when I questioned why this was allowed to happen, I was met with a shrug. “Everyone knows,” they said. As I have said, Andrew came to an exhibition I had put on about Dolly the sheep. At the time, it was the pinnacle of British innovation, and we were rightly proud of it as an example of UK scientific excellence. One of my team was a young Japanese woman who worked for the British Government as a member of British Council staff. Her job—we paid her—was to promote the UK. She showed the then prince around with some Japanese dignitaries. “Dolly the sheep,” he sneered, “It’s rubbish. Frankenstein sheep”. My team member was deflated and did not understand why this representative of the British state diminished what she was rightly proud of. The talk of Andrew and what he was like came to my own dinner table. My late father-in-law, an air vice-marshal in the RAF, was at a dinner with Mountbatten-Windsor on an overseas trip in the 1990s. He said, in front of many foreign military and diplomatic seniors, “No need for a Royal Air Force”. My father-in-law said nothing, and that was the problem. People could not because of his privileged position. My father-in-law raised it with the Chief of the Air Staff and was told it would be raised with the Palace. What happened next? Who knows? Did diplomats raise the concern to their seniors and to the very top from early on? Did the Palace do its own internal investigation? If they did, was it shared with the Department for Business and Trade? Where did these concerns all go? In doing so, did they—the system—unwittingly or wittingly support protection or cover-up, because of “the way things were done” or because of deference? That is the point of this debate. Some officials knew, or the system seemed to know, but the system seemingly failed to do anything about it for 10 years because of privilege and deference.

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

  More

  My right hon. Friend is talking about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s role as a trade envoy. When I was working overseas for the British Council, Mountbatten-Windsor came to an exhibition I had put on about Dolly the sheep, which was a fine example of British scientific innovation, but he stood up in front of Japanese dignitaries and business people and said, “This is rubbish. This is Frankenstein’s sheep.” Would my right hon. Friend agree with me that that was a very poor example of promoting British trade interests?

• 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?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  The situation in Sudan is the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis. I welcome the increased funding and the sanctions, which are long overdue, but why do the sanctions still fall short of the EU action? Why do they still fail to target the heads of the SAF and the RSF? Why has it taken this long? Will the Government now target those profiting from Sudan’s gold trade, which continues to bankroll the war economy? Humanitarian aid must flow freely and independently. In its role as the United Nations Security Council penholder, what steps are the Government taking to secure a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can get through, and to expand the arms embargo beyond Darfur to the whole country? Will the Government expand their aid provision and ensure that aid delivery, including from UK taxpayers in my constituency of Esher and Walton, is distributed through the UN and the international non-governmental organisations, or through localised efforts, such as the emergency response rooms, and that the UN system is not undermined? I welcome the steps that the UK has taken to ensure that Sudanese pro-democracy actors are not sidelined by external powerbrokers. Will she reaffirm the UK’s commitment to a civilian, non-military end state in Sudan? What is being done to prevent parallel diplomatic tracks from undermining UN-led peace efforts? Will the Government suspend arms exports to the United Arab Emirates, given credible evidence of its role in fuelling the conflict? What discussions had the UK held with partners to ensure that humanitarian assistance is not being used to mask responsibility? How will accountability for atrocities be safeguarded with any peace process supported by the UK, including support for international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court? The UK has a long legacy in Sudan, and with that comes responsibility. Sudan’s civilians cannot wait. I urge the Government to act with ever more urgency and focus.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  Tom Duxberry has run Marney’s village inn, a brilliant and much-loved local in Weston Green, for 17 years. Its rateable value is set to rise from £20,000 to £50,000—a 175% increase—and he is facing rent rises; inflation on beer, wine products and energy; and customers with less money in their pocket. Did the Government not see his plight right from the get-go, and what more help can they give him with all those pressures?

• 22 Jan 2026 · International Day of Education · Hansard source

  More

  I agree 100%, and let us not forget that children are left behind in our country too. In my Esher and Walton constituency, we found that 1,800 children were missing school because of special educational needs and disabilities. Pupil referral units do brilliant work in bringing children back into mainstream education, which is good for our economy and for growth. As I said, children around the world are missing education; the global aid cuts will increase that number and that rise will be concentrated in humanitarian hotspots. Education systems are being put under strain by the combined impact of conflict, climate shocks and humanitarian collapse. Last year alone, 242 million students in 85 countries saw their schooling disrupted by climate events. Education is not a luxury; it underpins development, public health, gender equality and long-term stability, yet the global commitment is weakening just as pressures on education systems intensify. International education funding is projected to fall by $3.2 billion dollars this year—a 24% cut—placing an additional 5.7 million children at risk of dropping out of school. Cuts to the United States Agency for International Development alone are expected to push 23 million children out of education in the years ahead. Girls will be hardest hit, with gender-focused education aid projected to fall by 28% this year, despite clear evidence that educating girls delivers some of the highest returns of any development investment. At the same time, primary education funding faces a 34% cut, with severe long-term consequences for literacy, numeracy and economic growth. Against that backdrop, the Government’s decision to cut the aid budget to the lowest level this century will only deepen the global education crisis, undermining long-term stability, prosperity and the UK’s influence abroad. With aid projected to fall to 0.3% of national income by 2027, education funding is already being squeezed, and overseas education spending is set to drop by 40% this year alone. At the same time, one fifth of the aid budget is now spent on in-country refugee costs, crowding out overseas investment—precisely the spending that helps prevent instability and forced displacement in the first place. Britain has not always stood on the sidelines. For many years, the UK was a leading global voice on education—particularly girls’ education—backing that leadership with sustained multilateral investment. Between 2015 and 2020 alone, UK aid helped more than 15 million children attend school worldwide. I will now illustrate the scale of the crisis by giving examples from some of the worst-affected areas globally. Nowhere is the global collapse in education more stark than in Afghanistan, where more than 2 million girls are formally banned from secondary and higher education, making it the only country in the world to exclude girls from school legally. Meanwhile, learning outcomes for boys in the country deteriorate amid systemic breakdown. The collapse in education in Afghanistan has been worsened by the collapse of international aid: the United States has effectively disengaged from Afghanistan, while British aid to the country has fallen by nearly half over the past five years. In the Gaza strip, over 650,000 children—almost the entire school-age population—have received little or no formal education for years, with around 97% of schools in the region having been damaged or destroyed. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which has long been the backbone of education provision for Palestinian refugee children, educated over half a million children in the Gaza strip and the west bank. However, it is now operating under severe legal and operational constraints imposed by the Israeli Government, including bans in east Jerusalem, the demolition of facilities, and restrictions on staff, utilities and partner NGOs. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where more than 7 million children are already out of school due to conflict and displacement, a flagship education programme for girls that was previously supported by British aid is set to close this year. That will affect 170,000 children in just one region, the vast majority of whom are girls, and is a direct consequence of our aid cuts. In fragile and conflict-affected states, education is not only about future opportunity; it also provides safety, routine and dignity right now. Schools often deliver clean water, meals, sanitation and access to child protection services. Yet globally, school feeding programmes face cuts of over 50%, while education in emergencies has been reduced by 24%, with countries such as Haiti, Somalia and the Central African Republic losing aid that is equivalent to more than 10% of their public education budget. It should not be, and does not have to be, this way. The Liberal Democrats believe that education must be a protected priority within the aid budget and not a discretionary extra. However, that requires reversing the aid cuts and setting out a clear path back to meeting the legally enshrined target of spending 0.7% of national income on aid. I respectfully point out to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) that although I agree with his words about the British Council and the potential cuts to its budget, and about the influence of British education, it is impossible to see how the British Council could be protected under the cuts that his party is proposing, whereby just 0.1% of GNI would be spent on ODA. The International Day of Education is a reminder that behind every statistic in this area is a child whose future depends on political choices. If we are serious about reducing poverty, empowering women and building stability—which in turn will benefit the UK by providing economic trading opportunities in global markets, less compelling reasons for people to migrate to these shores, and more global stability and security for our citizens—education must move from the margins to the centre of our international priorities.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps the Prime Minister, on his much-heralded cost of living tour, might like to visit the pubs and cafés in my constituency of Esher and Walton, if they let him in. They are being squeezed to breaking point by this Government, while constituents watch their wallets because of tax rises. Hospitality venues are the lifeblood of my high street and create the jobs we need for young people. Will the Government act now by fully using business rates relief and introducing an emergency VAT cut for hospitality to protect jobs, pubs, restaurants and the lifeblood of my constituency?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Economic Growth: Transport System · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency is the highest contributor to the Exchequer of any constituency outside London, and most of the people who pay those huge taxes commute into London on South Western Railway, which is London’s least reliable train network. A major cause of that poor performance is an outdated signalling system at Clapham Junction. It is way out of date, and in November alone it accounted for 7% of all cancellations. Will the Secretary of State set out what plans exist to go beyond piecemeal repairs to a root and branch reconstruction of the signalling at Clapham Junction?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Trial by jury is not a luxury; it is one of the oldest and most fundamental protections in this country and a key safeguard of liberty. Yet under this Government, it is being treated not as a principle to be defended, but as a system to be rationed. We all agree that there is a crisis in the criminal justice system and that we need to bring the backlog down. Cases are drifting for years before reaching court, draining justice of its force and credibility. To the frustration of my constituents in Esher and Walton, the consequences fall heavily on victims and witnesses. Prolonged delays weaken evidence, memories fade, statements are withdrawn and prosecutions collapse. Confidence in law and order, and therefore in democracy, falters. As my local borough commander told me this week, this change undermines policing. The Government have rightly prioritised community policing, and my own force in Esher and Walton has increased the solving rate for burglaries by 84%. Would it not be great if we all slept safely in our beds? But no—residents were shocked to learn that two individuals charged for burglary in December will not appear in court until September 2027. Similar problems arise in youth justice where sentences are repeatedly deferred, leaving young offenders without timely consequences and that most important of lessons for young people: that if they commit a crime, they will be punished. It erodes public confidence. Why not use the most immediate lever and lift the cap on court sitting days? Late last year, I visited Kingston Crown court. The regional backlog had grown by 25%, yet courtrooms sit unused. Staff described to me the frustration of having judges, clerks, ushers, spaces and cases ready to proceed only to be blocked by limits on sitting days put in place centrally. The Government impose those caps—it is nonsensical. It makes no sense to pay for court buildings, judges and staff and then prevent them from operating fully. That is a false economy, which shifts the cost on to victims and communities and erodes public trust. The Government have only marginally increased Crown court sitting days, barely touching the scale of the backlog and falling far short of what is needed, and this goes back to the priorities of the Treasury. Surely it must prioritise law and order first. Instead, the Government have decided to treat jury trials as a nuisance. They seem too costly and inconvenient. They are being squeezed not because they have failed, but because cutting them is easier than rebuilding the system around them. This is a political choice, and it seems like an ideological choice from the conversation earlier, not an inevitability. The Liberal Democrats have set out a serious alternative: to invest in court buildings, lift the cap on sitting days, use courtrooms effectively, fix broken contracts that cancel hearings, including the failure of prisoners’ transport to bring defendants to court on time, and invest in rehabilitation to reduce offending. This policy is not what my constituents in Esher and Walton want.