Monica Harding MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Reoffending Reduction Programmes · Hansard source

  More

  My local police force is working hard to get youth crime down, as I witnessed when I went out on an op, but reoffending is a real problem. Probation officers and youth justice workers play an essential role in the rehabilitation of young offenders, but in my area, the service was operating with under two thirds of its roles staffed last year. That is mostly due to the high cost of areas like Esher and Walton. A constituent who came to my surgery had been offered a position as a youth justice worker but had waited over six months for employment checks to be made. The Department’s data shows that almost 15,000 candidates are stuck in the vetting pipeline. What is the Minister doing about that?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to his place. I look forward to working with him and I pay tribute to the work of his predecessor, who was called to the Chamber to discuss this issue many times. I also pay tribute to the consulate general in East Jerusalem, which I visited with a Select Committee, that did some truly fantastic work. I regret that it has been closed and I hope that it will be reopened swiftly. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week designed to protect the two-state solution and the territorial integrity of the Palestinian state, that finally brought forward a ban on trade in goods and services with the illegal Israeli settlements. This was long overdue and the Liberal Democrats have called for it for years. Many of my constituents in Esher and Walton have also called for it, as did members of my Jewish community, some of whom have been campaigning for it. The Government must now ensure this ban is comprehensive and rigorously enforced, leaving no room for doubt as to the legal consequences for businesses involved in supporting or sustaining illegal settlements, and it must be enforced urgently. The Government must outline how they will monitor and implement this ban, and commit to ensuring that the burden of proof is placed on Israeli authorities to provide verifiable certification that imported goods originated within the internationally recognised pre-1967 “green-line” borders, denying UK entry to any uncertified items originating from those illegal settlements. The Government should draw on the legal provisions set out in schedule 1 to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to ensure that the ban on services is comprehensive, and they should introduce secondary legislation to amend SAMLA, placing a legal duty of due diligence on UK banks and financial institutions to verify that none of their direct operations, supply chains or customers is financing the purchase, construction or other service provision for illegal settlements. We would like the Government to outline that any violation of these bans would result in enforcement measures under the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement. We call on the Government to impose a comprehensive ban on all arms exports to Israel, including the sale of F-35 components, and to expand sanctions on Ministers in the Israeli Government’s security cabinet who are encouraging settlement expansion, including Prime Minister Netanyahu himself. A two-state solution represents the only political settlement that can deliver peace, dignity and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. But Hamas, as a brutal terror organisation that threatens the survival of the state of Israel, can have no role in the future of Palestine. The UK, together with international partners, must develop a plan to progress urgently the disarming and disbanding of this terror group. Preserving the territory of Palestine must be a foundation stone for the building of the Palestinian state, but another must be the strengthening of the governance capabilities of the Palestinian Authority. There are vital reforms that must take place within the Palestinian Authority to ensure that they can act as an effective state-building force. These must include strengthening the rule of law and protections for freedom of expression, cracking down on corruption and following through on ending the operation of the martyrs fund. The Government must support and hold the PA to account for the implementation of these reforms. It is critical that the upcoming Palestinian elections are free, fair and open to advance further democratic reform across Palestine, so will Ministers work with President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to help deliver these, including ensuring access for international election monitors. We must also recognise that current Israeli restrictions are contributing to severe economic insecurity in the west bank. The Government must put pressure on the Israeli Cabinet to ensure that the Palestinian Authority have the revenues to which they are entitled and access to banking systems to support the economy. The Israeli legislative elections in October are an opportunity to deliver a new vision for the country that reverses illegal settlement growth, prioritises diplomacy over territorial expansion and champions engagement with moderate partners in Palestine to deliver a better future for both communities. If the cycle of violence continues, it will only strengthen the voices of extremists on both sides who reject co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians. Meanwhile, the UK Government must use all the leverage they can, working with international partners and with the Israeli Government to stop the loss of civilian life in Gaza even after the ceasefire.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right that America has a critical role to play in this conflict. To give some numbers, as of 6 August, at least 300 children have reportedly been killed in Gaza in the 300 days since the ceasefire was announced—an average of one child a day. Gazans continue to remain in the grip of a man-made humanitarian catastrophe in the strip. The UK Government must do more to alleviate the humanitarian crises there and the one growing in the west bank. Over 2 million people in Gaza are living on around 30% of the territory, sheltering in unsafe conditions among destroyed buildings, rubble and waste. Some 70% of Gaza remains under IDF control. The UK must now apply genuine pressure to Netanyahu’s Government to ensure that food, aid, medical supplies and other essentials can reach Gazans now, without impediment and under the auspices of the UN, and that children and all civilians are protected. I have called on UK Ministers to pressure Netanyahu’s Government to lift their arbitrary restrictions on non-governmental organisations supplying humanitarian aid to the strip. Last week, I noted in this Chamber that more than 1.4 million people in Gaza are acutely food insecure, yet Israel’s current interpretation of dual-use restrictions means that Palestinians are routinely and systematically denied essential items, including those needed for rehabilitation by the tens of thousands of people who have suffered life-changing injuries during this conflict. The Foreign Secretary agreed that blocking those goods was appalling and seemed to suggest that it was a strategy. What does the Minister think is the strategy of the Israeli Government? Will he put pressure on them to undo those dual-good restrictions to allow the Palestinians to be self-sufficient, and to ensure that aid is sustainable and that they are no longer expected to live hand to mouth? From October, the World Food Programme will cut the number of people it can feed in Gaza from 1.1 million to 600,000—not because the need has reduced, but because the money has run out. Those are people who will go without food, in a territory where 100,000 women and children are already expected to need treatment for malnutrition in the coming year. The UK is the ninth-largest donor to World Food Programme operations in Palestine, behind the USA, Germany and France. Our annual contribution fell from $18 million in 2024 to $9.3 million last year, and to just $4 million this year. That is a reduction of 78%. The Government cannot truly speak of their commitment to the Palestinian people while presiding over cuts like those. Will the Minister explain how those two things are reconcilable? The brutal cuts to our aid budget have meant that our response to all humanitarian crises is limited. I have asked many Ministers in this House when we should expect at the very least a road map for restoring the 0.7% aid budget—a commitment that we in this House have enshrined in law. Again, can the Minister set out that timeline? Can he confirm that his party—the party of the Department for International Development and making poverty history—is committed to seeing our aid budget returned in full?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Conflict in Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member is absolutely right. The overall funding to Chad for the humanitarian response had fallen to 27%. That meant that in the refugee camps we visited, food was being rationed—it may have been every other week or every other month that they were missing food parcels—and the refugees were extremely worried about what would happen. We Liberal Democrats welcomed the Government’s announcement of £146 million of new funds for frontline aid workers to support Sudan, but the Government’s aid cuts have diminished our ability to respond to humanitarian crises and honour our international commitments. I remind the Minister that the 0.7% aid budget was a commitment that the House legislated for, and that we continue to wait for a timetable to return to 0.7%. Meanwhile, the atrocities continue. I recently met representatives of the independent UN fact-finding mission for Sudan. Their latest report was just released and makes for tough reading, concluding that external support is sustaining and expanding the military capabilities of the SAF and RSF, particularly their drone capability; that transnational networks are supplying the RSF with “weapons, logistics, training and foreign personnel”; and that the SAF is using foreign-supplied drones that harm civilians.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Green-belt Planning Policy: Esher and Walton · Hansard source

  More

  The Government changes to planning rules are of considerable concern to my constituents and are leading to speculative applications everywhere. Theoretically, the changes could mean that the whole of my constituency, which is 50% green belt and has seven stations, will be concreted over. My constituents are certainly not opposed to growth or house building, but they do not want to be ignored. The long-standing right of councillors to call in applications has been removed, which runs counter to the new Prime Minister’s values on devolution. That is why I wrote to the Secretary of State on 28 July. I have not had a reply to my question, so will she meet me to answer these questions directly?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all the young people, particularly in my constituency, who have completed GCSEs, A-levels, BTECs, T-levels and degrees, and all the brilliant teachers who got them there, and will he wish them all the best for the summer holidays and a well-deserved rest? The brilliant Esher sixth-form college in my constituency has been hit by the underfunding of post-16 education, as compared to lower secondary brackets, and also by the fact that the confirmed base rate of funding for post-16 is well below inflation. This means that high-achieving post-16 institutions may be forced to cut their academic cloth. Will the Leader of the House give time for debate on this sector, which is so important to our country’s prosperity?

• 7 Jul 2026 · UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate, because we rarely talk about this subject in the Chamber. The Government do not seem to want to talk about aid and development very much, but they must and they should, because our world is on fire, because cuts to development make it worse and because it is within the British national interest to support it. I am sure that, if my party had cut the aid budget that far, I would not want to talk about it either. The deplorable aid cuts, from a proud 0.7% to 0.3% —the biggest cuts to aid this century, amounting to a 50% cut in bilateral aid to Africa alone—are in danger of stripping the UK of much of its proud reputation on the global stage. I must note at this point that, despite continual prompting from members of the International Development Committee, of which I am one, the Government are still yet to publish their country allocations of aid, which makes it very difficult to scrutinise the damage. However, we do know, and the Government know, that these cuts will cost lives. Combined with those caused by the collapse of USAID—the United States Agency for International Development—the lives lost will likely be in their millions. That includes in countries where we have a legacy, such as Afghanistan, where 45% of the population needs humanitarian assistance and which is no longer prioritised within the UK’s aid budget. In 2022, we contributed $488 million; today, it is $32 million. We have also heard how global aid cuts have caused such damage to health systems in the DRC that the response to tackling the Ebola crisis has been made significantly harder. I know the personal commitment of many Members in this room, and of the Minister, but this is where we are: the party of DFID and Make Poverty History has become a Government of aid cuts so extreme that they outstrip the Trump Administration in their brutality. A Labour Government who followed Donald Trump in cutting aid have outdone him—a Labour Government whose legacy in development, just two years into their Administration, is already far worse than the Conservatives’. Yet once there was consensus. I agree with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) on almost everything he said but particularly on leadership. It comes to a pretty pass when a Conservative Member urges Labour Members to rise up and be radical. He said that he had the best job in the world as Development Minister. The British did the best job in the world in development. There was consensus. Building on the work of the previous Labour Government, the coalition Government delivered the commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development, which had been a Liberal Democrat manifesto promise since the 1970s. In coalition, we reached the UN aid target and NATO’s defence spending target at the same time, proving that investment in development and defence are not mutually exclusive; in fact, as we have heard, they are complementary. As I and others have said, defence, diplomacy and development support each other and strengthen any coherent foreign policy. We have heard from some of the UK’s most senior former military chiefs that reducing development capacity today stores up greater instability, greater cost and greater risk for tomorrow. That means more defence spend down the line, and look how we are scrabbling about for it now. Development brings benefits to Britain. It is strategic, and mutually beneficial because investing in peacebuilding, prosperity and stability keeps us safe here too. Take guarding against another pandemic. Covid was not so long ago, and we are told with certainty that there will be another one. Given all the pandemic’s death, its destruction of economies and its long tail of social and mental health challenges, I am sure that many hon. Friends will share my dismay at the decision by the Government to discontinue funding the Pandemic Fund. What about climate change? When harvests fail through drought or flooding, malnutrition sets in, communities fight for pasture and people migrate. In May, the Government broke their pledge on the Green Climate Fund by announcing a cut of 50%, while their new international climate finance target of over £6 billion of public money, which I note is committed over three rather than five years, also seems to be a reduction.

• 7 Jul 2026 · UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is 100% right, and I will come to that slightly later in my speech. We hear a lot from the Government about migration. Each 1% increase in food insecurity in a population compels 1.9% more people to migrate. They are escaping war, too. The largest single group of unaccompanied minors in small boats has been from Sudan, the world’s greatest humanitarian disaster, in the midst of a brutal civil war. But this is just the tip. The wider Sahel is a tinderbox. Millions are expected to fall into crisis or, worse, into hunger in this lean season, as armed violence escalates across the region. Thousands of schools are closed due to insecurity, health systems are buckling under the weight of need, and still we cut. Do the Government understand the reality of these cuts at this inflection point, when the world is on fire? Do we not need some honesty with the public on where ODA is actually spent? In 2025, £2.4 billion was spent on in-donor refugee costs, in comparison with £1.3 billion spent on humanitarian assistance. Lifesaving ODA is being spent on propping up a broken asylum system, with less and less spent on the causes that brought those people here in the first place. We can assume that the cuts came first and the strategy second, given that the cuts announced in February 2025 seemed to take everyone, including the then Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), by surprise. Since then, the approach has often seemed confused and incoherent. The IDC has asked for clarity on the Government’s theory of change to reach their shared objective of poverty alleviation. Of course, upheaval like this can create opportunity and wake us up from our stupor to make the case for aid outside of our own echo chamber, and to re-imagine our aid and development spend. But tearing down the system before the plan is in place is never a good idea. The answer for many things that have failed to be funded is that they will be “mainstreamed”, which is a euphemism for “disappeared”. British aid and development worked. Millions of children vaccinated and educated; safe births; clean water and sanitation; lives saved—all achieved by well under 1% of this country’s GNI, and it gave the UK influence and leverage on the world stage, a seat at the table in global fora and friends in trade and diplomacy. Why not celebrate that? Instead, the Minister for Development suggested: “The days of viewing the UK Government as a global charity are over”. Does the Minister before us today really believe that, or does he hope, like us, that with a change in leadership and a new Prime Minister, a focus on the long term will come back, with a realisation that doing the work now will make Britain safer and more powerful down the line? Does he not agree that framing the debate to pitch defence against development is wrong, and that, as the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said when she resigned as Development Minister, “it will be impossible to raise the substantial resources needed” to fully fund our defence capability “just through tactical cuts to public spending”? And so it is: there is another hole—a £4.7 billion hole—in the defence budget, despite the aid cuts that were supposedly meant to fill it. Is it not right that the new Prime Minister must lay out the urgency of the debate on funding our defence and our development spend, and the benefits that it can bring to Britain? Great damage has been done by our retreat from aid to the reputation of our country and our shrinking influence. While we retreat, others whose values may not match ours are making a play for Africa. With rapid population growth and an emerging labour force, Africa will become one of the world’s biggest markets, and the Government should place themselves in the best position to take advantage of that. The Government have a chance now, with a new leader in place, to take the long-term strategic view, repair the damage, return to the world stage and remember their moral responsibility and the strategic benefit to Britain. It is not too late, but it is nearly.