Monica Harding MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 May 2025 · Gavi and the Global Fund · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) on securing this debate. This year, as both Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Global Fund conduct their funding replenishments, it is more important than ever that we consider the indispensable value of their work, both for Britain and the world. Since its inception at the beginning of the millennium, Gavi has immunised more than 1 million children and saved in the region of 20 million lives. The UK was one of the alliance’s founders and has since constituted its largest single sovereign donor. In its short existence, the Global Fund has succeeded in driving down the death rates across AIDS, TB and malaria by 61%, saving 65 million lives. That is close to the entire population of this country and would not have been achieved without British support. That manifested most recently in a £1 billion pledge to the Global Fund’s seventh replenishment. That money is likely to avert around 1 million deaths. We have made so much progress, eliminating many diseases in some countries and reaching the edge of success in others. However, the work of Gavi and the Global Fund is being placed at risk by short-sighted cuts to international development spending. President Trump has gutted USAID, shattered the fund that fights HIV and AIDS and is poised to eliminate much American funding for global immunisation efforts. Following that playbook, this Government have decided to slash British development spending to 0.3% of our GNI, its lowest level this century. I, like many others, still remember the optimism of the last Labour Government, who pledged to make poverty history and funded Gavi and the Global Fund when they were created. This Government have rejected so much of the proud 1997 legacy, and they must not do so when it comes to global health. I hope that they put money behind their pledge to prioritise global health and vaccinations. There are so many strong and resonant moral arguments for Britain, but at the same time, the fight against disease serves concrete British interests. The war against infection is currently facing an alignment of factors that make victory more challenging than ever. Climate change is amplifying disease risk. Higher temperatures are opening up regions to mosquitoes, and the incidence of dangerous weather conditions is on the rise. Pakistan’s catastrophic 2022 floods, for example, have since led to almost 7 million additional malaria cases. At the same time, the disturbing spread and intensification of conflict across the globe is impeding efforts to treat and prevent disease. Increasingly, civilian populations are being deliberately cut off from aid, while healthcare facilities are being not only disrupted, but targeted. Consequently, we are seeing the return of once-controlled diseases like polio and upticks in those like cholera, which emerge from degraded sanitary infrastructure. Why does this matter for Britain? It is because, as we have heard, disease does not respect borders. Since covid, we are all only too aware that disease can reach our shores, putting both our NHS and our health security at risk. Resistance, particularly in strains of TB and malaria, is also an increasing threat. Both Gavi and the Global Fund are working on the development and deployment of new generations of TB vaccines, even in the face of these new headwinds. Existing interventions for fighting malaria are also seeing their efficacy decline in the face of insecticide and drug resistance. Better, sharper tools have been developed. The challenge now is getting them to where they are needed, and for that we need the Global Fund.

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  A care provider in my constituency has already been in touch, saying that a third of his workers are from overseas and are delivering about 60% of the work. He will be unable to care for 80 of his 120 clients. He has been hit by horrendous national insurance contributions, and has invested thousands of pounds in the model. In the absence of any adult social care plan, the Government are now effectively capping the number of workers. How can we plug the gap very quickly, and will care providers be properly supported with funding to allow these changes to happen?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This week, on a visit to a school in my constituency, I was told about a boy with SEND who has been temporarily excluded five times. He is extremely dysregulated and vulnerable and has been waiting for two years for specialist provision. The school has tried to get him to the top of the mental health list but has been told that it cannot. What should I say to his headteacher, who is at the end of her tether?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to share a story from a constituent who called me last night. Her daughter had psychosis and was locked in a room at the local hospital, with a mattress on the floor and two security guards outside. She was there for a week waiting for mental health provision in a setting outside the hospital. I would like the Minister to tell me what mental health provision will be in place.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  The Sensory Smart Child in my constituency does fantastic work providing vital therapies for 115 adopted children and their parents, but 77 of those children were unable to secure a temporary extension in support while the Government considered the future of the adoption fund, and that caused huge trauma for the families. I welcome today’s announcement, but can the Minister guarantee future funding? Will she also acknowledge that such therapies fill huge gaps but barely touch the sides in mental health and special educational needs provision in schools, which is not funded properly? I hope that the comprehensive spending review will look at this properly and fund it better.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing the Bill before the House, and pay tribute to him and to the hon. Members who have already spoken so movingly on this subject, including the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her tireless advocacy. The many forms of cancer categorised as rare according to the Bill might each strike a small number of people, but taken together rare cancers make up almost one in five of all cancer diagnoses. Each incident, each diagnosis, each prognosis has the same devastating impact on families throughout the country, my own being no exception. My brother-in-law, Group Captain Pip Harding, who was 53, was diagnosed with stage 4 glioblastoma this time last year. At the time, he was serving in the Royal Air Force with the US Indo-Pacific command, one of his many tours, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was given nine to 12 months to live. For his wife Claire and his five children, the news changed everything. In September, I joined Pip, his family and over 400 other loved ones at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire for what was called a “dining out” or farewell ceremony, an event to allow everyone to be together with Pip, potentially for one last time. You can imagine how difficult, yet how moving, that was. A few weeks later, Pip was lucky enough to come across the pioneering brain surgeon Dr Paul Mulholland, who has been trialling a treatment called oncothermia. This employs radio frequencies to target and heat malignant cancer tumour cells while avoiding healthy cells. Oncothermia is not currently available on the NHS and each one-hour treatment costs £1,000. A tumour like Pip’s requires 36 sessions. For most people, indeed for almost all of us, that kind of money and, consequently, that course of care, is out of reach, but the 400 friends and family who attended Pip’s farewell dinner set up a GoFundMe page, which is now covering the cost of the treatment. We love Pip, which is why we all put in as much as we could to fund it. Cancers like this, with a brutal and bleak prognosis, bring people together to fight it. I want the Government to share that resolve. Since starting the monthly oncothermia sessions in December, the first MRI scan showed that Pip’s brain tumour had reduced in size from 7 cm to 1.7 cm. Pip is, thank God, still alive and watching today. European studies now suggest that oncothermia can extend life for four to five years. For Pip’s five children, that time is everything. But that is not the whole of my experience with glioblastoma. In 2021, my husband John’s best friend Ian died from the disease. His widow Nicola is in the Gallery. Almost unbelievably, Nicola’s sister Karen, who had done so much to help Nicola through the loss of Ian, was herself diagnosed with a stage 4 glioblastoma last year and died a few months later. I know that others in the Chamber and in the Gallery have had their lives touched by glioblastoma, too. I am sure they will agree that in the past three decades there has been an unacceptable lack of progress made on this disease: a lack of progress in developing new treatments, making them widely accessible and keeping those diagnosed with glioblastoma here with their loved ones. In the past 50 years, cancer survival rates in the UK have doubled. Whereas in the 1970s only 25% of those diagnosed were expected to live 10 years, today over half do. That is a record of staggering success and represents countless lives extended, made richer and fuller, and even saved. When it comes to glioblastoma, however, there is far less to celebrate. The chances of living a decade with the disease are one in 100. The gains in life expectancy over recent decades can be measured in months—precious, yes, but not nearly enough. Glioblastoma is a rare cancer, but also an exceptionally lethal one. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and of adults under the age of 40, yet in recent years, glioblastoma has been apportioned only around 1% to 2% of UK cancer funding. In 2018, to honour Dame Tessa Jowell, the Government announced a doubling of funding for research into brain tumours, but six years later, it was widely reported that less than half of the pledged £40 million had actually been spent. During each of those years, as funding was being delayed and sluggishly deployed, more than 3,000 people in the UK were diagnosed with glioblastomas. Will the Government update the House on how the remaining funds have been and are being spent? Will the Minister assure me that as the national cancer plan is developed alongside the NHS 10-year plan, deliberate and specific consideration will be given to glioblastomas? The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency incentivises research on orphan drugs, granting exclusivity for manufacturers and making it cheaper to bring drugs to market once they are developed, but clearly, when it comes to glioblastomas, it has not had adequate success.

• 11 Feb 2025 · US Global Public Health Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Twenty years ago, Nelson Mandela stood in Trafalgar Square waging a war on poverty. As my hon. Friend will know, he was also the first chair of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which has inoculated more than 1 billion children and saved 18 million lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government must fulfil their commitment to Gavi, and not fall behind? Even the Conservative Government said that they would fund Gavi properly. Mandela’s life reminds us, does it not, that the great victories are often in times of darkness, like today?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Global Health and Immunisation · Hansard source

  More

  The NHS and the UK reap the benefits of our work in global health. Gavi is one of the UK’s greatest success stories: it has inoculated 1 billion children worldwide, but it has also strengthened our health security, keeping us safe from diseases such as Mpox and Ebola. What leadership will the Secretary of State and his Department take to strengthen organisations such as Gavi to keep us safe here in the UK?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Children’s Social Media Accounts · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about not only mental health harm, but inattention? I speak to many headteachers in my constituency who tell me that children are unable to concentrate any more because of hours spent on their screen. Would she agree that the Government study announced in November that seeks to explore that issue further should be published soon, because every day and every year we leave it, more children are at risk of harm?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me starting by saying how much I welcome the Bill, as an important step in strengthening the role of education and multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, so that we can better identify and protect vulnerable children. A headteacher in my constituency reached out to me and said: “Children do disclose to teachers, particularly in primary school. We spend so many hours with children—we are often the voice for the child. Parents can often tell authorities things that are not true.” The tragic death of Sara Sharif in my county of Surrey serves as a sobering reminder of the current weaknesses in the system and the consequences of not getting such an important piece of legislation right for children at risk of neglect and abuse. As a school governor for eight years, with responsibility for safeguarding, I understand a little of the load that teachers carry that keeps them awake at night. One headteacher told me: “Unless you have spent sleepless nights worrying about a child, knocked on a door in the hope that a child is still alive, you don’t understand.” As a governor during covid, when all our vulnerable children were stuck at home initially, I understand that. The Bill is a welcome first step, but there is much more the Government can do to support children and young people. I welcome the creation of a register of children not in school, but I believe the Bill should go further. As it stands, parents will no longer have an automatic right to home-educate if their child is subject to a child protection investigation or under a child protection plan. However, I am not clear whether these provisions would have protected children such as Sara, who was previously known to social services but was not at the time of her death. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether, in order to protect such children, the Bill will ensure that parents will not have an automatic right to home-educate if their child has also had a history of child protection investigation or a child protection plan, rather than if the investigation or plan is live at the time. I am also pleased with the provision compelling local authorities to share information. It took one school locally four years to track down a family who had withdrawn their child, and that family then went missing. I support calls for the Bill to make provision for a dedicated, qualified mental health professional in every school, ensuring that all children and parents have someone they can turn to for help. In Surrey there are almost 7,000 children on mental health waiting lists, waiting for an average of eight months. Providing a dedicated mental health practitioner in these schools would be highly effective in reaching large numbers of children and young people. Finally, I am disappointed that the Bill falls short on tackling the problem of SEND education in England, as these children are at particular risk of being forced out of the schools system and into potentially much more vulnerable situations. There are 1,800 children in Surrey missing school because of a lack of provision—

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

  More

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

• 6 Nov 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Two managing partners from GP practices in my constituency have written to me about the significant impact of the increase in employer NI contributions, which they say will directly undermine access and patient care. They will also have a huge impact on the brilliant work of Princess Alice hospice in my constituency, which is already hugely stretched—it will cost that hospice £400,000 a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that that hospice and those GP practices should be exempt?

• 16 Oct 2024 · Access to Primary Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to speak today about our NHS, which looks after my constituents in Esher and Walton—young, old and in the middle—every day. But after years of neglect and failure by the previous Government, my constituents too often struggle to access primary healthcare, which we believe should be a right. The NHS was denied necessary reforms and resources, and it has not been prepared for an ageing population with increasing rates of chronic and complex conditions. The extra strain is demonstrated in the ratio of patients per GP and in the daily lives of my constituents, who suffer long waits or are unable to get appointments. I recently received a letter describing how a GP appointment for a constituent’s elderly mother was cancelled at short notice and had not been rescheduled after a month, despite several emails. Problems like this are far from being one-offs. In my constituency, residents often struggle to get same-day GP appointments, and too many wait more than a week. Our personal citizen contract with the NHS is implicit in being British, but that contract is fraying. Being able to access a GP in a timely manner is an essential expectation that my constituents still have, which is why enshrining the Liberal Democrat guarantee of access to an appointment within seven days as a right in the NHS’s constitution is so important. It reflects the duty of the Government to ensure that one’s local GP is always accessible. The excessive wait times are intimately connected with the Conservative failure to recruit and retain GPs. In the previous Government’s 2019 manifesto, they committed to recruit more than 6,000 GPs; instead, there are fewer GPs than there were five years ago. Since then, however, the population has continued to rise and age, and conditions have become more complex. The broken Conservative promise—yet another failure—means that in the last eight years, the number of patients per fully qualified GP in the Surrey heartlands has risen to 2,163, even though the UK has one of the lowest ratios of doctors to people, recently ranking 22nd out of 33 OECD countries. Even when people can get an appointment, it is often not with a GP, often unknowingly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) pointed out, the policies pursued by the previous Government, including the restrictions on the recruitment of GPs under the additional roles recruitment scheme, have resulted in incidents of GPs in Esher and Walton being offered voluntary redundancy, even as residents struggle to get an appointment. Our most vulnerable patients have a particular need for security and stability, and this belief under- pins the Lib Dem conviction that everyone over the age of 70 or with a long-term physical or mental health condition—