Monica Harding MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Community Pharmacies · Hansard source

  More

  Boots closed its pharmacy in Thames Ditton in 2024. An application was put in for another one, but it was decided following a pharmaceutical needs assessment that the need was met by the chemist. However, elderly residents have a 20-minute-plus walk to get to the chemist, and the high street around it has pretty much collapsed. Does the hon. Member agree that, beyond macro PNA figures, local circumstances are relevant?

• 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.

• 21 Apr 2026 · West Bank: Illegal Settlements · Hansard source

  More

  Alongside what is happening on the west bank, in Lebanon, more than 1 million people have been forcibly displaced. The Guardian has reported that Israeli strikes on medical facilities in Nabatieh have killed health workers and ambulance crews; it notes that such incidents are becoming increasingly common. The UN is clear that the forced displacement of civilians and the targeting of civilian infrastructure may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under international law. What concrete measures are the UK Government putting in place to ensure that Israel ceases targeting civilian infrastructure, and stops forcible displacement in Lebanon?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on opening this important debate. I want to reflect the strength of feeling on this issue among my constituents in Esher and Walton; the fact that 568 people from my constituency added their names to this petition reflects a very real and deeply felt concern among families in my community about the state of maternity care in this country. I am a mother of four, and I am very lucky to have given birth four times, but three of those were traumatic. My first birth was an emergency C-section, the second was a vaginal birth after caesarean that needed lots of intervention and the third was absolutely fine, but during my fourth the crash team had to attend because the midwife failed to pay attention to what I knew, as an experienced mother, was a problem. When I took baby Tom, who is now 14, home— [Interruption.]

• 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 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the mother of four teenage and young adult children, about 50% of my parenting involves placing limits on my children’s phones or devices to limit the time they spend on them. In so doing, I am, like so many parents in my Esher and Walton constituency and across the country, doing battle with a pernicious, invasive and overwhelming force, for which my kids are proxies and against which I can never win. That force has billions and billions of dollars, and the desire and capability to make content more and more addictive every day, so that children spend more time online. The result, as so many studies show, is a negative effect on our children’s wellbeing, mental and physical health, and attention in class and at home. Those tech companies and their algorithmic content are killing kids. It is a public health crisis, and unfortunately, the Government are moving far too slowly to deal with it. My eldest child was born in the year Facebook began, so my children have spanned the whole Gen Z Instagram generation. My youngest child is part of the TikTok generation. For me, the battle gets harder with each child, but I count myself lucky for not having had an “iPad kid”—a child who receives a device around the age of two. Gen Z children use that pejorative term to refer to younger children who are glued to devices, have short attention spans and throw tantrums when screens are taken away—these are children of two years. The curious thing about Gen Z and Gen Alpha children is that many of them will say that they wish there were more controls over their screen use and time. They find algorithmic content too much to deal with, and it is having a negative impact on their mental health—so the children are asking us to act too. This generation is growing up with more anxiety and more exposure to harm, and children are less attentive. Every single day it gets worse, so we need to act now. I have received over 2,600 emails from parents in my constituency asking me to ban social media for under-16s and to address their use of smartphones. I have spoken to school heads about the effect of the technology on their pupils, and parents are overwhelmed and feel completely powerless. A University of Birmingham study has shown that teachers spend 100 hours a week trying to control smartphone use. Headteachers tell me that teachers are doing battle with children as well as with their parents. Children pick up their phones in class to answer calls from their parents. They say, “I have to answer this because my parents are calling me.” That is time away from classroom learning. Unfortunately, the amendment does not meet those challenges. It gives the Secretary of State optional powers, which they may or may not use, to restrict access to certain online services, and asks only for a six-month progress update. There are no requirements to act, and no timeline for doing so. That is not decisive action; it is a license not to do very much. A delay is being justified through a consultation that is flawed, as many Members have pointed out, and there is a reliance on small-scale pilots when much larger studies already exists. It looks very much like the Government are unwilling to take on the tech giants.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Tech companies have billions of pounds, and the consultation also asks children 62 questions. How on earth can a child whose attention has been taken by a phone answer 62 questions? Meanwhile, the world is moving faster than the Government. Even if people think that we should wait, watch and learn from Australia, as others have pointed out, in the United States they do things differently to us and sue. Juries in the United States returned landmark verdicts against Meta and Google. In New Mexico the case against Meta for misleading the public about the safety of its platform, and enabling child sexual exploitation through its design practices, resulted in a penalty that covered 75,000 separate violations of state law. In Los Angeles a jury found both Meta and Google liable for negligence and a failure to warn users about the dangers of their products, and a further 2,000 cases are pending in California alone. Evidence in those cases included internal documents that were disclosed by the social media companies involved, explicitly acknowledging that their products are addictive, that addictive behaviours harm children’s mental health, and that the design features driving those behaviours—endless scrolling, autoplay, notifications, slot-machine tactics—were made not in spite of their damaging consequences, but precisely because of their addictive effects. That is outrageous, yet the Government are letting them get away with it every day. What more evidence do the Government need before they act quickly? They are letting down our young people, and parents in my constituency of Esher and Walton are demanding action, not down the line but now. If children cannot resist this content, through no fault of their own, the Government must act for them so that they are not able to access it. Time is not on our side, so for once will the Government please act boldly and quickly, and use powers in the Bill to protect all our children?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Gurkha Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  One of the most favoured spots in my constituency on a Friday evening is The Ferry in Thames Ditton, a wonderful Nepalese restaurant run by Cepe, who served with the Royal Gurkhas for 19 years. Around the restaurant are pictures of VCs, a proud reminder of the many Gurkhas who have served our country loyally and bravely, without hesitation, in some of the most dangerous theatres of war. With thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing this debate to the Chamber, I want to speak today about something that I think cuts to the heart of what we stand for as a country: fairness, honour and how we treat those who have served under our flag. For more than two centuries, the Gurkhas have stood shoulder to shoulder with British soldiers. From the trenches of the first world war to the jungles of the second and the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan, they have fought with a courage and loyalty that should inspire us all. The Gurkhas are not a peripheral force; they are an integral part of the British Army. Yet, despite that sacrifice, we have not treated them as equals. That is the uncomfortable truth at the centre of this debate. Let me be clear about the scale of the problem. Around 25,000 Gurkha vets who retired before 1997 remain on the Gurkha pension scheme, a system designed not for life in the UK but for retirement in rural Nepal. As a result, they receive pensions that are significantly lower than those of their British counterparts, despite having done the same job, worn the same uniform and faced the same dangers. These are not marginal differences; they are life-defining disparities. Many Gurkha veterans living in this country are surviving on incomes that would be considered unacceptable for any veteran of our armed forces. Some are living in poverty, some are struggling to heat their homes and some are making impossible choices between basic necessities. The argument has long been that the Gurkha pension scheme was designed with a different purpose and that retrospective changes to pension arrangements are uniquely difficult, but that no longer holds, and here is why. In 2009, after a sustained and powerful campaign supported by Members across this House, Gurkha veterans secured the right to settle in the UK. That was a landmark moment, but it created a new reality—one that our pension system has simply failed to catch up with. We cannot invite people to live in one of the most expensive countries in the world and then continue to pay them as if they were living in Nepal. It is not sustainable or defensible. This is not a new complaint; it has been raised repeatedly by campaigners, vets themselves and Members on all sides. We have seen hunger strikes, protests outside this building and legal challenges, but the fundamental injustice persists, and that should trouble every one of us. When people who once risked their lives for Britain feel that their only remaining tool to be heard is protest or starvation, something has gone very badly wrong. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent in this fight. In 2009, we used an Opposition day to force the House to confront the issue of settlement rights. That vote sent a clear message, and the Government of the day were forced into a U-turn. That showed what this House can achieve when it acts with conviction. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) has written to the Minister for Veterans and People demanding action. We are not raising this issue for the first time; we are raising it because it remains unresolved. There are wider pressures bearing down on this community. Many ageing veterans face language barriers that make it genuinely difficult for them to navigate the system. Many are unaware of entitlements that they should be receiving, and many struggle to access NHS services or social care. Mental health provision is often inconsistent and inadequate. Families face high visa fees and significant financial strain when trying to reunite with loved ones. This is not only about pensions; it is about a broader failure to support a community that has given so much. We must confront the deeper issue here: the current system is rooted in a colonial-era arrangement, the 1947 tripartite agreement between the UK, Nepal and India. That agreement may have reflected the geopolitical realities of the moment, but nearly eight decades later, those realities have changed. The Nepalese Supreme Court itself recently called for a review of the arrangement, highlighting the unequal power dynamics under which it was created and questioning its continued relevance. It has made it clear that the current system does not adequately protect the rights and welfare of Gurkha soldiers, and we should take that seriously. The armed forces covenant promises that those who serve or have served in the armed forces and their families should be treated with fairness and respect—it is a promise of no disadvantage—and yet, for Gurkha veterans, that promise has not been fulfilled. They are, in effect, excluded from the full application of that principle. That is not right, and we have a responsibility to do something about it. Fairness before the state should depend not on where someone was born, but on what they have given. Where do we go from here? The answer is not overly complicated, but we require political will. First, we need a comprehensive pension justice review that seriously examines how we can move towards parity for Gurkha veterans who served before 1997. Secondly, we need to address the financial barriers that continue to affect Gurkha families through reductions in visa fees and, where appropriate, waivers. Thirdly, we need a targeted support package for ageing veterans to ensure that they can access healthcare, social care and mental health services without unnecessary obstacles. These are not radical demands; they are reasonable steps towards fairness. At the end of the day, this comes down to a simple question: do we believe that equal service deserves equal treatment? If the answer is yes—and it must be—the current situation cannot continue. The Gurkhas have served this country with extraordinary courage. They have done so without hesitation and with a loyalty that has become the stuff of legend. But loyalty is a two-way street, and for too long we have not upheld our side of that bargain. Let us act. Let us match their service with fairness, match their sacrifice with justice, and ensure that the values we so often speak about—honour, duty and equality—are reflected not just in our words but in our actions. If we cannot do right by those who have fought for us, the claim that we are a fair and honourable nation begins to ring hollow, and that is something this House should never accept.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Commonwealth Troops: First World War · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is entirely right, and I will shortly come on to the forgotten stories of this war. From the mud of Flanders to the deserts of the middle east, from the jungles of East Africa to the mountains of the Balkans, Commonwealth soldiers were present in almost every theatre of the conflict. Their bravery and resilience, too often forgotten and overlooked, was one of the most notable features of the conflict. Canadian troops faced chlorine gas for the first time at the second battle of Ypres in 1915, holding the line. At Vimy Ridge in 1917, four Canadian divisions fought together as one for the first time, and in just four days they achieved what the French and British had spent years and over 100,000 lives bravely failing to do. This courage was not confined to the trenches. In the skies above Europe, Canadian airmen distinguished themselves with equal daring. Fighter aces such as Billy Bishop, who was awarded the Victoria Cross, played a crucial role in securing allied control of the air. Australian troops bravely fought for eight months on the steep cliffs of Gallipoli, before playing a decisive role in the final offensives of 1918. New Zealand, with a population of barely 1 million people at that time, sent more than 120,000 soldiers overseas, nearly one in five of whom never returned. My own constituency of Esher and Walton has a profound historical connection to New Zealand, dating back to the first world war. During the conflict, Walton served as a major centre for treating injured soldiers from the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, particularly those wounded in the Gallipoli campaign. The Mount Felix mansion was converted into the first New Zealand hospital in the UK. Some 27,000 New Zealand soldiers were treated there, and 21 New Zealand soldiers unfortunately died and are buried in St Mary’s churchyard in Walton. We remember this connection, such as through our roads; New Zealand Avenue runs through the middle of Walton, and we have Adelaide Road too. Since 1920, an annual Anzac Day service is held at St Mary’s church. The Mount Felix tapestry features the soldiers at the hospital, and a kowhai tree donated by the New Zealand Government in 1970 stands at the former site of the hospital. My brilliant constituents in Esher and Walton ensure that the sacrifice of those from New Zealand who served in the great war is remembered. Soldiers from the Caribbean served in the British West Indies Regiment, operating across Europe, Africa and the middle east. Many of them were denied the chance by the British Government to fight as equals. Instead, they were often assigned labour duties, such as digging trenches, unloading ships or carrying supplies. Despite that discrimination, they served with courage and dignity. African soldiers and porters were indispensable to the campaigns across the continent, carrying ammunition and supplies through terrain that would have stopped any conventional army. They suffered catastrophic losses, but they were the logistical backbone of the campaign, and their story remains one of the least known chapters of the war. Women across the Commonwealth were also vital to the British war effort, serving as nurses, driving ambulances, working in munition factories, and keeping farms and industries running. In many schools, our students still learn about the Somme, Passchendaele, and the western front but hear very little about the role played by Indian, African, Caribbean, Australian, Canadian and Chinese forces. As Baroness Warsi powerfully put it, “Our boys weren’t just Tommies—they were Tariqs and Tajinders too”. When we speak of those who served in the first world war, we are speaking about people from every corner of what was then the British empire—people who crossed oceans to fight for a country they had never seen, people who fought in climates and conditions utterly alien to them, people who believed that they were fighting for principles, freedom, justice and the defence of small nations. Yet the response of the British Government in the immediate aftermath often fell far short of the ideals that these men believed they had fought for. West Indian soldiers were excluded from the London victory parade. In India, promises of reform made in return for wartime loyalty were followed by the brutality of the Amritsar massacre. The first world war reshaped not only Europe but the political map of the world. The modern Commonwealth and the family of nations that it represents today has its roots in the sacrifices made during that war. That brings us to the present. We must honour the shared history that binds us to the Commonwealth. Let us ensure that their contributions are fully recognised. Their service must be fully integrated into our national commemorations, and their stories taught in schools so that young people understand that the first world war was not fought by Britain alone. We must uphold the vital work of organisations such as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its volunteers, whose quiet dedication ensures that the name of the fallen, regardless of their nationality, faith or background, are remembered with dignity. We fought alongside a brave coalition of nations and peoples—millions of individuals whose courage, labour and sacrifice made victory possible. They fought in the mud of Belgium, the deserts of Palestine, the mountains of Greece and the jungles of East Africa. Tragically, many of them never came home. They were asked to fight and, sometimes, to die for a country that they had never seen. Let us, a century later, remember why they came and the bravery with which they fought not as a footnote to history but as an essential part of the story of how that tragic war was fought and won.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate and for bringing his expertise to this issue. More than two years of devastating conflict has left Gaza in ruins. Over 70,000 Palestinians have lost their lives. More than 1 million people remain unable to return to their homes, while the vast majority of the population relies on humanitarian aid to survive. The attacks carried out by Hamas on 7 October were appalling, and their continued violations since the ceasefire remain indefensible. They must play no future role in the governance of Gaza. Israel’s war on Gaza over the past two years has been conducted without due regard for international humanitarian law, with devastating consequences for the Gazan healthcare system. Gaza’s healthcare system is no longer functioning in any meaningful sense. Doctors on the ground describe surgeons being forced to amputate limbs and stitch wounds without anaesthesia. Patients remain fully conscious because there is no fuel, pain relief or functioning supply chains. That has been the daily reality inside Gaza’s hospitals as they buckle under continued bombardment, medicine shortages and staff losses. There is not a single fully functioning hospital left. Even since the ceasefire, more than 500 Palestinians have been killed and over 1,500 injured. There is urgency to protect civilians and rebuild a shattered healthcare system. Aid access is in a state of crisis. Medical staff are exhausted, many nurses have fled, doctors have been killed, equipment has been destroyed and antibiotics are scarce. Amputations are common because injuries go untreated, cancer care is barely available and dialysis is severely limited. Intensive care is stretched beyond breaking point and routine vaccinations have been disrupted. Thousands of patients are effectively queued with no realistic access to care, and some remaining hospitals have been described by doctors on the ground as “waiting stations for death”. At the same time, as we have heard, medical evacuation is limited, and beyond hospitals, public health conditions are in a dire state. Unsafe water, poor sanitation, overcrowding and winter conditions have driven notable increases in respiratory infections and diarrhoeal disease. Vaccination coverage was already fragile before the war and it is now years behind. The UN has warned that tens of thousands of pregnant women, newborns and children now face compounded risks of malnutrition, disease and preventable death—not from bombs, but from a shattered health system unable to provide prenatal care, vaccinations or even basic hygiene. On top of that, the introduction of additional Israeli administrative restrictions has placed dozens of international humanitarian organisations under new registration requirements with limited timeframes to comply. The deadline of 1 March—next week—is approaching fast. The uncertainty over legal status and operational permissions continues to disrupt medical deployments, supply procurement and programme continuity at a moment when trauma care, dialysis, maternal health services and infectious disease control depend heavily on international partnerships. At the same time, tighter Israeli constraints on major humanitarian service providers, particularly the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, have had direct knock-on effects on health delivery. When indispensable agencies such as UNRWA, which runs primary care clinics, vaccination programmes and community health outreach, face limits on staff entry and access to premises, utilities, banking or logistics, the impact is immediate and severe. That is because healthcare does not function in isolation. It relies on fuel for generators, secure facilities, functioning cold chains for vaccines and the ability to move personnel and supplies without obstruction. If the operating space for humanitarian organisations is narrowed, the remaining fragments of Gaza’s healthcare system weaken further. So it is fair to ask: what are the UK Government doing about all of that? There have been some positive steps. The additional aid packages, including the £20 million humanitarian post-ceasefire package, is to be welcomed. The Government have supported about 50 sick and injured children to come to the UK for NHS treatment under a Gaza medical evacuation scheme. There have been diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council, but the UK has much more work to do. First, the UK Government must make reliable humanitarian access a top-tier diplomatic objective. The Israeli Government must immediately allow international humanitarian NGOs full access to Gaza and the west bank. The UK Government must co-ordinate with European partners to apply sustained diplomatic pressure on Israel to reverse the ban on aid organisations, and engage with Washington directly, consistently and regularly on the issue. There must be consequences if access continues to be denied, and the UK must act with like-minded partners to establish alternative delivery channels. We should apply co-ordinated pressure for full access across all crossings while scaling up parallel routes to ensure that aid reaches those who need it. Secondly, the UK must treat the protection of healthcare workers and medical NGOs as a red line. Medical neutrality has to be defended in practice, not merely asserted in principle. Thirdly, it is vital that international journalists are granted full access to the Gaza strip so that the world can see events on the ground clearly and independently. The UK must continue to press for that. Fourthly, we must expand sanctions. It is right that we have sanctioned some Ministers, but that cannot be where it stops. We should also sanction other Ministers in the Israeli Government who oppose the lifting of the aid blockade or who promote the erosion of humanitarian protections. Accountability must be consistent or it means nothing. Let me close on the west bank, because what is unfolding there is not peripheral to the crisis, but central to it. Across the west bank, settlement expansion, demolitions and tightening movement restrictions are accelerating displacement and entrenching instability. I support the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) in her call for medical transfers to the west bank, but there too, while most hospitals remain technically operational, medicine shortages are deepening and referral approvals are increasingly delayed. This winter alone, hundreds of attacks on healthcare facilities were recorded, alongside the closure of key UNRWA services. Severe funding shortfalls now compound access barriers, forcing critical service reductions at precisely the moment when needs are surging. To compensate, clinics and mental health teams are scaling up where they can, but for many vulnerable communities, care is becoming slower, more fragmented and increasingly out of reach. The result is an inevitable erosion of basic medical access, with growing delays, disruption and unmet needs that are quietly pushing the west bank deeper into humanitarian crisis. I hope that the Government will now move beyond statements and take concrete action to expand accountability through sanctions to protect and open humanitarian access, and to press relentlessly for an equitable political pathway out of the crisis. Lives are being lost while we deliberate. The UK still carries diplomatic weight, and with that comes moral obligation. I urge the Minister to use it.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Armed Conflict: Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this vital debate. As we have heard, today one in five children live in areas affected by armed conflict, displacement or related violence. Such children face a daily threat to their lives, their health and their education. Such children are forced to flee their homes, are pulled out of classrooms, are separated from parents and are exposed to violence that no adult should have to endure, let alone a child. The damage does not end when the fighting pauses. Trauma, lost education and broken health systems follow children for decades. Britain has a proud history of leadership in this space. It has saved the lives of millions of children through vaccinations, nutrition, clean water and frontline healthcare; through support for UN monitoring and reporting for accountability; and through funding programmes that have helped to secure the release and reintegration of child soldiers. But at a time when the number of armed conflicts is at the highest level since the end of the second world war, the UK is choosing to look away: cutting aid to its lowest level this century with devastating consequences for children. I will speak briefly about the conflicts that are bringing this issue into sharp focus. In Ukraine, children are growing up under constant missile and drone attacks from Russia. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian children may have been abducted and taken into Russia or Russian-controlled areas without consent and under coercive conditions. In Gaza, the impact of the conflict on children has been devastating, as we have already heard. Hospitals and schools—places that should be sanctuaries—have been systematically and repeatedly struck. I will never forget the testimony given to the International Development Committee, on which I serve, by a doctor working at a Gaza hospital who was treating children targeted by drone attacks. Save the Children estimates that over 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza, which is one every hour during the two years of war. Of those children who are still alive in Gaza, UNICEF tells us that there is a ton of emptiness and deep sorrow that can be seen in them. Some 39,000 children have been orphaned and 17,000 children are unaccompanied. Children in Gaza often play in areas that are at risk from explosive ordnance, putting them at high risk of injury or death. In turn, that is leading to high rates of disability; many children have had hands and legs amputated. These children are suffering from hunger, disease, displacement and cold. Eight infants have died of hypothermia this winter alone, and over 100 children have been killed since the ceasefire. Some children need urgent medical evacuation, which is simply not happening at scale, while others are growing up with trauma that will shape the rest of their lives. As Israel moves to tighten and in some cases end the registration of international non-governmental organisations, it risks forcing dozens of those INGOs to halt lifesaving operations across the Gaza strip and the west bank. The lifeline agency for Palestinian refugees, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which runs over 700 schools, has had its ability to function curtailed. In Sudan, one of the world’s most severe and—tragically—most overlooked crises affecting children is unfolding in the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. UNICEF has warned that nearly half a million children are now at risk of acute malnutrition as the conflict intensifies. That is a stark reminder that for many children in Sudan, survival itself is becoming increasingly uncertain. Checkpoints are armed by boys—teenagers—while girls are at risk from endemic sexual violence. The United Nations continues to verify thousands of cases each year of children being recruited and used by armed groups, which is a grave violation of international law. Children are deployed not only as fighters but as guards, scouts and messengers, exposing them to extreme danger and lifelong trauma. In camps in north Darfur in Sudan, survivors describe how RSF fighters killed parents and abducted children as young as nine, blindfolding them and driving them away. Some were told that they would “look after livestock”, which is a euphemism for enslavement. The persistence of child recruitment across multiple conflicts reflects the collapse of protection, education and accountability, and preventing it must remain a central test of the international community’s commitment, and indeed of our commitment here in the UK, to the laws of war. Across all these different contexts, the pattern is the same: children are not a sideshow of war, but are among its primary victims. That is why the Government must commit to treating the protection of children not as a secondary concern but as a central pillar of their foreign policy. First, our diplomacy must put children at the heart of peace efforts. The safety of children—their access to schools and hospitals, and the reunification of families—must be built into peace processes from the beginning. Britain has both the responsibility and the leverage to lead, as a major international actor and as the penholder at the UN Security Council. Secondly, our humanitarian response must go beyond survival alone. Education must be protected, and schools must be treated as humanitarian spaces in a conflict zone. Mental health support for children affected by conflict should be provided for by core funding. A child who survives war but who is left traumatised, uneducated and unsupported is still a casualty of conflict. If we ignore that trauma, we should not be surprised by the consequences. Entire generations growing up with grief, anger and abandonment become a fertile ground for radicalisation, with many children and young people ending up in terrorist groups such as Hamas. Thirdly, accountability matters. We must make every effort to ensure that crimes are recorded, that journalists are allowed into conflict zones and that we call out breaches of international humanitarian law wherever they occur. That must apply to allies and adversaries alike, because selective outrage weakens international law. We must name violations consistently, support independent investigations and back consequences when the law is ignored. Finally—

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  I have had almost 1,800 emails from constituents urging for something to be done about this. I declare an interest as the mother of four young adults and teenagers. Local headteachers and campaigners tell us repeatedly about the mental health issues and harmful algorithms, but the tech companies must be held to account. If the Secretary of State is serious about urgency and prioritisation, speed is of the essence. Today, the Online Safety Act Network, supported by 42 civil society groups, has asked for urgent amendments to the Online Safety Act 2023. Has she looked at that?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Less Survivable Cancers · Hansard source

  More

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

• 8 Dec 2025 · Support into Work: Mental Ill Health · Hansard source

  More

  11. What steps his Department is taking to support people with mental health illnesses into work.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Support into Work: Mental Ill Health · Hansard source

  More

  As is the case throughout the country, young constituents in Esher and Walton are out of work due to mental health conditions. I welcome departmental initiatives such as the disability employment advisers and cross-Government work through the joint work and health directorate and WorkWell. However, fragile mental health can be picked up on and supported earlier in school and may be a result of poorly identified special education needs—an area that we know is at breaking point—and the current state of mental health waiting lists; in Esher and Walton, for instance, the average wait for under-18s is 184 days. What current learnings from the Department for Work and Pensions are being fed back into the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the next cohort is ready for work?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s stated first objective in this review is to support the physical and mental health of women after they have given birth to a child. One cannot overestimate the amount of mental stress caused by living in poverty or without enough resources for one’s family. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrat policy to double statutory shared parental pay to £350 a week is the right move?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Recent studies from Stanford university and others have shown a clear link between excessive phone use, addictive social media algorithms and deteriorating mental health outcomes for young people. Technology in this area is evolving at an extraordinary speed, meaning that legislation such as the Online Safety Act 2023 is not being implemented fast enough before new harms emerge. Our NHS is picking up the pieces. In my constituency, over 6,000 young people are waiting for a first contact with mental health services, and that takes eight months. Will the Leader of the House please find space in Government time for a debate on how we can protect young people by addressing the growing connection between digital addiction and mental health?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. and right hon. Members for bringing this debate to the Chamber today. I thank other speakers for their moving remarks, and it is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I thank her for sharing her story, on behalf of all those untold stories. I speak for all my families in Esher and Walton who have dealt with baby loss. Their stories are many, their grief is unlimited, and I pay tribute to them and those families with us today who are intent on turning their grief into others’ hope. Your bravery humbles us all. Today, I will focus on one family. Last week I was visited by my constituents, the wonderful, brave parents of Jimmy Alderman, whose story reminds us that there is still so much we must do to protect our youngest and most vulnerable. Jimmy was just six weeks old when he died last October. He had been breastfed while being carried in a sling at home, which many parents understandably see as practical, safe and nurturing. Tragically, Jimmy slipped into an unsafe position and lost consciousness. Despite his parents’ desperate attempts to save him, he died three days later. Following the inquest, the senior coroner issued a prevention of future deaths report, which found that guidance available to parents on the safe use of baby carriers and slings, particularly when feeding, was wholly inadequate. The coroner highlighted the absence of clear NHS advice, the lack of visual guidance showing safe versus unsafe positions and the limited awareness of suffocation risks, especially for newborns and premature babies. In response, the National Childbirth Trust and the Lullaby Trust have both updated their advice, warning that hands-free breastfeeding or bottle-feeding when using a sling is unsafe, particularly for babies under four months old. Their message is now clear that if a baby needs to feed, they need to be taken out of a sling. Those are important steps, but it should not fall solely to grieving parents and charities to close such critical gaps in public information. National guidance must keep pace with modern parenting practices, and it is vital that the NHS clearly sets out the risks and best practices around baby carriers and feeding safety. Jimmy’s parents have shown extraordinary courage, and in Jimmy’s memory they are calling for a couple of simple, but vital reforms. First, they want a national awareness campaign to promote the safe use of slings and carriers. Secondly, they want consideration of tighter regulation in industry standards for baby carrier safety. Those sensible, achievable measures could save many lives. That is what Jimmy’s parents are motivated by. Nobody should have to go through entirely preventable grief, as they have. Will the Minister agree to meet with Jimmy’s parents and me to discuss how the Department of Health and Social Care can support this campaign, including through updated NHS guidance, a national awareness initiative and a review of safety standards for baby carriers? By working together, we can ensure that Jimmy’s short life leads to lasting change and that no other parent has to endure the unimaginable pain that his family has faced.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this important debate. I am pleased that each time Liberal Democrat MPs raise this issue, the Government back the fund. I want the Government to hear what the ASGSF means for one family in my Esher and Walton constituency. Two of my constituents adopted a two-year-old boy. They were his seventh family. He had already suffered physical abuse and was displaying behavioural issues. It was clear to my constituents that significant professional support was needed to prevent this adoption from breaking down. That was provided by the ASGSF. Without it, my constituents do not believe they could have coped. Now, their son is six and attends a mainstream school. The delay in announcing money for the ASGSF this year led to a five-month gap in support for my constituents’ son. During this time, he became more aggressive and disruptive. Without the ASGSF’s continuation in April, they would have struggled to maintain the adoption. However, even while extending the ASGSF for one year, the Government cut it by 40%. To cover the resulting shortfall, my constituents have had to use some of their savings. They cannot afford to do so next year. For my constituents, there is no alternative to the ASGSF. They applied for mental health support for their son from Mindworks Surrey. They have been on the waiting list for three years. They waited more than two years for an appointment through developmental paediatrics, but health professionals did not understand the child’s case and nearly misdiagnosed him. The services unlocked through the fund have given this boy a chance of happiness. He has been through more than most adults will go through in their entire lives. To restrict support and leave him and his family in limbo is cruel. When the Minister lays out the details of the fund’s future, I urge her as strongly as I possibly can to secure it for the long term, reverse this year’s cruel and damaging cuts, and secure this child’s future.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  In Surrey, for example, 1,800 children with special educational needs are missing education because there is no provision. They are sliding into poor mental health as a result, and that needs to stop. Does my hon. Friend agree?

• 11 Jul 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for all her advocacy on the issue. She makes an important point, which was made previously: rare cancers are not rare for the victims and their families. That is why we need to bring such treatments into the NHS so that they are available for all, not just for those who set up GoFundMe pages that win tens of thousands of pounds. Of glioblastoma, Pip said: “This is a very sad disease of which the cause is…unknown and seems to randomly strike individuals. It would be just amazing if the policy to support these people was changed by this vote and I am personally so grateful to all of you who are so kindly driving this forward.” His successful story and the challenge of accessing oncothermia underscore equally the importance of the legislation. In sum, innovative new treatments for rare cancers must be brought to patients as fast as possible. My constituents in Esher and Walton, particularly those whose lives have been scarred by cancer, also feel that very deeply. In the last few days, many have written to me about the legislation to share why its success matters so much to them. One told me of his very young son, who was diagnosed last year with a rare brain tumour that has turned their lives upside down. One told me about his own battle with brain cancer, the excellent care that he has received in the NHS and the fundamentally limited treatment options available to him based on the current state of research and drug development and marketing. Another constituent whose daughter has glioblastoma offered me an important reminder about our work today when they said that “every important issue or gain has to be fought over fiercely before anything is achieved.” They are absolutely right. I will take this opportunity to highlight some other people who have fought and for whom the Bill is vital. My constituent Kate Ford has been campaigning for the lobular moonshot project since she was diagnosed with lobular breast cancer two years. We have already heard how research for that disease has been entirely insufficient and how necessary that project is right now. I am proud to be one of hundreds of MPs on both sides of the House calling on the Government to support it, as we have heard. Like the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), I was deeply saddened to hear of the death of Dr Susan Michaelis, the project’s founder, this week. My constituent Kate is now carrying forward Susan’s torch and will be at the meeting with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on Monday. I call on the Government to answer Susan’s call and finally back the project. While I have the Government’s attention, I will raise one more important issue. Pip was an RAF helicopter pilot. There are a growing number of veterans who served as aircrew on military helicopters and were exposed to exhaust fumes during their time in the forces, and who have now been diagnosed with rare cancers, including blood cancers. That issue has been raised in recent months by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). I understand that the Ministry of Defence is currently working to test engine exhaust emissions and to develop a clearer understanding of the health challenges facing veterans, including rare cancers related to their service. Those are welcome steps, but they are insufficient. Although I am conscious that the MOD does not unequivocally recognise the link between exhaust fumes and such cancers, and that I am not addressing the Minister for Veterans, I urge the Minister to do all he can to accelerate the collation of veterans’ health data, which is an essential project that could otherwise drag on, and to support the development of cancer screening programmes for veterans who may be at risk due to their record of serving this country. Cancer can touch any life. It can come unexpectedly, and it can come cruelly. The Bill offers hope to all those whose cancer has been neglected and disregarded in drug research and clinical trials, but has upended their entire life. It offers us the chance to say to all those people, “You are not alone and you are not forgotten.” Winning the battle against rare cancers requires us to advance on many fronts at once, so I gently push the Minister, even as he supports the Bill becoming law, to consider the vital calls from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden to improve outcomes for brain cancer patients, which have shown too little improvement for too long. Will the Minister commit to a target of getting 200 glioblastoma patients on to promising new clinical trials every year? Will he engage with the private sector to urge pharmaceutical companies to more rapidly make their drugs available for those trials? Will he consider mandating training in brain cancer specific oncology for all doctors seeking to become medical oncologists? Will he also ensure that all neuro-oncology multidisciplinary teams have as a core member a medical oncologist able to contribute their expertise to a patient’s care? Finally, even as we advance the Bill today, we must not lose sight of the need to do far better by patients with cancer, rare or not. One of the most reassuring aspects of this Bill has been its cross-party support, but while I am here, I want to ask the Minister whether he will listen to Liberal Democrat calls and turn the current target of starting treatment within 62 days of an urgent cancer referral into an iron-clad guarantee? Will he also consider our call to expand the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency as another way of ensuring that innovative drugs are not snarled up in red tape and that they reach patients faster? There is much work left to do, but today’s legislation is a real step in the right direction. I take note of the humbleness of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, so I will speak about the reach of the Bill and his work. Good politics changes lives and the best politics saves lives. All of us here in this place are committed to do that. I am proud to support this Bill, and I urge Members to vote for all those lives that the Bill could help save and for those families whose lives it will change.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  May I invite the Secretary of State to congratulate Burhill primary school in Hersham, which I visited this morning? It has been re-awarded for excellence in wellbeing for the second year in a row for providing great mental health provision. My constituency is a large contributor to the Exchequer, but it is also one of the most unequal. Headteachers see that disadvantage every year in their reception classes. Will she make a commitment that the hubs will be distributed throughout the country, in every constituency where there is need?