Monica Harding MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

• 14 Apr 2026 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I had the opportunity to go out with the local police in my constituency on an operation to combat youth crime. One thing I found most distressing was the liberal ownership and unthinking use of knives among teenagers, which I know the police in my constituency are desperate to sort out. Following the Government’s consultation on knife sales, will the Minister reassure my constituents, the police and the public that the Government will put forward a knife licensing scheme, whereby all knife retailers, including online, bricks-and-mortar and private sellers, must be registered to sell any kind of knife in order to prevent attacks from taking place?

• 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.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Any contribution to this debate must surely start with a tribute to the remarkable courage of the Ukrainian people. Four years ago, at the start of Vladimir Putin’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many people expected Russian tanks to be on the streets of Kyiv within days. They did not come because brave Ukrainian troops held them back. Today, four years later, there are still no tanks on the streets in Kyiv and Ukraine is not broken. Ukraine still holds around 80% of its territory and the Russian troops move at glacial speed, with an astonishing and tragic number of Russian dead: young men sent to fight for an imperialist autocrat, whose self-indulgent dream has become his nightmare, stopped by the resistance of the Ukrainian people and their extraordinary resilience, innovation and sacrifice. We have heard already about that sacrifice. Ukrainians have suffered more than half a million military casualties, at least 15,000 civilians have been killed and millions have been forced from their homes. Towns and cities have been relentlessly bombarded, and hospitals and schools targeted. The line that Ukraine has held for four years is the line that separates all of us in Europe, including here in the UK, from a brutal authoritarian dictatorship and a threat to our liberal democracy. Putin wants to destroy that liberal democracy because it threatens him. Britain has stepped up. I am proud to sit on these Benches and look around at the cross-party consensus that means Ukraine is not alone in its fight. We stand with Ukraine. As Putin seeks to reduce Ukraine to a dependent and weakened state, we must be absolutely clear: sovereignty is not a bargaining chip and any peace must be shaped by the Ukrainians themselves. I urge the Government to continue to work closely with our allies to ensure that Ukraine is not strong-armed into an unjust and unstable peace. The war has given rise to Europe’s largest displacement crisis since the second world war. Some 7 million Ukrainians now live abroad as refugees, with a further 5 million displaced within their own country. I say to the 700-odd Ukrainians in my constituency of Esher and Walton: you are very welcome and we are proud to have you. I pay tribute to residents in my constituency who have generously opened up their homes, and to Elmbridge borough council and our local charities, including the brilliant Elmbridge CAN, that have housed families and helped them to integrate. Ukrainians are making Esher and Walton richer. They teach in our schools, including at Walton Leigh; they are chefs, carers and nurses; and Father Ruslan Kurdiumov is the parish priest at St Erconwald’s Catholic church in Walton. Among them are Tetyana and Lena, who once ran their own tourist company in Kyiv. When war broke out four years ago, they put their children in cars and drove across Europe to stay with host families in my constituency. Today, they are rebuilding their lives, running a gardening business and studying garden design, while one of their husbands continues to fight on the frontline. One of their boys is at Esher college, having excelled in his GCSEs. We are lucky to have them with us. Another Lena, living in Thames Ditton, has three children, two at secondary school and one at university. She told me: “We are deeply grateful to the UK for the safety, support, protection and kindness we have received. We are doing everything we can to rebuild stable, productive lives, working, paying taxes, learning the language and our children are growing up in British schools. We want to not only rebuild our lives but also to give back to the country that helped us in our most difficult times. The greatest challenge we face today is uncertainty about our future. If we were required to return because the war is considered ‘over’, my greatest fear would be for my children. They have already integrated here. They have friends, education, routines and a sense of emotional stability again after displacement and trauma. Forcing them to start over for a second time would be a profound psychological strain. For many families the end of active war does not mean life is safe or normal. Homes have been destroyed, communities damaged. Some people simply have nowhere to go back to.” The 24-month visa is welcome, but it still leaves many families living with uncertainty. We Liberal Democrats are calling for an automatic visa extension, a clear route to long-term status, trauma-informed education for children and real stability for families who are already contributing so much to our communities. Another of my constituents, Graham, offered his home to a Ukrainian guest, Kristina Hotsyk. She is desperate to reunite with her parents, but the reintroduction of biometric requirements, forcing people to travel to cities under nightly attack, is making that process extremely dangerous. I urge the Government to address this issue as soon as possible. Let me turn to the aid situation. It is reassuring that the Government have decided to protect the overseas aid spend for Ukraine this year, but while that is welcome, the increase is modest. At a moment when global aid flows are collapsing, it will not do as much as we would like. At the same time, the Government have decided to slash overseas aid, meaning that it will become harder for us to sustain aid flows to Ukraine in the coming years. That is a strategic mistake, because overseas aid is not charity; it is an investment in our own security. A stable Ukraine deters Russian aggression across Europe, sends a clear message that borders cannot be redrawn by force and raises the cost of future wars. Poverty and hardship in any country send people into the arms of those who offer a populist, easy message. Aid stabilises societies and prevents crises from spiralling into conflict, displacement and insecurity that ultimately reach our shores. Ukraine shows what continuous, serious aid flows can achieve. Our support has helped to keep a country under siege functioning. It has strengthened civilian morale and reinforced a frontline state standing between Europe and authoritarian expansion. That is what properly funded aid looks like. I hope the Government do not throw away the progress that they have made and reverse course on the aid cuts as soon as possible. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to take bolder action. First, we must scale up our military and bring forward plans to reach 3% of GDP being spent on defence as quickly as possible, instead of waiting until the next decade. Our armed forces have been hollowed out, such that we now have the lowest troop numbers in more than 200 years, while stockpiles have become depleted. That weakens support for Ukraine and makes us feel less safe here at home. Let me be clear that defence must not come at the expense of development; it is a false and dangerous narrative to pitch the one against the other. As the US general and former Secretary of Defence, Jim Mattis, said: “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition”. Secondly, we must hit the Russian war machine where it hurts. More than £30 billion-worth of frozen Russian assets sit in the UK alone. The Liberal Democrats have introduced legislation for those to be seized and redirected to Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction, and I urge the Government to put it into law as soon as possible. We should also work with G7 partners to lower the oil price cap, cutting directly into Putin’s war profits. Thirdly, accountability matters. The war crimes that we have seen in this tragic conflict, from the attacks on humanitarian convoys and the missile strikes on churches and children’s playgrounds to the abduction of an estimated 35,000 Ukrainian children, have shocked the conscience of the world. I went to see the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva and saw the records of soldiers and the work that it is doing to reunite families and children and identify the missing so that their families can have closure. I applaud its quiet work. International law must be upheld, and war criminals like Putin must not be allowed to act with impunity. The rules-based order is under attack—a climate that makes the work of vital international institutions such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and NATO even more important. Putin would like nothing more than for the UN and NATO to collapse, so we must protect them. I urge the Government to continue their full-throated support for those vital entities and resist pressure from the United States to ignore or defy them. Today, four years on, we are proud to still stand with Ukraine. Let us not allow Ukraine to be forced into a settlement that rewards aggression and leaves all of us less safe, because the Ukrainian people are fighting not just their war, but our war. They deserve nothing less than our full and unwavering commitment. I will end with a poem written by a Ukrainian constituent, Nikita Balakin. He is nine and is at Cleves school in Oatlands. It reads: “Mum, me and one suitcase Three of us only I left my cat, I left my dog And all my dreams behind in the fog I was just five but looked like more Because I knew the world of war New country, language, school and friends. Thanks to everyone who helps. I started to smile and play the games And I can start to hope again. I want the world to see my joy PEACE is the biggest dream of a Ukrainian boy!”

• 5 Feb 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

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

• 5 Jan 2026 · Community Policing · Hansard source

  More

  11. What steps she is taking to support effective community policing.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Community Policing · Hansard source

  More

  Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute to the work of the police in my constituency of Esher and Walton, who have got the rate of solved burglaries up by 84%. However, while the local police are doing a great job catching burglars, they tell me that the perception that they are unable to bring those burglars to justice is making it more difficult to tackle persistent offenders and is impacting on the confidence of local residents. My constituents were incredulous recently when the borough commander told them that two individuals charged with burglary in December last year had been given a date to appear for trial in September 2027. What conversations is the Minister having with her counterparts in the Ministry of Justice to increase the number of Crown court sitting days so that my constituents can have confidence?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. This is an important and timely debate. I thank colleagues for their powerful contributions. I also thank the petitioners, including 479 of my own constituents in Esher and Walton, and those who have written to me about the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Two years of brutal war have unleashed unimaginable suffering. The ceasefire may have quietened the shelling, but it has not rebuilt homes, recovered food supplies or restored the basic systems needed to sustain life. Violations continue on both sides and the reality on the ground remains desperate. After an estimated 70,000 deaths, a million people are sheltering in overcrowded, unsafe displacement sites, some without shelter, and the entire population is in humanitarian need. Food, water and healthcare networks have broken down. Famine conditions persist in northern areas, driven directly by the obstruction of humanitarian access. Clean water is scarce, disease is spreading and hospitals across the strip are shut or barely functioning. The atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023 were abhorrent; the violations they have continued to commit, even after the ceasefire, are abhorrent and a complete breach of international humanitarian law. The deliberate murder of civilians, the abduction of hostages and the refusal to release the remaining deceased hostages are all blatant violations of international humanitarian law. But let me be absolutely clear: what we are seeing in Gaza today is the horrific consequence of the laws of war being treated as optional. International humanitarian law exists to shield civilians from the worst excesses of war. All parties have a legal and moral duty to uphold it. The International Court of Justice has again confirmed Israel’s binding duty, as the occupying power, to guarantee effective humanitarian access. International humanitarian law in Gaza has been breached and disregarded over the past two years. Aid should never have been prevented from entering Gaza. Gaza now needs hundreds of aid trucks every day to meet basic survival needs, but only a fraction reach their destination. Barely half of UN humanitarian missions have been permitted to proceed. That is completely unacceptable. We were meant to see the scale-up of humanitarian assistance, but some £50 million-worth of international non-governmental organisation relief sits outside the crossing, unable to enter. Aid agencies warn that, without fully opening all land crossings and guaranteeing predictable access, genuine humanitarian recovery will remain impossible. Thousands need urgent medical evacuation, but only a tiny number have been evacuated since the ceasefire. Winter will make an already dire situation even worse. Several crossings are open for limited humanitarian cargo, but the volumes allowed through fall far short of basic needs. The vital crossing point at Rafah remains closed, blocking civilian movement entirely, while key internal routes, especially into northern Gaza, are still restricted. We must also acknowledge that some aid has been diverted or obstructed by Hamas, further undermining humanitarian efforts and deepening civilian suffering. Humanitarian access must never be a bargaining chip, never subordinated to political agendas and never used to engineer local governance outcomes. Its neutrality is the only thing that ensures the protection of civilians. International organisations such as the World Food Programme have been absolutely clear that they have the food, the staff and the systems ready to deliver at full scale. They now need a ceasefire that genuinely upholds and guarantees uninterrupted humanitarian access. With sustained, predictable access, the WFP can feed up to 1.6 million people for three months, and start restoring Gaza’s food systems and dignity through digital payments. Donations to Gaza have fallen sharply since the October ceasefire, creating a catastrophic funding gap just as winter arrives, and leaving millions facing hunger, illness and collapsing infrastructure. Since the ceasefire, the UK has provided only £24 million in additional humanitarian aid for Gaza, while UN member states have met just 37% of the $4 billion sought under the 2025 flash appeal to support the 3 million people across Gaza and the west bank. That comes on top of the wider decision to slash overseas aid to its lowest level this century, with funding for the Occupied Palestinian Territories falling sharply; it is 21% smaller than it was last year. Countries such as Germany and Ireland are stepping up with more serious humanitarian leadership and have shown greater urgency. The UK should do the same. Our people are no less generous than theirs. The British care deeply about Gaza, as shown by this petition. At a moment like this, Britain should also be at the vanguard of diplomatic efforts. The Government must engage proactively with our international partners. Will the Minister tell us what conversations the UK is currently having with the Israeli Government to get aid in, and what conversations it is having with the United States, our European allies and other like-minded partners to secure unhindered humanitarian access into Gaza? What diplomatic conversations are under way to ensure that all parties comply with international law and allow aid to reach civilians without obstruction? It is vital that UN agencies are not scapegoated or weakened at the very moment when they are most needed. The UK must be unequivocal: we stand with the UN system, including UNRWA; removing it without a viable alternative will plunge millions deeper into crisis. We cannot allow humanitarian agencies to be dismantled in the middle of a catastrophe. The Liberal Democrats believe that Britain must reclaim its humanitarian leadership. I therefore urge the Minister to take the following steps. First, the Government should restore the legally enshrined target to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid. Doing so would restore the UK’s ability to deliver lifesaving assistance at the scale required. Can the Minister assure us that there will be no further cuts to official development assistance in the autumn Budget or thereafter? Will he confirm whether he intends to go beyond the £24 million pledged to Gaza since the ceasefire? Secondly, the Government should ensure that lifesaving humanitarian aid flows freely into Gaza. They must use every diplomatic channel to secure the full opening of land crossings, predictable UN approvals, the restoration of Rafah for civilian movement and an end to the unlawful restrictions that breach international humanitarian law and violate ICJ orders. How do the UK Government plan to engage with the Israeli authorities to ensure neutral, UN-led humanitarian delivery, free from political interference, and to press for all land crossings, including Rafah, to be fully opened so that aid can reach those who need it? Have the Government raised the new registration restrictions with the Israeli authorities? If so, what specific assurances have they sought to ensure that no more barriers are created to the work of international NGOs? Thirdly, should access continue to be denied, the UK must work with international partners to secure alternative delivery channels. Britain must co-ordinate pressure for sustained access to all crossings, while scaling up alternative routes in parallel. That requires pressing the US and Israeli authorities to open the crossings and urging the United States and partners in the region to use their influence to secure predictable humanitarian access. Fourthly, the Government must continue to push for a lasting two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. Those on all sides must be held accountable for war crimes. While we hold our breath on Gaza, violence and restrictions in the west bank have escalated sharply. The situation is deeply alarming and continues to deteriorate. More than 1.2 million people there need assistance, around 40,000 are displaced and more than 200 Palestinians, including around 50 children, have been killed this year, alongside Israeli casualties from attacks. Large-scale Israeli operations, ongoing demolitions and severe movement restrictions are driving further displacement and disruption. Settler violence remains at crisis levels, with repeated attacks damaging homes, mosques and vehicles and further eroding livelihoods. I ask the Government to end all trade with illegal west bank settlements and insist on full humanitarian access and protection for Palestinian civilians across the west bank. The situation in Gaza is a moral disaster, one made worse by deliberate choices. This is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe. Britain must lead with aid, with diplomacy, with integrity and with urgency to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld, that civilians are protected and that this country is remembered as one that chose to act, not one that chose to look away.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Modern Day Slavery: Pakistan · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this important debate to the House. Modern slavery remains one of the greatest violations of human dignity in the world. In Pakistan, an estimated 2.34 million people—more than one in 100—are affected by modern slavery. That figure places the country among the top 20 worst affected globally. Debt bondage, exploitative labour practices and gender-based inequality are driving millions into coercion and abuse. Pakistan’s vulnerability score of 80 out of 100 demonstrates the scale of systemic risk—from the effects of conflict and poverty to weak governance and entrenched inequality. Although Pakistan has made some progress, its Government response score sits at just 37 out of 100—below the regional average—according to international humanitarian rights groups. Victims continue to be trapped in cycles of exploitation, with women in agriculture and children in bonded labour facing the harshest conditions. Natural disasters, including the devastating 2022 floods, have intensified that vulnerability; they have destroyed livelihoods and forced many into debt bondage simply to survive. The United Kingdom has a unique and historic relationship with Pakistan. Our two nations share deep ties through trade, and we continue to work with the new Government of Pakistan for the benefit of all Pakistanis. That partnership gives Britain an opportunity but also a responsibility to speak up for those whose voices are silenced. We should be deeply concerned by Pakistan’s lack of action on modern slavery, as well as its lack of action to safeguard human rights, protect religious freedoms and defend minority communities. The UK must use its influence to encourage genuine reform and work with international partners to ensure that all Pakistani citizens enjoy the fundamental freedoms and protections they deserve. The hon. Member for Strangford laid out the evils of bonded labour in Pakistan. Pakistan has one of the highest numbers of bonded labourers in the world, with over a million workers in brick kilns. Bonded labour is an abuse analogous to slavery. As we have heard, Pakistan’s Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992 was enacted to outlaw bonded labour, but its implementation has been a significant challenge, perhaps because of a lack of political will or capacity. What help is the UK giving to Pakistan to implement the 1992 Act by encouraging will and assisting with capacity? What conversations have the Government had with the Government in Pakistan about ending modern slavery, and what support can the Government give to Pakistan, given their own commitment to achieving sustainable development goal 8, which targets modern slavery? We must also remember, however, that modern slavery is not a tragedy that happens only overseas; it is happening here in the UK, often hidden in plain sight. It is present on our farms, in our care homes, in nail salons and even in drive-through restaurants. Modern slavery is not a crime of the past. Last year alone, more than 19,000 potential victims were identified in Britain. That rise has been fuelled by deepening inequality and increasingly sophisticated criminal networks that exploit vulnerabilities and target victims through online platforms and social media. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was rightly hailed as a landmark piece of legislation and demonstrated that the UK could lead the world in confronting this abuse, but nearly a decade on, charge and conviction rates for offences under the Act remain too low. The result is a system where victims slip through the cracks and too many perpetrators escape justice. If we are serious about ending exploitation and working with our partners in other countries, we must strengthen our own enforcement, protect survivors and ensure that the law delivers accountability as promised. We Liberal Democrats believe that the fight against modern slavery must begin with action, both at home and abroad. Primarily, we would introduce a business, human rights and environment Bill that would establish a clear duty of care on companies, financial institutions and public bodies. The legislation would require businesses to carry out due diligence to prevent human rights abuses, including modern slavery and child labour, across their global supply chains and to report openly on their actions. Will the Minister commit to exploring similar legislation, and will she ensure that UK-linked supply chains in countries like Pakistan are not allowed to rely on vulnerable or exploited labour? The UK also has a major role to play in demanding fairness in global supply chains. The fast fashion industry, including major sourcing from Pakistan, has long been associated with unethical labour practices. I hope the Minister will set out today what steps the Government will take to ensure that no product entering the UK market is tainted by exploitation. Beyond supply chains, more can be done nationally. I would welcome a promise from the Government that they will review the modern slavery strategy to help them to address modern and evolving trafficking methods and take a victim-centred approach. They should restore the modern slavery fund to support innovative approaches to tackling modern slavery and back it up with a multi- year funding model. Our message is simple: Britain must not profit from exploitation. That means holding corporations accountable where they are complicit in abuse abroad and ensuring that our trade and foreign policy reflect the values we hold dear: justice, dignity and human rights for all. For the Liberal Democrats, human rights and preventing violations of international law such as modern slavery are the centrepiece of foreign policy. We continue to work tirelessly to abolish the death penalty globally and end the use of torture, and we would ban imports from regions complicit in egregious abuses. However, it is not enough to react to abuse; we must build the conditions in which dignity and liberty can thrive—from Pakistan to China and from Ukraine to Sudan. On Pakistan specifically, I would like to turn to the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. Ahmadis are among the most persistently and brutally persecuted people in Pakistan. Their crime, in the eyes of the law, is simply to call themselves Muslim. Under Pakistan’s constitution, Ahmadis are legally defined as non-Muslims. They are forbidden to use Islamic terminology, barred from voting and denied freedom of worship. Last week, I met the leaders of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in the UK, who described to me the grim reality of state-sponsored persecution. Fourteen Ahmadis are currently imprisoned, some for more than five years, for practising their faith. Their schools have been nationalised, their literature banned and their mosques destroyed. In the past two years alone, there have been over 50 attacks on Ahmadi places of worship and over 420 desecrations of Ahmadi graves. For the Liberal Democrats, freedom of religion means freedom for all faiths whenever and wherever. I ask the Minister to make this issue a diplomatic priority. The UK must use its close relationship with Pakistan to press for immediate change, to hold perpetrators of mob violence to account, to release prisoners of conscience, to restore Ahmadi voting rights and to return nationalised schools. Britain’s voice matters and it must be used to defend those whose only wish is to live and worship freely. Modern slavery and persecution thrive where the rule of law is weak and indifference is strong. We will not turn away. We stand for a world in which every person in Pakistan and beyond can live with freedom, dignity and hope. Britain must once again lead with moral clarity and compassion, using its influence to not only condemn exploitation, but confront it, and building a future where human rights are not the privilege of the few but the inheritance of all.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to shine a light on one of those many stories. My constituent in Esher and Walton paid over £16,000 for a kitchen remodelling that was never delivered, and the same company is alleged to have defrauded other constituents, including one this year who lost £20,000. When fraud occurs on this scale, it is theft from honest people, but consumers find that the civil courts are slow, complex and costly. Does the hon. Member agree that the Ministry of Justice should ensure accessible routes to redress, which may be small claims courts or an ombudsman scheme, so that consumers can get justice quickly?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I speak today to new clause 42, which is in my name. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sitting days in the Crown court and to lay a report before Parliament. I am pleased to bring this issue before the House. Our criminal courts are crippled under the weight of their caseloads. A system once respected for its fairness and efficiency is now struggling to deliver timely justice. One major cause is the limit imposed on the number of sitting days available to judges. In effect, we are deliberately rationing justice. Successive Governments have chosen to restrict Crown court sitting days. The previous Conservative Administration cut them drastically up to 2020, and then reintroduced a cap in 2021. The current Labour Government, disappointingly, have continued that practice, fixing the number of sitting days for 2024-25 at 108,500. That figure, announced only in December, was thousands below what the courts had planned for, and nearly 5,000 days short of the 113,000 days that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service advised were needed to meet basic operational capacity. Even 113,000 sitting days would not open every courtroom; as Sir Brian Leveson’s review made clear, we would need at least 130,000 sitting days to bring all courtrooms fully into use. Anything less is a conscious choice to leave some courtrooms dark, some judges idle and thousands of victims waiting. Meanwhile, the backlog grows. The Crown court caseload has reached historic highs, with more than 73,000 outstanding cases, and it is only growing. In the first quarter of 2025, 2,000 more cases were received than were disposed of. One in four open cases has been waiting for over a year, and in some instances trials are not being listed until 2029. I saw the impact at first hand when I visited my local Kingston upon Thames Crown court. It is one of many courts across the London region that suffer as the region sees its backlog increase by 25%. Staff spoke of the frustration of empty courtrooms, which could be hearing trials but are instead shuttered by bureaucracy. For my constituents in Esher and Walton, that means longer waits for justice for victims of assault, of burglary and of sexual violence, who are left to relive their trauma every time that their trial is postponed. Witnesses lose faith, memories fade, and confidence in justice evaporates. Caps on Crown court sitting days are not a matter of efficiency, but a false economy. We are paying for court buildings, for security, for staff and for judges, yet we prevent them from working to full capacity, and the consequences are severe. Victims and witnesses wait months or even years for closure, and defendants on bail remain in limbo, their futures in the balance. Some guilty defendants plead not guilty in the hope that delay will work in their favour. In the process, public faith in the criminal justice system and politics deteriorates. Justice delayed is justice denied. Each time a case is adjourned or pushed back, a victim’s faith in justice dies a little more. Communities lose confidence that the system will protect them, and that loss of trust is corrosive—it undermines everything from police co-operation to jury participation. It is deeply disappointing that the Government have not attached a money motion to this Bill, meaning that Parliament cannot directly remove the cap today. However, new clause 42 offers a constructive step forward. It would require the Government to confront the evidence and to assess, transparently and publicly, whether the cap serves justice or undermines it. We cannot continue to ignore a crisis that every practitioner, every victim and every judge can see unfolding before their eyes. Removing the cap would not solve every problem in our courts, but it would allow them to function at their full capacity; it would mean fewer empty rooms, more trials heard, and faster justice for those who need it most. New clause 42 is a vital amendment that shines a light on the cost of capping justice and would begin the work of restoring confidence in our criminal courts. Justice delayed is justice denied, and it is time to stop denying justice to the people we serve.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Alex’s mother, Sally, is a constituent of mine in Esher and Walton. She shared Alex’s story in one of my surgeries, so I am very pleased that his story is being considered today in Parliament. The new clauses put forward by my hon. Friend will help to ensure that people such as Alex have a route to justice. Sally is battling on behalf of her son against a law that is obsolete. All of us can only imagine how heartbreaking and frustrating that is and the unfairness of what my hon. Friend has described. I urge Members across the Committee to support the new clauses so that there is a course to justice.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the tributes paid to those who were killed in Manchester and to the invaluable work of the Community Security Trust, whose headquarters I have visited. I pay tribute to my constituents, who have sent a wall of love and support in messages to our local synagogue, showing how they absolutely reject antisemitism. The Manchester attacker was wielding a knife. My local police force has stressed to me the ease with which someone—even with a pattern of criminal behaviour—can obtain a lethal knife. We do not know what kind of knife was used or how the attacker obtained it, but we do know that the Southport attacker purchased a 16-inch machete from Knife Warehouse, a retailer which, in the words of the inquiry chair, showed “no curiosity” at all about whom it was selling to. It is clear that those who intend to commit violence can arm themselves with alarming ease by exploiting online loopholes that treat lethal weapons as ordinary products. Does the Secretary of State agree that we now need a far stronger and clearer approach to tackle the online sale and circulation of these knives and to close the gaps that allow sellers to profit from them?