Monica Harding MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech about the evolution of social media platforms. I have four children; the first was born in 2004 and the last was born in 2011, so their births have spanned that evolution. Facebook began in 2004; TikTok began in 2016. If that evolution was the industrial revolution, we would be around the spinning jenny stage, with AI chatbots the next destination. Those chatbots are terribly dangerous for our children, and we need to regulate them now. That should be within the Online Safety Act.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I was interested in the hon. Member’s survey. I have done my own very unscientific survey of young people, and all of them seem to want some form of regulation. With that in mind, we must hurry up—does the hon. Member agree?

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

  More

  I agree. There is a systematic and joined-up failure that we need to unravel, and I will come back to that in my speech. When there was scrutiny after 2011, there was still a failure of oversight. What does that say about our society, how we protect privilege and what we are prepared to accept on behalf of the British state and our representatives? Can rules be broken by some people and not others? Do propriety and ethics belong to all those who represent the British state? We have a parliamentary monarchy. That means that if the Palace does not open itself to scrutiny and carry out its own inquiry, Parliament must. I have some questions. On what basis was Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor given the role of trade envoy? Who put him forward and was there resistance to it? While he was trade envoy, what concerns were raised and with whom, from what date and how were they actioned? Money was put up by the royal family to protect him. Does Parliament have a right to understand why that money was put up and that public funds were not used in the civil settlement with Virginia Giuffre? Can Parliament find out that not one penny of public money was used in that settlement? I know you will share with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, the concern about levels of public confidence in all our institutions and the people who represent them. Parliament must assert itself in this regard, and I, along with my colleagues, call for the full publication of all documents related to Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as a special envoy and for an end to negative privilege, so that MPs in this place can speak freely about their concerns and disclose information in the House of Commons, even if that individual is a member of the royal family. I will end, as I must, with thoughts for the victims of the Epstein scandal, which has triggered so much of this debate, and all those who are victims of power, privilege and deference. They are foremost in our minds as this furore continues. It is thanks to their bravery that we know the extent of Epstein’s crimes and the wider implications for our own establishment.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right. This is about systemic failure, and we are at the very beginning of this, not the end. For the victims of Epstein, we must do everything we can to ensure that this investigation and inquiry continue. On behalf of those victims and those who are suffering right now from the same thing, we must ensure that the wider system cleans itself up, and we must facilitate that.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that it is quite extraordinary that we are urging the Parliament of a foreign country—Congress—to investigate this matter when it concerns our trade envoy and a member of the royal family?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

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

• 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—

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  I noticed that the mention of Japan took the Prime Minister one minute—the last minute—of a 10-minute speech on China and Japan. Japan is not only the largest inward investor into the UK, apart from the EU and US, but a vital liberal democracy in the Indo-Pacific and a key security partner in maintaining regional stability in the face of growing Chinese assertiveness. Given the growing security risks and strategic instability across the region, can the Prime Minister assure the House that engagement with Beijing will not weaken the UK’s alignment with Japan, which is one of our most important democratic partners?

• 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?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

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

• 27 Jan 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, managing agents are still imposing excessive service charges with very little transparency. Flats in retirement developments often will not sell, even at well below the market value, and families are left paying deceased relatives’ service charges. Restrictive lease terms ban rentals, trapping those families with empty, unsaleable homes. I note the Minister’s commitment to the consultation on service charges, but will he hurry up with the action?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you chairship, Ms Vaz. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate to mark the International Day of Education this Saturday. I pay tribute to our hard-working teachers and our schools in the UK, especially in my constituency. This should be more than a moment of reflection; it must be a call to action. Education is a moral good, but it is also one of our most effective tools to prevent poverty, conflict and instability. When children are pushed out of classrooms by war, displacement or climate disaster, the consequences are long lasting. The scale of the crisis is severe: worldwide, more than 272 million children and young people are out of school and that figure is projected to rise to 278 million due to global aid cuts.

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

  More

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

• 20 Jan 2026 · Gaza and the West Bank: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  There are reports that this morning Israeli security forces arrived at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency compound in Sheikh Jarrah, in occupied East Jerusalem. Security guards were forced out of the premises, bulldozers subsequently entered the compound and began to demolish UNRWA buildings, and the demolitions are ongoing. If that is true, it is not only an unprecedented attack against UNRWA and its premises; it also constitutes a serious violation of international law, and of the privileges and immunities of the United Nations. What consequential action will the Foreign Secretary take if these reports are true?

• 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?

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

  More

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

• 19 Jan 2026 · Iran: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  The Iranian Government are massacring civilians, and brave young protesters are risking their lives for freedom and dignity against a violent and corrupt regime. The Minister has spoken about the thousands of people who we fear have lost their lives, and The Times is reporting that up to 16,000 people may have died—and in an age when we can see news as it happens in the palm of our hands, we see nothing because of the darkness of the internet crackdown. What are the Government doing to support internet access across Iran so that we can collect evidence to hold the perpetrators to account for this brutality?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  When the US President tells the Iranian protesters that “help is on its way”, as he has just done, does that include British help? Will the Government rule out the UK taking part in any planned US military intervention without multilateral authorisation?

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

  More

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

• 8 Jan 2026 · Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate, and for all his work. I also thank all the hon. Members, from across the parties, who have spoken in this debate with such clarity and conviction, and so powerfully. Next month marks four years since Myanmar’s military junta launched its brutal coup against the country’s elected Government. In the years since, Myanmar has been plunged into a brutal, bloody civil war. The consequences have been devastating, with mass killings, widespread displacement, economic collapse and profound human suffering across the country. Myanmar’s military junta has long been the principal driver of repression, including in the sham elections, and particularly in the persecution of religious minorities. What we witness today in Myanmar is not random unrest between non-state militias; it is systematic state violence with airstrikes on civilian areas, arbitrary detention, torture and collective punishment. It is a deliberate, large-scale system of repression, which has deep roots. For decades, the Rohingya Muslim population has been subjected to sustained persecution, stripped of citizenship, denied basic civil rights and subjected to repeated military attacks. Over 600,000 Rohingya remain trapped in Rakhine state, stateless, confined to camps and facing severe restrictions on movement, healthcare and livelihoods. More than 1 million Rohingya have fled the country, primarily to neighbouring Bangladesh, as we have heard. They face appalling conditions: the largest refugee camp in the world is in Bangladesh, just across the Myanmar border. Christians in Myanmar have also faced growing repression. Around 4 million Christians live in the country, many of them in ethnic minority regions that have borne the brunt of military violence. Churches have been damaged or destroyed, religious leaders have been detained, and entire communities have been displaced by airstrikes and ground offensives. Those are clear violations of the most basic freedoms—freedom of belief, freedom of worship and freedom from fear. That brings me to the central point that I want to make today. The persecution of religious minorities in Myanmar does not occur in isolation; it is part of a far wider assault—an attack on not just specific communities but civilian society itself. Nearly a decade ago, when the Rohingya Muslims were subjected to large-scale military operations that drove them into a corner of the country and across borders, that moment should have been a turning point for international resolve. Instead, it became something else entirely. It became a test, and the world failed it. What happened to the Rohingya was not an aberration but the tragic rehearsal of what was to come next. The tactics first deployed against the Rohingya, including collective punishment, mass displacement and the criminalisation of identity and dissent, have since been expanded and used by the junta against a broader section of Myanmar’s civil society. Today the junta targets not only particular ethnic or religious groups but anyone who stands outside, or stands up to, military control—pro-democracy activists, journalists, human rights defenders, teachers, doctors, nurses and aid workers. The common denominator is no longer faith or ethnicity; it is defiance, independence and the mere refusal to submit to a brutal military regime. The civilians’ bravery in the face of this is astonishing. The humanitarian picture today is dire. Millions of people are internally displaced, and entire communities have been cut off from food, healthcare and shelter. Civilian infrastructure has been deliberately attacked; aid is obstructed; local humanitarian workers are criminalised; and starvation and displacement are used as weapons of war. This is a political strategy and a man-made humanitarian crisis, which brings me to the international response, particularly the UK’s. The case for action could not be clearer. There is an urgent need for cross-border humanitarian aid, for sustained support to local partners and for far less deference to junta permission that is never given in good faith. However, the Government’s cuts to the aid budget, with spending projected to fall to 0.3% of national income by 2027—the lowest level this century—pose dire problems for Myanmar. Four years on from the coup, 22 million people require humanitarian assistance. That rise in need has also been partly driven by overlapping crises, such as the devastating earthquake this year. The Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has warned that 16 million people now require lifesaving assistance and protection, yet the programme budget for Myanmar fell in 2025-26 to £47 million. The international response is failing to keep pace with the need. The UN humanitarian response plan for Myanmar is only 17% funded, a dramatic fall from the already inadequate 36% reached at the end of 2024. Does the Minister have plans to increase the assistance to Myanmar? Where does Myanmar sit in the bilateral priority list of the FCDO, and does that not underscore the point? Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine, Yemen, Bangladesh and Myanmar—I could go on and on. In the midst of all this conflict, why are the Government now cutting aid to such a low level? The Government must get back to their legal commitment of 0.7%. As the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) said, to pile conflict upon conflict makes us less secure. The UN has found localisation extremely difficult, unlike the UK and FCDO, whose localised approach is very welcome. The UN agencies themselves acknowledge that Myanmar is a context in which local actors are indispensable, because international access is so severely restricted. Military interference through visa delays, travel authorisation refusals and access constraints has significantly hampered UN operations since the coup. The UK has avoided some of those obstacles by consistently supporting a localised approach—funding local actors outside the UN system, working through intermediaries and supporting informal delivery models, as well as working with local partners, including in areas beyond military control. The Liberal Democrats strongly support that approach. However, continued cuts to funding will inevitably undermine localisation, particularly when local actors are left without sufficient backing from the UN system. Can the Minister lay out how that support will continue? The Government’s sanctions regime also reflects a troubling lack of urgency. Sanctions have been piecemeal, slow and insufficiently co-ordinated with international partners. We need the Government to co-ordinate and enforce a new round of targeted sanctions, to cut the flow of funds and arms to the junta in Myanmar and of the aviation fuel that enables the military there to conduct airstrikes against civilians. Key economic enablers of the junta remain untouched, while accountability for atrocity crimes remains distant and uncertain. If we are serious about protecting religious minorities and about defending democracy and civilian life, that must change. The Government must support international accountability efforts and name those responsible for atrocities, rather than hiding behind diplomatic caution. Why will the Government not expel Myanmar’s military attaché as the representative of a regime committing war crimes? Given that the UK remains the penholder on Myanmar at the UN Security Council, it is in a unique position to lead the global response to the crisis in the country. It is disappointing how little sustained attention the crisis receives, both internationally and in this House—the only substantive debate about it in this Parliament followed the Government’s own statement on the earthquake. Will the Government seek a new resolution on Myanmar at the Security Council to stop attacks on civilians and on religious freedom? The Government have stated that they stand in solidarity with those calling for a return to democracy in Myanmar and they have urged the military regime to engage in dialogue with opposition groups representing the Myanmar people, including the national unity Government. I would welcome an update from the Minister on what engagement has taken place with pro-democracy actors, including the national unity Government, and on what steps the UK has taken to support efforts to achieve a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can reach those who need it most. Finally, if the junta were to fall—we have heard today how weak it is—is the UK prepared politically and operationally, with the requisite resource to respond quickly, to scale up humanitarian assistance and help support a civilian-led democratic transition in Myanmar? The persecution of religious minorities in Myanmar is not a side issue but a warning—a warning about what happens when authoritarian regimes learn that the world will look away: first from one group, then from everyone else. We owe it to the Rohingya, Christians and other religious minorities in Myanmar, and to the millions of ordinary people in the country who continue so bravely and against all odds to resist repression and to hope for a different future, to take action. We must stand with them, not step back.

• 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.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Advanced Brain Cancer: Tissue Freezing · Hansard source

  More

  May I pay tribute to the hon. Member for everything she is doing on glioblastoma? It has affected my own family: my brother-in-law, Pip Harding, was diagnosed with a glioblastoma. He has received oncothermia therapy, but only through crowdfunding. The cost of—I think—10 treatments was something like £40,000, which he got from his friends and family. That shows the generosity of the public, as well as how interested the public are in this, so does she agree that we should ask the Government to match the public spirit on this?