Monica Harding MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents continue to face higher electricity bills—among the highest in the country at approximately £961 per year. One of my local hairdressers tells me that their electricity has gone up from £150 to £450 a month. Will the Government commit to bolder policies by easing restrictions on solar and wind power and driving investment in renewables to help struggling businesses?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this debate. The UK’s relationship with the European Union goes beyond trade barriers. It prompts the fundamental question: in an increasingly dangerous and volatile world, do we wish to be adrift and isolated, or will we stand united with our closest neighbours? Despite Brexit, the EU remains our largest trading partner. A market of 450 million consumers lies on our doorstep and the Government are still failing to leverage that proximity. Despite their search for growth—apparently their one overriding mission—the botched Brexit deal has inflicted deep and lasting damage to our economy. Our trade volume is 15% lower and long-term productivity is 4% lower—and for what? We are still waiting for the US trade deal, which is unlikely to be what we need it to be, under the “America first” presidency. Our current arrangements with the European Union are fragmented and bureaucratic, and that actively undermines our growth and prosperity. The consequences of Brexit are stark, and my constituents in Esher and Walton have been badly affected. Higher prices strain budgets. My local businesses, which once traded seamlessly, now face mountains of paperwork and costly delays. Meanwhile, the promised benefits of Brexit remain unseen. The ramifications of this broken relationship have become even more apparent following recent developments across the Atlantic. The steel tariffs on British exports have dispelled the fantasy that the US-UK trade deal would compensate for the Brexit damage. As we face a stagnating economy, the Government cannot seriously claim to be exploring all the ways to boost growth, given that they are staying within the previous Conservative Government’s red lines on Europe. The Liberal Democrats are the only party offering a credible solution: forming a customs union with the European Union and revitalising our trade. That would provide certainty and optimism. It is workable and achievable, and would send a message to rogue actors and special relationships that we are united and determined in the face of aggression, even trade aggression. If the Government are really serious about growth, they must show the leadership that our country needs. Follow the trade, follow the money and undo the botched Brexit deal that bust our country.

• 24 Apr 2025 · London Sudan Conference · Hansard source

  More

  The Sudan conference in London presented an opportunity to generate international consensus for a path to peace in Sudan’s civil war, the world’s largest conflict. It was deeply disappointing that the conference failed to establish a contact group for the conflict, as such a group could build international political will to move towards an end to the fighting. Will the Minister therefore outline what new diplomatic initiatives he will pursue to establish a contact group? I welcome the announcement of £120 million more for humanitarian aid, but with aid access being wielded as a weapon of war on both sides, can the Minister assure us that it will reach civilians? Gender-based violence is a terrible feature of the war, so what steps can be taken to protect women and children? I am also deeply concerned by reports that other nations are supplying arms to the warring factions, particularly the reports that the United Arab Emirates have provided weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, which are alleged to have committed mass civilian killings and are accused by the US of genocide in Darfur. Will the Minister outline what steps he has taken to stop the flow of arms to ensure that British exports are not used in Sudan?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

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

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. I have been supporting residents of both freehold and leasehold properties in Esher and Walton who are confronting a system that allows management companies to oversell seemingly attractive properties, but makes it extremely challenging to hold them accountable for overpriced services and service failures, or to get rid of them. I hope that the Government will look closely at the business model of such companies and the tactics that they employ. In my constituency, I have supported residents of an estate composed of later-living leasehold flats spread across five blocks, who have secured the right to manage away from FirstPort. However, because the blocks are separate buildings, the residents of the 38 flats were required to establish five different right-to-manage companies, even though communal areas remain under the management of FirstPort. I urge the Government first to ensure that separate buildings on a single development can pursue the right to manage together, and secondly, to expand that right so that it covers communal areas. What consideration have the Government given to creating a statutory right to manage for freeholders that encompasses communal areas? Many leasehold developments are principally intended for the elderly. Elderly residents often live in them for a comparatively short time and selling such leasehold properties is extremely challenging, so families often subsequently look to let them. FirstPort imposes a charge of 1% of a property’s market value as a condition of letting it, and frequently overvalues properties in order to charge more. That one-off payment recurs each subsequent time the property is let. What is the Minister doing to protect elderly people from exploitative leasehold conditions in elderly living accommodation?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Blair Mayne: Posthumous Victoria Cross · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. On 8 May, this House, together with the whole country, will celebrate the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe. This important milestone provides us with a renewed opportunity to reflect on the sacrifices and struggle of that greatest generation, who fought to protect Britain and preserve our freedom and democracy in the face of fascism and tyranny. It is our duty in this House and in our communities across the UK to recognise and celebrate the contributions made by our incredible service personnel to the security, defence and prosperity of this country. That must include reflecting on the service of all current military personnel who protect us today, the living veterans who have finished their time in the armed forces, and the servicemen and women from previous generations who are no longer with us. They are, all of them, bound together by a thread of service and sacrifice for this country. We must continually renew our gratitude and remembrance of that service. Therefore I welcome today’s incredibly valuable debate. It shines a spotlight on the gallantry and heroism of one of the UK’s most decorated servicemen, Blair Paddy Mayne, whose proposed recognition with a posthumous Victoria Cross I warmly support. As the premier operational gallantry award, it is worth while reminding ourselves of its requirements. It is awarded for “most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy”. It is clear that Blair Mayne personified the highest standards of bravery in the face of the enemy and across his career in the Special Air Service, and on that basis merits the award of a Victoria Cross. Blair Mayne was one of the first leaders of the SAS following its formation in 1941. It was designed with the intention of conducting guerrilla warfare against the axis powers, which were at that time on their march across Europe, Africa and Asia. The SAS’s role in the second world war was unconventional but crucial. Its work to disrupt operations behind enemy lines, particularly through its use of small-scale raids, intelligence gathering and support for networks of resistance groups against the fascist occupiers, was vital in undermining the axis’s political and military strength. As part of the then regiment, Mayne showed extraordinary valour and heroism while carrying out dangerous and daring raids in north Africa, Italy and France, harassing Nazi and fascist supply lines. Indeed, in November 1941 Mayne led one of the first SAS missions considered to be a major success—an attack on a Libyan airfield, which saw dozens of enemy aircraft destroyed. In January 1943, following the capture of Colonel David Stirling, Mayne took over the command of the SAS, going on to lead his men in campaigns in Sicily and Italy, before the SAS took part in the D-day landings. These are just a few examples of the conspicuous bravery displayed by Mayne in his leadership of the SAS. It is important to remember too that for Mayne and all the members of this elite regiment, being apprehended by the Nazis from 1942 onwards would likely have meant their summary execution at the hands of their captors. Consistently operating under such conditions requires, without doubt, exceptional bravery. Mayne is already one of our most decorated veterans. He was one of only eight people during the second world war to be awarded the Distinguished Service Order on four occasions—at the time the second highest gallantry award behind the Victoria Cross. This serves as an important testament to the consistency of his bravery, leadership and resolve, often in the face of odds stacked against him. It is only right and fair that we honour that courage today through the award of a posthumous Victoria Cross. Indeed, the award of a Victoria Cross would honour not only Mayne but in many ways the role of our special forces writ large, both historically and to this day. For many people, their knowledge and understanding of the SAS will have been informed by the BBC’s dramatisation of the regiment’s founding in “SAS: Rogue Heroes”, which Members have already extolled. The series has had an important impact, highlighting the enormous contribution of the SAS in securing the freedom we celebrate today and protecting it still. It has also highlighted the important work of the BBC in bringing stories such as these to the public’s attention, impressing on all of us the sacrifices and courage of our armed forces. There are now only a few living veterans of that greatest generation who can recall their stories and remind us of the price that they and so many others paid to defend our way of life. Just last month we said goodbye to another Paddy, Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, who was the last surviving pilot of the battle of Britain and who, as part of the RAF, defeated the Luftwaffe and defended our country from invasion. We have a responsibility to champion their voices and their deeds, and to continue to recognise acts of outstanding valour and heroism in our armed forces. That is why I warmly support the award of a posthumous Victoria Cross to Blair Mayne, the decoration that King George VI said had “so strangely eluded him” but is within our gift to correct.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Persecution of Christians · Hansard source

  More

  In conflict, religious and ethnic minorities are persecuted. British investment, through international development spending, peacebuilding and deconfliction, reduces the risk of religious intolerance. I am deeply concerned that, as with so many vital areas encompassed by official development assistance, British efforts to safeguard freedom of religion or belief will suffer because of the Government’s decision to slash development spending to the lowest level this century. Previous aid cuts fell hard on programmes focused on those issues. When ODA was reduced from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5% in 2021, the Institute of Development Studies found that some programmes protecting freedom of religion in south Asia saw their budgets plunge by 50%. The burdens are borne most of all by women and girls, who disproportionately face the horrors of religious intolerance whenever it appears. As evidence given by the APPG to the International Development Committee in 2021 attests, religious intolerance often goes hand in hand with the repression of women and girls. We tend to see that most clearly when it results in girls losing access to education. That deprivation is most acute when applied to women from religious minorities, for whom, as the APPG said, “their gender acts as a further marginalising layer of identity”. Freedom of belief and gender equality are both cherished objectives of the Government’s development policy, yet cuts to aid spending will result in setbacks on both fronts. I am also disturbed by the growing trend of authoritarian states using the digital weapons at their disposal to control and repress minority religious populations, including Christians. We see that in China, a country home to almost 70 million Christians—the single largest Christian minority population anywhere in the world—which has taken to deploying surveillance cameras inside and outside houses of worship capable of identifying believers. China also uses biometric data as a tool to monitor and therefore control faith groups. It is particularly concerning that the extent of that repression, and the potential for it to become still greater, has increased in tandem with technological development, and I urge the Government to monitor that closely. Britain must play a role in safeguarding religious minorities and Christian communities across the world. In the past, the UK has helped to play a convening role, bringing together Governments, non-governmental organisations and civil society organisations—for instance, through the declaration of humanity, which opposes religious interpretations that are used to justify conflict-related sexual violence and other crimes. As the UK makes the moral and strategic error of cutting development spending, it is critical that we do all we can to preserve our diplomatic capabilities. I am glad that the Prime Minister has appointed a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and I welcome the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) to his role. However, to be maximally effective, that role must have dedicated support from within the FCDO, so can the Minister share what FCDO resources are available to support the work of the envoy? In view of the darkening situation for Christians around the world, is the Minister willing to reassess the Government’s decision not to legislate in this Session to put the envoy on a statutory footing? Persecution based on faith should have no place in today’s world. The worsening global outlook for tolerance is an indictment of increasing levels of violence, conflict and extremism, and it is an invitation to redouble our efforts, through diplomacy and development, to protect religious minorities—Christians and others. This is the worst time for the Government to make such deep cuts to our international aid budget, which supports projects that protect religious minorities. I urge the Government to row back on those plans; to return to the challenge of carrying the beacon for human rights, including Christian rights, in these most deadly times; and to match today’s rhetoric with action.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Persecution of Christians · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this debate, which is as important as it is timely—I am pleased to be speaking today as we break for the Easter recess. The right to practise one’s faith freely, without hindrance or discrimination, is fundamental. The Liberal Democrats have a proud history of liberal universalism. We believe that all people should be able to live their life free from fear, including fear of religious intolerance; that human rights are applicable everywhere; and that the universal declaration of human rights, which enshrines the freedoms of thought, conscience, faith and religious practice, has the same resonance now as it did when it was enshrined almost 80 years ago. It is distressing, therefore, to see Christians across the world persecuted and, worse still, to know that for many the situation is deteriorating. Today, at least 318 million Christians live lives subject to high levels of persecution and discrimination—an increase of 12% on 2021. Moreover, the number of countries that Open Doors considers to be conducting extreme or very high levels of persecution against Christians tripled in the past decade from 23 nations to 60. It is no coincidence that those statistics rise in parallel to increasing levels of conflict and instability around the world. Four of the top five nations in which Open Doors judges that the most extreme persecution of Christians takes place—Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Sudan—have suffered particularly acute civil strife and are highly fragile. When nations collapse into violence, it is often minority groups, whether ethnic or religious, who suffer first and most. Sudan, where the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe is taking place and where more than 25 million people are in need of food support, is home to more than 2 million Christians who have been swept up in the brutal conflict. More than 150 churches have been destroyed—some deliberately targeted—and there are accounts of Christian leaders who have been murdered.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  Surrey has 70,000 potholes—5% of all the nation’s potholes and the most in the country—so I welcome the extra money for potholes, but given the recklessness of the Conservatives in Surrey, how will that help my constituents?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for providing advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support his rebuke of the Israeli Government for detaining two hon. Members of this House and denying their entry into the state of Israel. I am disappointed, however, that this House has not been able to speak with one voice on this matter. I was shocked by the leader of the Conservative party’s comments yesterday morning, and I am deeply disappointed by the shadow Minister’s comments today. The Liberal Democrats believe that Members should be free to advocate without fear or favour on issues of national and global importance. We believe it is vital for parliamentarians to be able to see for themselves the realities of the situations we discuss in this Chamber. Israel’s actions are inconsistent with the behaviour we would expect from an ally and from a democracy, and it is regrettable that the leader of the Conservative party and the party spokesperson do not agree. Transparency in the middle east is vital for securing a long-lasting political settlement, which must be based on openness and trust. Has the Foreign Secretary since made clear to his counterpart in the Israeli Government that such treatment of parliamentarians is unacceptable, and that no further parliamentarians will be treated in that way or denied entry into Israel? Will the Foreign Secretary also raise with his counterpart this morning’s deeply disturbing reports of Palestinian detainees being subjected to torture, and this weekend’s report that the initial IDF account of the deaths of 15 aid workers at the hands of Israeli forces has been contradicted by video footage from a victim’s mobile phone?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Gaza: Israeli Military Operations · Hansard source

  More

  Israel’s expansion of military activity in Gaza, including a strike on UN medical facilities, displacement of civilians and the Defence Minister’s new proposal to seize large swathes of territory is gravely disturbing. It seems that international humanitarian law is being violated. This week’s reports that the Israel Defence Forces killed and buried 15 humanitarian workers in a mass grave is also appalling. The ceasefire must be restored. Israel must immediately end its illegal blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza to bring desperately needed relief to 2 million people who have suffered enormously. Hamas must also release the remaining hostages immediately and unconditionally. Will the Minister update the House on the conversations he is having with Israeli, American and middle eastern partners regarding the restoration of the ceasefire? All sides must recommit to a political process. He says that there is only one route, so I ask him once again: will this Government now recognise a Palestinian state, giving hope to millions of Palestinians? Will he also outline what the UK is doing to hold those who attack aid workers in violation of international humanitarian law accountable and to protect those aid workers who remain in Gaza?

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

  More

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

• 31 Mar 2025 · Myanmar Earthquake · Hansard source

  More

  I share the grief expressed by the whole House for the people of Myanmar. It is heartbreaking that a country that has already suffered four years of brutal civil war now faces further devastation. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s announcement of £10 million to support the emergency response. It is vital that these funds reach those most severely impacted by the disaster as quickly as possible. Can the Minister confirm how much funding has been dispensed so far and outline the steps her Department is taking to translate funds into lifesaving aid as quickly as possible? As the death toll continues to rise and the ultimate scale of the disaster becomes clearer, will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to increase our humanitarian support to match the needs on the ground? In the spring statement, we saw that the UK’s development spending faces a cliff edge in 2026, with almost £5 billion in cuts anticipated by that time. That will reduce the UK’s ability to respond to disasters and provide the long-term consistent support that rebuilding Myanmar and its economy will require. Will the Minister confirm that bilateral aid to Myanmar will remain a priority? The military junta in Myanmar has long blocked aid access for civilians in opposition-controlled areas. Aid workers have been attacked, and we hear reports that aid workers responding to the earthquake fear junta arrest and interference. What are the Government doing to ensure that humanitarian aid is getting through and that responders on the ground can work free from repression? Will the Minister outline the Government’s diplomatic response to the wider conflict and their response to what the UN are calling reports of human rights violations? Myanmar needs our support in the aftermath of this tragedy. As the world’s spotlight turns to it, I urge the Government to take this opportunity to use every lever they can to push for an end to conflict and for a future democracy.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Nutrition for Growth Summit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing the debate. The Nutrition for Growth summit is an opportunity for the UK to reaffirm our country’s commitment to eradicating hunger. Since 2012, when we founded and hosted the inaugural Nutrition for Growth summit in London following our hosting of the Olympic games, Britain and British leadership have achieved so much. We helped to raise £17 billion to fight malnutrition and between 2015 and 2020, we surpassed our goal of reaching 50 million people with food assistance and nutrition-relevant programming, saving countless lives. But now we are at an inflection point, and there is a risk that progress on nutrition and the development goals is slipping. In the UN’s recent report, we were warned that the world is on track to meet just 17% of our 2030 targets. On a further 17%, we have regressed, and nowhere has there been greater regression than on sustainable development goal 2, on zero hunger. Driven by spreading conflict, worsening climate change and the disruption of the pandemic years, the number of those suffering from malnutrition—

• 25 Mar 2025 · Nutrition for Growth Summit · Hansard source

  More

  It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As I was saying, driven by spreading conflict, worsening climate change and the disruption of the pandemic years, the number of those suffering from malnutrition has risen by 150 million in five years. At this moment, we have a broader challenge. The Government have chosen not to redouble efforts to fight hunger, but to slash the official development assistance budget to its lowest level this century. We believe that that is a moral and strategic mistake that will exacerbate food insecurity and render all of us here in the UK less safe. Since the Prime Minister’s announcement in February, there has been little clarity about UK development priorities or about what existing promises this Government intend to honour. The Nutrition Action for Systemic Change report published last year found that the Government were then tracking to meet our nutrition for growth commitment, made following the 2021 summit in Tokyo, of spending £1.5 billion on nutrition objectives between 2022 and 2030. Just one week before the development budget was cut by 40%, the then Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), again affirmed the UK’s commitment to that £1.5 billion figure. Will the Minister today repeat that pledge and assure us that the UK will not renege on the resources promised by multiple Governments to fight hunger? In addition to worsening levels of hunger, the overall nutrition picture is growing increasingly complex. The so-called triple burden of malnutrition, obesity and vitamin deficiency requires solutions that combat all three issues together. Those solutions must encompass ready-to-use therapeutic food, vitamin A supplementation as well as other nutrients, and health interventions targeting obesity. Will the Minister share the specific steps that the FCDO is taking to ensure that UK nutrition policy addresses all dimensions of that triple burden, including by requiring that the development finance investments made by arm’s length FCDO bodies align with UK nutrition goals? Nutrition-specific ODA, often delivered in a context of urgent humanitarian need, is indispensable. It is regularly the difference between life and death for some of the world’s poorest. As we speak, the UN World Food Programme is closing offices in Africa. That agency received about half its funding last year from USAID—the United States Agency for International Development— so is now facing acute financial pressures, cutting the delivery of lifesaving RUTF and other supplies. The impact of USAID’s gutting is already devastating. In the coming year, reduced food assistance could result in as many as 550,000 deaths, according to The New York Times . We Liberal Democrats believe that there is a moral imperative for the UK to act in the face of that looming catastrophe. We believe that filling some of the funding gaps left by the retreat of USAID will require the UK to play a vital convening role, so could the Minister inform us of what conversations the UK is having and leading with partner nations, NGOs and other philanthropic organisations, aimed at catalysing targeted nutrition interventions? At the same time, we must recognise that highly focused, specific interventions are capable of addressing only about 30% of the most persistent nutritional challenges, such as child stunting and child wasting. Progress on the other 70% requires progress on a wide range of nutrition-sensitive development areas, including maternal health, agricultural productivity, WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene—and climate change, and vice versa. A pregnant mother experiencing malnutrition and unable to access multiple micronutrient supplements is far more likely to give birth to a stunted child. Even vaccines are less effective when delivered to children experiencing malnutrition. As the International Development Committee argued in its most recent report—as a Committee member, I must declare an interest—nutrition and food security are cross-cutting themes across UK ODA programming, so success requires not only highly targeted interventions, but a strategic approach that integrates nutrition throughout development work. I know that this integration is a priority for the FCDO, and I am pleased that the Minister will be championing a global compact on nutrition integration in Paris. However, according to the NASC’s 2024 report, from 2021 to 2022, the nutrition-sensitive share of the FCDO’s ODA spend actually declined. For humanitarian spending it fell from 27% to 22%, for health spending it fell from 11% to 5%, and for education spending it fell from 4% to just 1%. What concrete steps is the FCDO taking to reverse that trend and to model nutrition integration going forward? Moreover, what accountability mechanisms will be tied to the global compact on nutrition integration such that it changes behaviour and produces results? There may be no area of development linked as closely to nutrition as conflict. The World Food Programme found that conflict was the key driver of food insecurity last year, and it showed that two thirds of those facing acute food insecurity did so in fragile or conflict-affected locations. Not only do violence, conflict and instability lead to displacement and migration, and create a breeding ground for terrorism that can threaten us here in the UK, but they undermine our professed nutrition objectives. Yet the integrated security fund, which addresses acute national security threats and is partially funded through ODA, is facing significant cuts due to the Government’s decision to slash aid. Will the Minister therefore assure us that the Government’s development cut will not result in cuts to the ODA-funded portion of the ISF? I am also concerned that the cut will mean a further hollowing out of the UK expert capacity. When the Department for International Development was merged with the Foreign Office in 2020, it was expert teams that gave Britain the know-how on how to lead on areas such as nutrition, which were chronically under-resourced. Our capacity suffered as a result, and I urge the Minister to prioritise protecting the UK’s health and nutrition expertise, embedded in-country and in the FCDO. I am very pleased that the UK will be represented by a Minister at the Nutrition for Growth summit. I give our envoy all our support and encouragement in convening and corralling support for a compact on nutrition integration, yet it is difficult to lead on global nutrition policy when we are stepping back from funding nutrition. I remain deeply disappointed that no new financial commitments will be announced by the Government to mark the summit. Nutrition is foundational for development. Investments in nutrition are low cost and high impact, representing one of the highest value development initiatives. We also know how to do it. Indeed, we have achieved remarkable success, halving the proportion of people suffering from undernourishment in developing regions between 1990 and 2015. We have led that, but we are now in retreat. I urge the Government to renew that ambition, because nutrition is foundational. Without it, progress on global health, gender equality and peace building is nearly impossible, and the need for that is greater than ever.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would of course support such a move, and I urge the Government to listen and take action. Getting it right on glioblastoma is vital. Despite minor breakthroughs, exciting innovations and apparently promising research leads, for this disease, there has simply not been the improvement in survival rates that most cancers have had. To put it bluntly, glioblastoma remains a death sentence—an increasingly common one. In the UK, cancer diagnoses have increased, but although there are some worrying sub-themes, this trend is largely due to increased life expectancy. However, that is not the case with glioblastoma. In the past 30 years, rates in the UK have more than doubled. There has been far more of an uptick than is attributable to us all living longer. More people are developing this disease, yet we have failed to make meaningful strides on treatment and cures, or even on giving those with glioblastoma a little more time with those dearest to them. Now is the moment to do something about that. I welcome the Bill. I welcome its emphasis on improving research—I have already touched on drug development—and the provisions to facilitate clinical trials, because the grim reality is that for glioblastoma, those trials are hard to conduct. There are too few patients, and frequently their life expectancy is too limited. Anything that can be done to connect eligible patients with researchers faster and with less friction is valuable. I emphasise that there are great opportunities in front of us for accelerating research and making broad advances in the battle against rare cancers. Along with almost half my parliamentary colleagues, I am proud to have pledged my support for the Lobular Moon Shot project, which advocates a boost of around £20 million over five years for research on the basic biology of invasive lobular breast cancer, with a view to developing new treatments. Despite being the second most common form of breast cancer, lobular breast cancer is in many ways treated like a rare cancer. It is under-researched, difficult to diagnose through the standard screening mammogram, and often presents fewer symptoms than invasive ductal carcinoma, which makes up the overwhelming majority of breast cancer incidents.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Yes, lobular breast cancer is treated in many ways like a rare disease. I recently met my constituent Kate, who was diagnosed with lobular breast cancer in 2023. She explained to me that because almost all breast cancer research is based on the ductal variant, women like her are diagnosed later and often receive treatment oriented towards a cancer with a different biology from lobular cancer. Those two factors result in higher recurrence and lower survival rates. Kate has been in remission for more than a year, and has become an advocate for research. On her behalf, I ask the Minister whether she has met with the Lobular Moon Shot campaigners. What steps are the Government taking to increase research into the cancer? What consideration has she given to updating guidelines for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to encourage the use of MRIs to diagnose lobular breast cancer earlier? The moon shot idea is the right one. In fighting cancer we should set ambitious goals, and we should innovate until we meet them. Moreover, as the Apollo project shows, research into seemingly narrow things often has spillover effects, producing vast, unanticipated benefits. That is often true when it comes to orphan drugs. To take just one example, Gleevec has changed the game, and not just for one rare form of leukaemia; it is now used to treat a range of other cancers and conditions. The British pharmaceutical development sector is exceptionally strong, and now is a moment of potential. On genome mapping, artificial intelligence, biotech, immunotherapy and cancer vaccines, the UK is in a position to transform and save lives. I recognise the limited scope of the Bill, but I believe it to be vital. This House must take a keen interest in accelerating and incentivising research into rare cancers, including glioblastoma. This legislation meaningfully advances that goal. I will speak briefly about young people and children, and specifically a lovely girl called Maddie Cowey. At the age of 18, Maddie was diagnosed with an alveolar soft part sarcoma. Sarcoma is an uncommon cancer that can occur anywhere in the body. All cancers in someone of Maddie’s age are considered rare, but in her case, the classification was ultra-rare. Partly in consequence, it took five months for her to receive a diagnosis. Maddie had just started university. She recalled that at the time it “felt like my life was falling apart. In many ways it was and it did. It was a very lonely place.” Maddie was diagnosed almost 10 years ago now. There are no approved treatments for Maddie’s type of rare cancer, and she is undergoing a clinical trial. It is likely that she will remain on treatment for life. Maddie is amazing; she is brave and she will not let cancer define her. I bring up her story because cancer in young people is so uncommon that often it is diagnosed later. Neither medical professionals nor young people expect it, but the later a diagnosis comes, the more likely the cancer is to be lethal. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the rare cancers afflicting young people are caught earlier? Finally, I am reminded of something that Emily Dickinson once wrote about hope: “I’ve heard it in the chillest land, and on the strangest sea”. We must get this right. We must give sufferers hope. We owe that to Pip’s family—his wife Claire and his five children—and to Nicola in the Gallery, and her and Ian’s sons Adam and Oliver, and to so many others who have suffered and who are here with us. I believe that we can.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s legislation contains welcome provisions to address some of the behaviours that plague my constituents, which were allowed to flourish under the previous Conservative Government. My constituents will welcome a serious and renewed focus on combating shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, because the Conservatives decimated our police community support officers—in Surrey, they fell by 29% between 2015 and 2022—and eroded the close relationship between the police and the communities they serve. Ultimately, the provisions in this Bill that are intended to make places such as Esher and Walton safer must be backed by a genuine and sustained commitment to community policing, and by giving officers the time and resources to build trust and understanding with those they protect. In the past 12 months, arrests made by Surrey police for shop thefts have more than doubled. This is not merely a case of officers solving a higher percentage of crimes; in fact, the number of thefts detected by the police has also more than doubled. Surging levels of shoplifting are utterly corrosive for high streets in places such as Esher and Walton. They impose costs on retailers and may undercut residents’ faith in law enforcement and the ability of politicians to get things done, so I hope the Government will pursue this issue with urgency. The same is true when antisocial behaviour is not dealt with. I have received far too many emails and letters from constituents struggling with the conduct of neighbours. In such cases, the actions of a few can impose severe strains on so many. As one constituent wrote to me, there is an issue of fairness: ordinary people come for a quiet life, have work to do and have been left exhausted by noise, disruptions and even threatening behaviour coming from a small group. I recognise that this Bill accordingly highlights housing providers as relevant agencies with a role to play in tackling antisocial behaviour. However, when people feel threatened, there is no substitute for recognisable neighbourhood police with deep links to the community. Given the criminal sanctions attached to breaches of a respect order, can the Minister assure the House that community police will receive funding in line with the vital role they have to play in ensuring that the Government’s new orders do not become meaningless? Finally, I will address the protection of police officers. The police deserve protection from abuse. The Public Order Act 1986 was enhanced in 1998 to allow racially and religiously motivated abusive language or behaviour that is directed at emergency workers to be treated as an aggravating factor. However, there is a loophole in the legislation such that if this particular form of abuse occurs when both parties are in the perpetrator’s private dwellings, it is not treated as an aggravating factor. That is wrong. It leaves the mistaken impression that there are some circumstances in which the racial abuse of emergency workers is acceptable, and it fails to deter such behaviour. Will the Minister therefore commit to re-examining that issue and exploring the possibility of finally removing the anomaly?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Syria · Hansard source

  More

  The reports from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that at least 1,000 Alawites have been killed over the past few days are deeply concerning. This escalation in violence undermines Syria’s fragile transition from dictatorial rule under Assad, and it harms efforts to encourage religious and sectarian tolerance. At this stage, it is critical that we understand whether the violence represents spontaneous clashes between different sects or is the product of state-directed policy. This must inform the Government’s position on whether to lift sanctions to support Syria’s development and reintegration into the global community. I note that the interim Syrian Government have announced the establishment of an independent committee to investigate the violent clashes, but this must be followed up with concrete steps to protect Syrians of all ethnic and religious groups and ensure they are represented in the new Administration, as well as action to bring justice to those who have perpetrated violence in this conflict. The international community must also work with partners in the region to support Syria’s transition away from dictatorial rule, including by emphasising the importance of embedding religious and sectarian tolerance, as well as the rights of women, in the new Syrian regime. Will the Minister update the House on what he is doing to engage with partners in the region, including the Syrian Government, to promote respect and support for religious and sectarian tolerance in Syria? It is important, too, that this Government recognise that neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon have generously welcomed Syrian refugees, but they face immense challenges in providing food, shelter and essential services. Can the Minister outline how the cuts to international aid will impact our ability to support Syria’s economic development, including the cuts to bilateral aid to neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, where many Syrians have sought refuge?

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very pleased to speak in support of the safer phones Bill. I speak as the mother of four teenagers who goes into battle nearly every day on screen time, as a governor for eight years at a local school who has seen the damage that screens can do to young people’s mental health, and as a Member of Parliament who might be able to do something to turn the tide on the damage to our young people, who are being used as guinea pigs in the rapid advance of technology. We are well into the tech revolution, which will change everything. It is a force for good but, as with previous industrial revolutions, there are victims. In the first industrial revolution the victims were the children in the factories, and today our children need protection against a tsunami of tech and its attendant harm. The Bill, as originally intended, was a crucial step in safeguarding the wellbeing of children in our digital world, and I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for all his work to date in campaigning for safer smartphone use for children. As many Members have pointed out, the evidence before us is undeniable, and I will not rehearse what has already been said. However, I want to pull out a few facts. A total of 2.5 million children in the UK are using social media under age, and, crucially, before they have developed the necessary skills to navigate complex and risky online environments. Extended screen time has also spiked rapidly and become the norm for most young people. I commend the report from the Education Committee, which revealed that nearly a quarter of children now use smartphones in a way that is consistent with a behavioural addiction, and in some cases screen use starts as early as six months. By the time children reach the age of 12, nearly all of them have smartphones. Social media and mobile applications are not just tools for communication; many are inherently addictive by design, engineered to keep users engaged, whatever the cost, and I know this through my children. I echo the words of many Members today on the addictive nature and the battles that parents have. This is placing huge pressure on parents, who are in a battle with addictive algorithms that they cannot possibly win. I wholeheartedly supported the initial provisions in the Bill, as did hundreds of my constituents in Esher and Walton who wrote to me in support of the campaign behind it. Although I continue to support the Bill, I must express disappointment that it has been significantly watered down. What could have been a bold step in child protection has been reduced to mere provisions for Government research commitments and guidance revisions—actions that do not require legislation. The Government already committed to commissioning academic research on smartphone use last autumn, partly in response to the very welcome campaigning by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington, and we already have overwhelming evidence supporting stronger regulation. How much more evidence do the Government need? Headteachers across my constituency and parent groups in Molesey, Esher, Walton, Thames Ditton and Hersham have convened local campaigns, with nearly 1,000 signatories to parliamentary petitions on this issue, expressing huge concerns about excessive smartphone use, unregulated social media and the inadequacy of current regulations. I know that schools in my constituency were particularly encouraged by initial indications that the Bill would require schools to be mobile-free and would ensure Government support for schools as they seek to enforce effective and safe learning spaces. The headteacher of Esher high school, Andy King, illustrated to me just how much creative problem solving teachers are having to adopt in order to keep children focused on learning, when they are walking around with such an addictive invention right in their pockets. His school has been compelled to enforce a “closed backpacks only” rule, as opposed to open bags such as handbags, so that children are not distracted by seeing a notification pop up in their open bags in class. All the headteachers I met in my constituency talked about the inattention caused by phones and the inability to focus on a whole book. Research shows that it can take up to 20 minutes for pupils to refocus after engaging in non-academic digital activity. The rise in screen time has also been linked to declining attention levels, language skills and sleep quality. It is both a learning distraction and a serious health concern. As we celebrate International Women’s Day tomorrow, we should not ignore how children’s access to smartphones can undermine healthy relationships and the safety and wellbeing of women and girls. The Children’s Commissioner for England found that 79% of children had encountered violent pornography before the age of 18, with the average age of first exposure being just 13 years old. I know of a constituent whose child saw extreme pornography at 13 and was so traumatised that his efforts to clear his mind caused him to develop OCD. We also know that online sexual crimes against children have risen by 400% since 2013, and a staggering 81% of girls aged seven to 21 have experienced some form of threatening or upsetting behaviour online. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington has done to build the case for Government action, but it is a pity that we will not be able to test the will of Parliament for a much more ambitious approach to online safety from this Government. The Secretary of State has expressed frustration with gaps in the Online Safety Act and its implementation. This Bill could have been used to make urgent amendments to it. Why have the Government not used that opportunity, particularly when the Secretary of State indicated that there would be no new legislation any time soon? I urge the Government to stop hiding behind endless reviews and take concrete steps—including two specific ones—to protect young people now. First, services must be required to ensure minimum age limits on their platforms. Unfathomably, Ofcom’s draft children’s codes do not impose an obligation on regulated services to enforce their own terms of service on the minimum age of users on their platforms. In consultation on the codes, children’s charities argued for that and have campaigned on it ever since. Ofcom is not listening, and the Government are doing nothing to address this. The Bill could and should have been used to plug that gap, regardless of any additional evidence the Government feel they need before making further policy or legislative commitments. Will the Government commit to doing that? Secondly, with Meta’s announcement in the last couple of months that it is removing protections for vulnerable users from its content moderation policies, the Online Safety Act should be amended to introduce a mechanism preventing regulated services from rolling back protections in their terms of service, and setting minimum standards. Without a prohibition on reducing protections—even for children—under the Online Safety Act, platforms can keep rolling back on their user safety protections until they hit the level that is harmful for children. That cannot be right, but it can be fixed with an amendment to the Online Safety Act. Will the Government agree to use the Bill to do that? The Bill could have been a vehicle for real policy action. Although its provisions are not as powerful as I initially hoped, some progress is better than none, so I will be supporting it. I urge colleagues across the House not only to support the Bill, but to push for the stronger, bolder reforms that our children desperately need. To say that it is inevitable is not enough. Every day that we wait is another day that a child spends 18 hours online, potentially at grave risk. I urge the Government and us all to act.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  This month marks 10 years since the passing of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, which committed this country to spending 0.7% of our national income on international development. It was a proud moment that represented the culmination of almost half a century of effort and advocacy by my party, the Liberal Democrats. However, that legislation was created through a political consensus across the House, which built on the work of the reforming Labour Government of 1997, who committed to make poverty history, and was continued by a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Britain is a leader in international development due to both our expertise and our generosity, and our influence on the world stage has grown as a consequence. Development opened opportunities for trade and growth, and worked alongside defence and diplomacy as a third element of our foreign policy to keep us secure at home. The Prime Minister’s cut to the international development budget last week to 0.3% of GNI puts an end to that shared consensus. Let me be clear: Liberal Democrats support the increase in defence spending. We called for the uplift to 2.5% of GDP even before the Prime Minister committed to it, but we have laid out alternative funding plans. The world is changing fast, not least in the past six weeks, so we must adapt. But this diminishing of our development spend will make us less, not more, secure. International development serves our national and border security interests. It is our investment in a more stable world and it pays dividends. By contrast, when we retreat, actors whose values and interests are not ours seize the opportunity. Even as we watch, President Trump and Elon Musk gut USAID, which was responsible for a fifth of global development spending. China is moving to fill the gap, deepening its partnerships in the Indo-Pacific and Africa, where, in 2024 alone, Beijing agreed more than $50 billion in loans and aid. As we have heard, when budget cuts forced the closure of the BBC World Service’s Arabic radio in Lebanon, Radio Sputnik—the Russian-backed radio service—moved in. Development spending serves our health here in the UK, and that is put at risk by the Prime Minister’s cut. Through our support for multilateral organisations, such as Gavi and the Global Fund, we have not only saved millions of lives, but prevented diseases such as Ebola from reaching pandemic proportions and causing devastation on British shores. As Anneliese Dodds’ resignation letter makes clear, last week’s decision will make it impossible to maintain all of the UK’s development commitments. It may mean cutting strategic programmes that make vital contributions to UK security, including peacebuilding and deconfliction work in fragile states. This will only produce more violence, more failed nations and more refugees and, in the breeding grounds of instability and extremism, risks the emergence of new terrorist groups that could threaten us here at home. The development cut will mean scaling back the climate finance that develops resilience and mitigation measures for countries on the frontline of climate change and reducing anti-poverty programmes for those very same nations. We know that for every 1% increase in food insecurity, there is a 2% increase in migration. The interaction of climate change and poverty with the high birth rates and extremely young populations in much of the global south is a recipe for the vast displacement of people. We know that in the next 10 years, 1.1 billion young people across the global south will become working-age adults, yet in those same countries we expect only 325 million jobs to be created, so supporting these economies is in our interests. More conflict will only exacerbate the situation. Last year, even as the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe unfolded, more than 2,000 people from Sudan crossed the channel on small boats. We already have the highest levels of refugees and migration since the end of the second world war, and the Prime Minister’s decision risks further displacement. Will the Minister clarify why no impact assessment was done in advance of these cuts? When will it be done, and when will this House see it? In 2023, the UK spent 0.2% of GNI on official development assistance within the UK, more than £4 billion of which was used to host in-country refugees. If anything like that continues, we will be left with just 0.1% of GNI to finance our overseas aid objectives. That would make our aid spend the smallest of any of the 32 countries that comprise OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, save for Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, and lower than the rest of the G7. That is a long way to fall from being a global leader in development spending and the second biggest donor of the G7. Will the Government reconsider their decision to count in-country refugee costs as ODA, so that what little remains after this cut can be used to advance UK interests abroad? Will the Minister confirm that, in view of the Government’s statements in the other place yesterday, the money for the Integrated Security Fund will be ringfenced? Can he also confirm that, to safeguard British soft power, the current level of ODA allocated to both the BBC World Service and the British Council will be protected? Will the Minister clarify how much of the total 0.3% has already been assigned to multilateral commitments? Is the money still ringfenced? If it is, how much will be left available for bilateral assistance? How will this cut affect UK-run programmes in Sudan; in Gaza and the west bank; in Jordan, where UK ODA is used to support displaced people and prevent future waves of refugees; in the DRC; and in Myanmar? Most importantly, is 0.3% the floor or the ceiling? In the past, Britain’s overseas aid spending, which has reached 13.8 million people with food aid, helped 95 million people to cope with the effects of climate change and inoculated 15 million children with lifesaving vaccines, has reflected the deep generosity of the British people—we see that again and again in just how much is donated to appeals in response to natural disasters across the world—but we should never mistake development for charity. We reap the benefits of a safer, richer world through increased trade and growth and—critically—through our security, national health and border security. I had hoped that the Government would reset the UK’s place on the world stage, as they promised. I had hoped that they would return us to the 0.7% target, as promised in their manifesto. In the past, Labour Front Benchers, including the Prime Minister, spoke with vigour about the importance of development for security and the short-sightedness of previous Conservative cuts. Now, in dereliction of its values, Labour has gone further than the Conservatives ever did. The world is becoming ever more dangerous. The norms of the international order have been turned on their head. Only yesterday in the UN, the United States denounced the sustainable development goals developed collaboratively in pursuit of a better world. The Liberal Democrats had hoped that the UK would step up and lead on development, recognising its vital importance to our future security. Instead, the Government have cut development to its lowest level this century. That is a short-sighted, strategically unwise decision that will leave us less safe. It is not only the millions of the world’s poorest who will feel that, but our constituents, too.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  What message does the Minister think the Government send about their commitment to international aid in Gaza—and, indeed, anywhere else—by not only cutting it to 0.3%, which is its lowest level this century, but removing the ability of this House to scrutinise that cut or any remaining spend by moving ministerial responsibility for aid and development from this Chamber to the other place?

• 4 Mar 2025 · NICs Increase: Impact on Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the planned increase in employer national insurance contributions on economic growth.