Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations

Monica Harding Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. This is an important and timely debate. I thank colleagues for their powerful contributions. I also thank the petitioners, including 479 of my own constituents in Esher and Walton, and those who have written to me about the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.

Two years of brutal war have unleashed unimaginable suffering. The ceasefire may have quietened the shelling, but it has not rebuilt homes, recovered food supplies or restored the basic systems needed to sustain life. Violations continue on both sides and the reality on the ground remains desperate. After an estimated 70,000 deaths, a million people are sheltering in overcrowded, unsafe displacement sites, some without shelter, and the entire population is in humanitarian need. Food, water and healthcare networks have broken down. Famine conditions persist in northern areas, driven directly by the obstruction of humanitarian access. Clean water is scarce, disease is spreading and hospitals across the strip are shut or barely functioning.

The atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023 were abhorrent; the violations they have continued to commit, even after the ceasefire, are abhorrent and a complete breach of international humanitarian law. The deliberate murder of civilians, the abduction of hostages and the refusal to release the remaining deceased hostages are all blatant violations of international humanitarian law. But let me be absolutely clear: what we are seeing in Gaza today is the horrific consequence of the laws of war being treated as optional.

International humanitarian law exists to shield civilians from the worst excesses of war. All parties have a legal and moral duty to uphold it. The International Court of Justice has again confirmed Israel’s binding duty, as the occupying power, to guarantee effective humanitarian access. International humanitarian law in Gaza has been breached and disregarded over the past two years. Aid should never have been prevented from entering Gaza. Gaza now needs hundreds of aid trucks every day to meet basic survival needs, but only a fraction reach their destination. Barely half of UN humanitarian missions have been permitted to proceed. That is completely unacceptable.

We were meant to see the scale-up of humanitarian assistance, but some £50 million-worth of international non-governmental organisation relief sits outside the crossing, unable to enter. Aid agencies warn that, without fully opening all land crossings and guaranteeing predictable access, genuine humanitarian recovery will remain impossible. Thousands need urgent medical evacuation, but only a tiny number have been evacuated since the ceasefire. Winter will make an already dire situation even worse.

Several crossings are open for limited humanitarian cargo, but the volumes allowed through fall far short of basic needs. The vital crossing point at Rafah remains closed, blocking civilian movement entirely, while key internal routes, especially into northern Gaza, are still restricted. We must also acknowledge that some aid has been diverted or obstructed by Hamas, further undermining humanitarian efforts and deepening civilian suffering. Humanitarian access must never be a bargaining chip, never subordinated to political agendas and never used to engineer local governance outcomes. Its neutrality is the only thing that ensures the protection of civilians.

International organisations such as the World Food Programme have been absolutely clear that they have the food, the staff and the systems ready to deliver at full scale. They now need a ceasefire that genuinely upholds and guarantees uninterrupted humanitarian access. With sustained, predictable access, the WFP can feed up to 1.6 million people for three months, and start restoring Gaza’s food systems and dignity through digital payments.

Donations to Gaza have fallen sharply since the October ceasefire, creating a catastrophic funding gap just as winter arrives, and leaving millions facing hunger, illness and collapsing infrastructure. Since the ceasefire, the UK has provided only £24 million in additional humanitarian aid for Gaza, while UN member states have met just 37% of the $4 billion sought under the 2025 flash appeal to support the 3 million people across Gaza and the west bank. That comes on top of the wider decision to slash overseas aid to its lowest level this century, with funding for the Occupied Palestinian Territories falling sharply; it is 21% smaller than it was last year.

Countries such as Germany and Ireland are stepping up with more serious humanitarian leadership and have shown greater urgency. The UK should do the same. Our people are no less generous than theirs. The British care deeply about Gaza, as shown by this petition. At a moment like this, Britain should also be at the vanguard of diplomatic efforts.

The Government must engage proactively with our international partners. Will the Minister tell us what conversations the UK is currently having with the Israeli Government to get aid in, and what conversations it is having with the United States, our European allies and other like-minded partners to secure unhindered humanitarian access into Gaza? What diplomatic conversations are under way to ensure that all parties comply with international law and allow aid to reach civilians without obstruction?

It is vital that UN agencies are not scapegoated or weakened at the very moment when they are most needed. The UK must be unequivocal: we stand with the UN system, including UNRWA; removing it without a viable alternative will plunge millions deeper into crisis. We cannot allow humanitarian agencies to be dismantled in the middle of a catastrophe.

The Liberal Democrats believe that Britain must reclaim its humanitarian leadership. I therefore urge the Minister to take the following steps. First, the Government should restore the legally enshrined target to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid. Doing so would restore the UK’s ability to deliver lifesaving assistance at the scale required. Can the Minister assure us that there will be no further cuts to official development assistance in the autumn Budget or thereafter? Will he confirm whether he intends to go beyond the £24 million pledged to Gaza since the ceasefire?

Secondly, the Government should ensure that lifesaving humanitarian aid flows freely into Gaza. They must use every diplomatic channel to secure the full opening of land crossings, predictable UN approvals, the restoration of Rafah for civilian movement and an end to the unlawful restrictions that breach international humanitarian law and violate ICJ orders. How do the UK Government plan to engage with the Israeli authorities to ensure neutral, UN-led humanitarian delivery, free from political interference, and to press for all land crossings, including Rafah, to be fully opened so that aid can reach those who need it? Have the Government raised the new registration restrictions with the Israeli authorities? If so, what specific assurances have they sought to ensure that no more barriers are created to the work of international NGOs?

Thirdly, should access continue to be denied, the UK must work with international partners to secure alternative delivery channels. Britain must co-ordinate pressure for sustained access to all crossings, while scaling up alternative routes in parallel. That requires pressing the US and Israeli authorities to open the crossings and urging the United States and partners in the region to use their influence to secure predictable humanitarian access. Fourthly, the Government must continue to push for a lasting two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.

Those on all sides must be held accountable for war crimes. While we hold our breath on Gaza, violence and restrictions in the west bank have escalated sharply. The situation is deeply alarming and continues to deteriorate. More than 1.2 million people there need assistance, around 40,000 are displaced and more than 200 Palestinians, including around 50 children, have been killed this year, alongside Israeli casualties from attacks. Large-scale Israeli operations, ongoing demolitions and severe movement restrictions are driving further displacement and disruption. Settler violence remains at crisis levels, with repeated attacks damaging homes, mosques and vehicles and further eroding livelihoods. I ask the Government to end all trade with illegal west bank settlements and insist on full humanitarian access and protection for Palestinian civilians across the west bank.

The situation in Gaza is a moral disaster, one made worse by deliberate choices. This is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe. Britain must lead with aid, with diplomacy, with integrity and with urgency to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld, that civilians are protected and that this country is remembered as one that chose to act, not one that chose to look away.

Modern Day Slavery: Pakistan

Monica Harding Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this important debate to the House.

Modern slavery remains one of the greatest violations of human dignity in the world. In Pakistan, an estimated 2.34 million people—more than one in 100—are affected by modern slavery. That figure places the country among the top 20 worst affected globally. Debt bondage, exploitative labour practices and gender-based inequality are driving millions into coercion and abuse. Pakistan’s vulnerability score of 80 out of 100 demonstrates the scale of systemic risk—from the effects of conflict and poverty to weak governance and entrenched inequality.

Although Pakistan has made some progress, its Government response score sits at just 37 out of 100—below the regional average—according to international humanitarian rights groups. Victims continue to be trapped in cycles of exploitation, with women in agriculture and children in bonded labour facing the harshest conditions. Natural disasters, including the devastating 2022 floods, have intensified that vulnerability; they have destroyed livelihoods and forced many into debt bondage simply to survive.

The United Kingdom has a unique and historic relationship with Pakistan. Our two nations share deep ties through trade, and we continue to work with the new Government of Pakistan for the benefit of all Pakistanis. That partnership gives Britain an opportunity but also a responsibility to speak up for those whose voices are silenced. We should be deeply concerned by Pakistan’s lack of action on modern slavery, as well as its lack of action to safeguard human rights, protect religious freedoms and defend minority communities. The UK must use its influence to encourage genuine reform and work with international partners to ensure that all Pakistani citizens enjoy the fundamental freedoms and protections they deserve.

The hon. Member for Strangford laid out the evils of bonded labour in Pakistan. Pakistan has one of the highest numbers of bonded labourers in the world, with over a million workers in brick kilns. Bonded labour is an abuse analogous to slavery. As we have heard, Pakistan’s Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992 was enacted to outlaw bonded labour, but its implementation has been a significant challenge, perhaps because of a lack of political will or capacity.

What help is the UK giving to Pakistan to implement the 1992 Act by encouraging will and assisting with capacity? What conversations have the Government had with the Government in Pakistan about ending modern slavery, and what support can the Government give to Pakistan, given their own commitment to achieving sustainable development goal 8, which targets modern slavery?

We must also remember, however, that modern slavery is not a tragedy that happens only overseas; it is happening here in the UK, often hidden in plain sight. It is present on our farms, in our care homes, in nail salons and even in drive-through restaurants. Modern slavery is not a crime of the past. Last year alone, more than 19,000 potential victims were identified in Britain. That rise has been fuelled by deepening inequality and increasingly sophisticated criminal networks that exploit vulnerabilities and target victims through online platforms and social media.

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was rightly hailed as a landmark piece of legislation and demonstrated that the UK could lead the world in confronting this abuse, but nearly a decade on, charge and conviction rates for offences under the Act remain too low. The result is a system where victims slip through the cracks and too many perpetrators escape justice. If we are serious about ending exploitation and working with our partners in other countries, we must strengthen our own enforcement, protect survivors and ensure that the law delivers accountability as promised.

We Liberal Democrats believe that the fight against modern slavery must begin with action, both at home and abroad. Primarily, we would introduce a business, human rights and environment Bill that would establish a clear duty of care on companies, financial institutions and public bodies. The legislation would require businesses to carry out due diligence to prevent human rights abuses, including modern slavery and child labour, across their global supply chains and to report openly on their actions. Will the Minister commit to exploring similar legislation, and will she ensure that UK-linked supply chains in countries like Pakistan are not allowed to rely on vulnerable or exploited labour?

The UK also has a major role to play in demanding fairness in global supply chains. The fast fashion industry, including major sourcing from Pakistan, has long been associated with unethical labour practices. I hope the Minister will set out today what steps the Government will take to ensure that no product entering the UK market is tainted by exploitation.

Beyond supply chains, more can be done nationally. I would welcome a promise from the Government that they will review the modern slavery strategy to help them to address modern and evolving trafficking methods and take a victim-centred approach. They should restore the modern slavery fund to support innovative approaches to tackling modern slavery and back it up with a multi- year funding model.

Our message is simple: Britain must not profit from exploitation. That means holding corporations accountable where they are complicit in abuse abroad and ensuring that our trade and foreign policy reflect the values we hold dear: justice, dignity and human rights for all.

For the Liberal Democrats, human rights and preventing violations of international law such as modern slavery are the centrepiece of foreign policy. We continue to work tirelessly to abolish the death penalty globally and end the use of torture, and we would ban imports from regions complicit in egregious abuses. However, it is not enough to react to abuse; we must build the conditions in which dignity and liberty can thrive—from Pakistan to China and from Ukraine to Sudan.

On Pakistan specifically, I would like to turn to the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. Ahmadis are among the most persistently and brutally persecuted people in Pakistan. Their crime, in the eyes of the law, is simply to call themselves Muslim. Under Pakistan’s constitution, Ahmadis are legally defined as non-Muslims. They are forbidden to use Islamic terminology, barred from voting and denied freedom of worship. Last week, I met the leaders of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in the UK, who described to me the grim reality of state-sponsored persecution. Fourteen Ahmadis are currently imprisoned, some for more than five years, for practising their faith. Their schools have been nationalised, their literature banned and their mosques destroyed. In the past two years alone, there have been over 50 attacks on Ahmadi places of worship and over 420 desecrations of Ahmadi graves.

For the Liberal Democrats, freedom of religion means freedom for all faiths whenever and wherever. I ask the Minister to make this issue a diplomatic priority. The UK must use its close relationship with Pakistan to press for immediate change, to hold perpetrators of mob violence to account, to release prisoners of conscience, to restore Ahmadi voting rights and to return nationalised schools. Britain’s voice matters and it must be used to defend those whose only wish is to live and worship freely.

Modern slavery and persecution thrive where the rule of law is weak and indifference is strong. We will not turn away. We stand for a world in which every person in Pakistan and beyond can live with freedom, dignity and hope. Britain must once again lead with moral clarity and compassion, using its influence to not only condemn exploitation, but confront it, and building a future where human rights are not the privilege of the few but the inheritance of all.

Official Development Assistance Reductions

Monica Harding Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this debate on a critical issue. It is critical because we are at a cliff edge. This year, with 120 armed conflicts, more than at any moment since the second world war; this year, with nearly 320 million people facing acute hunger; this year, when 2024 was the hottest year on record; this year, when the deadly trio of climate, conflict and hunger collide to force the displacement of 123 million people, this Government decided to slash the aid budget to the lowest level this century—after, because of or in spite of the United States Administration’s decision to close USAID, cut the foreign assistance budget by 85% and shed 10,000 jobs.

This year, under a Labour Government, we surrendered our global leadership on aid and development. That represents one of the most consequential and devastating decisions of recent years, with long-term consequences for our stability, security and prosperity, and it will cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

It is a mistake, both morally and strategically—strategically, because aid is not an act of charity, as we have already heard today. It is a long-term investment in our future; it is not a cash machine in the sky, but a deposit account from which we withdraw for our own prosperity. There is a reason why some of the most vociferous voices against these cuts are those of former military leaders. In contradiction of the Government’s attempt to reframe the cuts as a choice between defence and development, they argue instead that the two are mutually supportive. To undermine one, is to weaken the other; as former US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis said:

“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”

These are short-term decisions with long-term repercussions—easy now, but so hard further down the line, and costing Britain more in the long run.

Through our development spend, we invest in peace and resilience building. We know that when fragile states collapse, they create breeding grounds for extremism and terror, and that preventing wars is cheaper than fighting them. The ONE campaign has emphasised that every dollar invested in conflict prevention saves more than $100 in emergency response. However, funding for the UK Integrated Security Fund has been reduced by over £130 million this year, leaving vital peace building efforts without support.

Strategically, cutting aid is a mistake because aid keeps our borders safe. When we invest in the economic development of a nation, we give people opportunity and a stake in the success of that nation, so they will choose to stay there rather than feeling compelled to seek those things in Britain by migrating to these shores. As the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world unfolds in Sudan, in 2024 alone more than 2,000 Sudanese nationals crossed the channel on small boats.

Strategically, cutting aid is also a mistake because development spend protects our health and security, and the NHS, keeping disease from our shores. Strategically, it is a mistake because development spend creates the conditions for trade and partnership, strengthening economies that become markets for British goods and services and promote growth.

Strategically, cutting aid is also a mistake because development is an investment in our soft power—the global influence that comes from being a trusted partner. When Britain leads on aid and development, our voice carries further in diplomacy, trade and security; when we withdraw, our influence diminishes and our adversaries, who watched us jealously, knowing the value of that influence, move in. As we cut our soft power tools, such as the British Council and the BBC World Service, China and Russia cement their influence across the African continent.

Those are the strategic arguments against cutting aid, but the moral arguments alone are enough. Government projections show UK aid spending falling from £14 billion to around £9 billion by 2027, a near one-third reduction in real terms, and the actual numbers are far worse. In-country donor refugee costs, or asylum accommodation costs, are consuming a fifth of our entire aid budget. What right have the Government to spend taxpayers’ money—including that of my Esher and Walton constituents—money that had been allocated to help the poorest in the world, in our own country to balance the inefficiencies of the Home Office?

Will the Minister ensure that the FCDO follows the International Development Committee’s recommendations, as set out in its report on the FCDO’s approach to value for money, published last week, that formal steps should be taken to cap the ODA that the Home Office can use for in-country donor refugee costs, including capping those costs at a fixed percentage of total ODA, and make a formal commitment that unspent ODA funding by other Government Departments is channelled back into the FCDO?

Analysis by Save the Children estimates that UK aid cuts will leave 55 million of the world’s poorest without access to basic resources, 12 million without access to clean water or sanitation and 2.9 million fewer children in education. This year’s cuts to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, alone will mean 400,000 fewer lives saved.

Let me be clear about what all that means on the ground: in the DRC, a flagship girls’ education programme that we supported will close early next year, and 170,000 children, mostly girls, will lose access to education. Other hon. Members have mentioned Yemen. In the DRC, around 27 million people face acute food insecurity, while cholera and measles spread unchecked. In Afghanistan, half the population—23 million people—require humanitarian assistance. All those are unprioritised by Government cuts. I could go on.

The Liberal Democrats believe Britain can and must reclaim its leadership on development. We need a clear road map to restore the legally enshrined 0.7% aid target. I ask the Minister: will the Government rule out any further cuts, and set out a plan to return to 0.7%?

We must embrace the role that the US has abandoned as the facilitating and convening power. I urge the Government to take up that mantle again, as successive Governments have done before, including Prime Ministers from the Minister’s own party—Blair and Brown, pledging to make poverty history. Before she retorts that those were the good times, I remind her that the coalition Government reached 0.7% for the first time, after the financial crash of 2008. Those were choices. This Government’s choice is to follow Boris Johnson, but to cut deeper, and to join the Conservatives and Reform in a race to the bottom.

I urge the Government to retrieve their progressive mantle; reverse these cuts; restore our legally enshrined commitment and reclaim our leadership on the world stage. Let us make sure that Britain’s generosity, leadership and belief in humanity remain not only a lifeline but a light in our ever-turbulent world.

Sudan: Government Support

Monica Harding Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Brian Mathew]

I know my hon. Friend has military expertise so I thank him for his points. Crucially, we must also suspend arms sales to the United Arab Emirates. The fact that British-made weapons, tools and equipment could be flowing into the hands of those perpetrating these actions is terrible beyond words, and I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who said that equipment made on our soil must never end up in the hands of those committing such atrocities.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

My hon. Friend raises an important point in his powerful speech, and I would like to take it further. Even if British-made weaponry is not being diverted and ending up on the battlefield in Sudan, the UK is still breaching sections 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of its own arms export licensing criteria. Those rules not only prohibit the export of weapons that are proven to be misused, but they also restrict their sale to any country that may use arms to violate international humanitarian law. Does my hon. Friend agree that in exporting arms to the UAE, the Government have been acting contrary to international humanitarian law, and that we must stop selling arms to the UAE?

[Brian Mathew]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We must ensure that this business with arms is stopped. The atrocities that we are witnessing through the news, with the work of Barbara Plett Usher at the BBC, others at The Guardian and Al Jazeera, and through social media trickling through the media blackout, will be remembered for generations. El Fasher, like Srebrenica before it, will sadly likely stand as a symbol of what happens when the world turns a blind eye.

Gaza and Hamas

Monica Harding Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

If you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say a little bit about the wider evacuation operations. Evacuations have continued, including on Monday and Tuesday this week, both for students, who my hon. Friend has been so doughty in pursuing, and for highly medically vulnerable children who can benefit from UK support. That work continues, and I have been working alongside the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). We have been able to help many people to get to the UK to transform their lives by getting vital medical assistance and educational opportunities, which I hope will allow all of them to make a real contribution to the future of Palestine.

The operations to get people in and out of Gaza have been incredibly complex, not least given the most recent closures. I am afraid that there are very strict limits on how many dependants anyone can bring out. We have made an update to our policy in relation to students who are fully funded, which says that we can support a very small number of dependants to leave. I know that many hon. Members with an interest in this have engaged with me directly, and I reiterate that these operations remain incredibly complex. I am happy to talk to all hon. Members who have an interest, but there is neither infinite capacity in the UK to support people, nor, even with our partners, unlimited capacity to get people out. We have made an announcement and I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and many others across the House, but I wish to keep people’s expectations suitably focused on the very many constraints that remain on these operations.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Renewed violence in Gaza continues against a backdrop of unimaginable human suffering. Millions remain in desperate need of food, water and medical supplies, yet aid convoys continue to face unacceptable obstacles. The UN reported yesterday that many of the 177 aid trucks that entered Kerem Shalom were limited by congestion on coastal roads, in part because of damage to that aid route, meaning that they were forced to limit their supply of aid far below what was agreed. As yet, aid routes are not fully open, but Gazans cannot wait any longer. Aid restrictions should never have been there in the first place. What specific pressure are the Government exerting on Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli authorities to get the routes fully open and the aid in?

COP30: Food System Transformation

Monica Harding Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for bringing this critical debate to the House. Next month, the eyes of the world will turn to the Amazon and Brazil for the COP30 climate conference. The choices made there will define the world that our children and grandchildren inhabit. That is why it is imperative that the conference delivers real, sustainable progress.

Achieving that, however, requires much more ambition from the UK. It requires proper climate financing, a faster roll-out of clean energy and greater leadership on the world stage. So I ask the Minister: will the Prime Minister attend COP in Brazil? Just a few years ago, the Prime Minister rightly accused his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), of a failure of leadership for not attending the COP summit—so will the Prime Minister attend?

As Liberal Democrats, we have long championed international climate diplomacy. We have championed the Paris agreement, a landmark and historic agreement that remains the central framework for global climate co-operation. It is deeply disappointing that the United States is once again withdrawing from it under President Trump, joining the likes of Iran, Libya and Yemen. Climate change is not some distant, far-off risk. We already feel its effects here, with the hottest summer and the second-worst harvest on record, higher food prices, soaring insurance premiums and increasing water bills.

The effects are being acutely felt throughout the world. Zero hunger is the second of the sustainable development goals—the world’s blueprint for a better world. However, the SDGs have been casualties of the Trump Administration. According to the latest UN development reports, we are nowhere near that target. Over the last five years, climate change has contributed to driving 150 million more people into malnutrition, a reminder that this crisis strikes hardest at the world’s poorest. That is why the Liberal Democrats would champion reform of the international finance system, easing the debt burden and unlocking green investment in low-income countries. We would back the UN loss and damage fund to ensure a just transition for those who are suffering the consequences of a crisis they did not cause.

Climate change is not just an environmental challenge; it is a threat multiplier, fuelling displacement, conflict, hunger and disease from the Sahel to the Pacific. As an example, following the 2022 floods in Pakistan, the country’s malaria burden quadrupled. This Government have cut international development spending to 0.3% of GNI, the lowest level this century. But they have none the less claimed that international climate finance will remain a priority. Can the Minister confirm not only that the target of spending £11.6 billion on international climate finance between 2021 and 2025 will be met, but that the Government will make a bold new commitment to lead on climate finance and use development finance institutions to accelerate decarbonisation in low-income countries?

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Lady will recollect that, of that £11.6 billion, £3 billion was ringfenced for conservation. Does she agree that it is important that we do not lose that element of ICF?

[Monica Harding]

The hon. Member is absolutely right, and I ask the Minister to guarantee that that is ringfenced. What we do in Britain sends signals to the world about whether we are serious or simply posturing. Renewables are the greatest economic growth opportunity of our time, bringing jobs, investment and lower bills to the nation. However, in a crass, short-sighted attempt to imitate President Trump, the Conservatives and Reform have turned against renewables. Their attacks on green energy will scare off investors, destroy jobs and relegate Britain to the sidelines of the industries that will define our future. Both parties have abandoned our net zero target, a reckless move that will shatter our credibility on the world stage.

The Liberal Democrats believe that there is no trade-off between climate sustainability and food security. They can both be achieved if the right framework is put in place. The UK food security report warns that climate change, water insecurity and nature loss threaten global food supplies. Liberal Democrats would champion investment in sustainable agriculture, helping farmers in low-income countries build resilience to droughts, floods and changing weather. We would work through international institutions to build a fair and resilient global food system.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire laid out, will the Minister commit to signing the COP30 declaration on food systems, when it comes, and to adopting the priorities of deforestation-free supply chains, nature-positive farming and support for family farms?

Ambassador to the United States

Monica Harding Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I wish to express my sympathy with all the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and put on record my respect for the family of Virginia Giuffre who spoke so movingly about her on the BBC at the weekend.

In listening to the debate here and in the media over recent days, I am struck by the similarities with the one that took place over many years concerning the appointment of Mr Andy Coulson as the director of communications in Downing Street, from the point of his resignation in 2011 to his conviction for phone hacking in 2014. It was an appointment that David Cameron consistently said he would not have made if he had known at the time the information that subsequently came to light. For that reason, the question was constantly asked in this House and beyond: why did the security processes Mr Coulson went through prior to his appointment not uncover his past involvement in phone hacking?

Some people pointed to the fact that, unlike previous occupants of his role, Mr Coulson had not gone through developed vetting until long after his appointment and, indeed, had to resign before completing that process. Yet when the issue was directly discussed at the Leveson inquiry, this was the exchange between Lord Justice Leveson and the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell, which is important to recall. Lord O’Donnell said of developed vetting:

“I think some people have different understandings of what DV’ing would reveal. It wouldn’t have gone into enormous detail about phone hacking, for example.”

Lord Justice Leveson replied:

“No. It’s concerned with whether you’re likely to be a risk.”

Lord O’Donnell then said:

“Whether you’re blackmailable, basically, yes”.

David Cameron relied on that exchange in this House after Andy Coulson’s conviction on 25 June 2014, when he said, first—and I think, correctly—that Coulson’s security clearance was a matter for the civil service and not for the Prime Minister, and secondly, that even if Coulson had been fully DV-ed, it would not have uncovered evidence of his involvement in phone hacking.

I mention this now not to reopen the issue over Andy Coulson’s security clearance, or that of Dominic Cummings for that matter, but simply to remind Opposition Members that it is not new to have these kind of questions raised around the vetting of senior appointees. It is certainly not an issue that is specific to this Government or the particular appointment of Lord Mandelson. They would do well to remember that before they get too high on their horse in today’s debate.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[John Slinger]

I will not—[Interruption.] I will give way.

[Monica Harding]

This really is not hard. Is it not enough to know that Lord Mandelson enjoyed the patronage of a convicted child sex offender by staying in his houses? Was that not enough to prevent his appointment as our most senior ambassador?

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am setting out for the House very useful context within which this debate—[Interruption.] It is useful. Hon. Members can chunter from a sedentary position, but it is useful context.

Humanitarian Situation in Sudan

Monica Harding Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate and on putting Sudan in the spotlight, where it needs to be. This war is the greatest humanitarian catastrophe since the advent of the modern age, with 25 million people in acute hunger, famine abounding and a war on civilians and women and girls. It has displaced 13 million people. It directly affects us in Britain, too: about 10% of those arriving on small boats are Sudanese. I would like to focus on three questions: is our response to Sudan’s humanitarian need enough, are our diplomatic efforts enough, and is our work to support the establishment of a democratic civilian Government enough?

Across a world of proliferating conflicts, we are observing a growing disregard for international humanitarian law, with warring parties increasingly seeing access to humanitarian aid as a weapon to be wielded. The UK has attributed famine conditions in parts of Sudan to systematic aid obstruction by both the RSF and the SAF. We must continue to push for aid to get in and for warring parties to respect international humanitarian law, but we must also recognise that under these conditions, local groups are often best placed—and better equipped than international NGOs—to meet civilian needs.

Sudan’s emergency response rooms have become the international symbol of such groups. They are community kitchens, shelters and medical centres; they provide clean water; they treat and protect victims of sexual violence. Currently, they are reaching more than 4 million people. In response to my recent written question on the ERRs, the Government directed me to the £120 million spend announced by the Foreign Secretary at the London conference and said that a

“portion of this uplift”

would go

“to local responders…through the Sudan Humanitarian Fund”.

But so far this year, the Sudan Humanitarian Fund is just 23% funded. The total shortfall is over $3 billion, and a cliff edge looms because of cuts to USAID and other international donors. Our current contribution, although welcome, does not touch the sides of what is required.

I understand that the Government are still assessing how best to support ERRs and local actors, but I ask the Minister: since USAID has done the hard work of due diligence and bureaucracy, can we not step up now and do more? This Government have slashed Britain’s international development budget to its lowest level this century. Again, I urge the Government to reverse that. Ministers claim that Sudan will remain a priority, but it is unclear whether they will have the resources necessary to make a real impact.

The Government’s cuts now require us to rethink and reform. Localisation has risks, but we must acknowledge that when it comes to Sudan, the old ways may not work. The emergency response rooms may be an example of how to do it. Can the Minister please provide an update on how much of the £120 million pledged at the London conference has been allocated, and through which channels? Does that include support for displaced Sudanese in the region, particularly in Chad and South Sudan?

I turn to the subject of diplomacy. Before the International Development Committee, the Foreign Secretary told me that since the London conference he has had separate conversations on Sudan with the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He did not elaborate, however, so perhaps the Minister can. Have these conversations produced any tangible progress? If not, should the Prime Minister become involved to drive action at a higher level?

The war in Sudan is being worsened by outside state actors offering diplomatic, financial and sometimes military support to the warring parties. I am pleased that Britain has consistently expressed opposition to such behaviour, but words are not enough. It has been consistently reported and alleged, most prominently by The New York Times, that the UAE has been funnelling weapons to the RSF. The UN’s panel of experts on Sudan told the Security Council that those allegations are credible.

The UAE is a significant buyer of British military exports, so its purported actions raise serious concerns in relation to the strategic export licensing criteria. Not only are they a material consideration in relation to the risk of diversion, but they violate the spirit of other criteria. The FCDO is vital to decisions made by the export control joint unit, so I ask the Minister what assessment she has made of the reports that the UAE is supplying weapons to the RSF. That is a question that I have asked of her and the Foreign Secretary, and I have since received an inadequate response from the Minister for Africa. I will be grateful if the Minister can say what view the Government take of the compatibility of such actions with the strategic export licensing criteria.

It is not only arms that are fuelling this war; it is also gold. In response to a written question in June, the Government told me that since the war began,

“the UK has frozen the assets of nine commercial entities linked to the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces.”

With the exception of the November sanctions on two RSF commanders, all those measures were imposed under the last Government. It has been more than a year since this Government took office—a year in which famine conditions were confirmed, and in which almost nothing has been done to address Sudan’s war through further sanctions. Why? It is good that three Russian entities linked to Sudan’s illicit gold trade have been sanctioned, but Russia is not the only implicated nation. It is not even the most significant. By far the most important player in the global trade of Sudanese conflict gold is the UAE, so why have no steps been taken to impose consequences on the UAE for its role in that trade?

To make a dent on the global trade in Sudanese blood gold, Britain would have to use sanctions strategically with a view to dismantling entire systems, as opposed to merely punishing one or two offenders. We will have to work closely with willing partners, particularly the EU, Canada, the Nordic states and the United States. Can the Minister assure me that these conversations are ongoing?

Simultaneously, we must drive high-level initiatives to bring key commanders and external actors to the table. There are reports of a new peace framework taking shape in Washington—one built not on inclusion and democracy but, it seems, on power sharing, resource control and the legitimisation of the SAF and the RSF. A deal must not be made by outside states over the head of the Sudanese people, so I am glad to see the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to a Sudanese-led transition to civilian government and to extending the UN fact-finding mission to Sudan, investigating human rights abuses and crimes. However, the Government can and should be doing more to support Sudanese civil society and democratic groups, both in Sudan and in exile.

I am aware that the Government, through Global Partners Governance, help to fund the anti-war, pro-democracy coalition. How is the Government ensuring that these groups in exile remain representative and accountable to the Sudanese people? Can the Minister outline the recent work of the UK special envoy to Sudan? How is the special envoy engaging with pro-democracy organisations and diaspora groups, particularly those in exile throughout the region? We must work with as many like-minded partners as possible and with willing allies such as Canada, the Nordic states and others. Can the Minister share how Britain is building diplomatic support for an inclusive peace process, centred on the civilian democratic voices in Sudan for a sustainable peace?

Sudan

Monica Harding Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

The ongoing war in Sudan is the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe and the biggest since aid began. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, but I regret that in the past seven months there has been only one statement on Sudan from the Government.

Local and community-led emergency response rooms are central to the on-the-ground response. Will the Minister outline how the UK is increasing support to those ERRs? Since the London conference, what bilateral conversations have the Government had with regional actors and the US about Sudan? War crimes are being committed on an almost daily basis. The two principal warring parties oppose a democratic Sudan, so what are the Government doing to support Sudanese civilian groups and civil society fighting for the democratic future?

Since 2023, The New York Times has repeatedly reported that the United Arab Emirates is funnelling weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, and the UN’s expert panel on Sudan deemed those allegations credible. What are the Government doing to address the proliferation of outside weapons in Sudan, and to uphold and expand the arms embargo? How are they clamping down on the illicit international trade in Sudanese gold, which is financing this war? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the American judgment that chemical weapons are being used in Sudan?

[Catherine West]

The hon. Lady quite rightly pushes us to say more in this House. There have been lots of questions from Members when the Foreign Secretary has been answering broader questions, such as on G7 or NATO meetings, so Members across the House have asked questions under the umbrella of international affairs and the Foreign Secretary has replied to them, but we can always do more.

As the hon. Lady is aware, we need to keep up the momentum from the London Sudan conference. She asks who we are working with. We are of course working with the African Union. This is, first and foremost, a question of promoting leadership of African countries to deal with issues in Africa. The Foreign Secretary has redoubled his efforts as a well-respected Foreign Secretary within the African Union dialogues, and recently joined the EU-convened consultative group on Sudan in June, which I know the hon. Lady will appreciate and think is a worthwhile forum for us to be in. As mentioned, the friends of Sudan group in Geneva will also advance the work to protect civilians.

The hon. Lady mentions the UAE. Our message to any partners who may have an element of involvement in the conflict is clear: we need to press for a peaceful solution. All those supporting behind the scenes need to come together in the spirit of the London Sudan conference and talk about a peaceful solution for all.

On the hon. Lady’s last question, which was about gold in Sudan, I shall have to write to her.

Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response

Monica Harding Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

The Iranian regime is utterly committed to destabilising the middle east and exporting terrorism globally, and under the auspices of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is focused on threatening our own citizens in the UK. The Minister mentioned the introduction of the new power of proscription to cover state threats following Jonathan Hall’s review of terrorism legislation. Will he confirm that the Government will use that new power to proscribe the IRGC?

Iranian communities across the UK will perhaps feel the threat from Iran most severely. I also recently visited the headquarters of the Community Security Trust, which impressed on me just how vital it is, at a time when many Jewish people are feeling worried and afraid, that the CST continues to receive our support. Will the Minister outline what further steps the Government will take to protect these communities as well as the wider UK public from Iranian-sponsored terrorism?

[Mr Falconer]

Let me be absolutely clear. We will not tolerate any Iran-backed threats on UK soil: not against British Jewry; not against journalists; not against any British national or anyone who is resident here. As both the Foreign Secretary and I have made clear to our Iranian counterparts, we know the threat Iran poses to those in the UK, including to dissidents, journalists and the Jewish community. It must cease that behaviour now. We will not hesitate to take the strongest possible action.

The hon. Lady asks an important question about proscription. Given that the IRGC is an arm of the state, we have taken the view that it is important to look at where the mechanisms for taking action against other states can be improved. That is why Jonathan Hall did his review and why, on 19 May, the Home Secretary made the announcement that she did. I reassure the House that the IRGC is fully sanctioned in the UK. Proscription is a slightly different question. It is for those reasons that Jonathan Hall has done his review.