David Reed MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 15 Dec 2025 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister. Just on a point of clarification—I am sure that this will be hammered out in Committee—we have heard about the assistance that the Government have given over the past 15 months to UK Steel, Jaguar Land Rover and others, but it is important to talk about the significant cyber element. Jaguar Land Rover was hit by a big cyber-attack, and we saw a step change when the Government stepped in and essentially made British taxpayers the insurance company. Does the Minister see any risk in the Bill, and what message does it send to adversaries such as Russia, which he just mentioned?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The NATO Secretary-General, our service chiefs and intelligence leaders have warned repeatedly about the growing risk of conflict with Russia, yet the recent Budget did not reflect that reality. In fact, the MOD is cutting £2.6 billion in-year, and we have discovered this week that it is cutting overseas training just to try to balance the books. When the Minister speaks to service chiefs about the defence investment plan, does he ask them to plan for credible deterrents, or simply to accept that there is no cash behind the Government’s rhetoric?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When I look to the other House, across the political divide I see captains of industry—people who have led businesses small and large. Does the hon. Member see any merit in their arguments?

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  Twice.

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this important debate and giving us the chance to revisit what more can be done for those involved in the Chinook Justice Campaign. We have already heard in detail the circumstances surrounding the fatal crash of the RAF Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994. Like others, I begin by paying tribute to the 29 people who lost their lives that day in what remains one of the worst tragedies in the history of the RAF. Many of the passengers were members of the Northern Ireland security and intelligence community. Their deaths were not only a serious loss to this country’s security but, above all, a profound personal tragedy for each of the 29 families who lost loved ones that day. It is deeply saddening that, 31 years on, those families still feel that their fight for truth and justice—we have heard those two words repeatedly today—is unfinished. I am genuinely honoured to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Like many others here, I remember watching the BBC documentary series on this tragedy when it aired early in 2024. It laid bare the lasting impact of that horrific day, the grief carried by the families and the distress caused by the RAF board of inquiry’s now-discredited findings, which placed blame on the pilots. Long, determined campaigns have followed to clear their names, and I pay tribute to the families for those efforts. We can all agree that those documentaries were deeply sad to watch. For those who remember the event itself, it was a horrible mark on this country’s history in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that anyone who saw the documentary could fail to feel disappointed, or indeed frustrated, at the wholly unnecessary suffering that these families have endured. It took a 16-year fight, and a determined campaign by these families, for a formal acceptance that an injustice was done—that is a long time to have to live with that. In 2010, it was right that the Government at the time listened to the families and the repeated concerns raised by various Committees across both Houses, and commissioned the independent inquiry that finally set aside the findings of gross negligence against the pilots. Lord Philip’s conclusions cleared the pilots’ names, and formal apologies were issued to the families for the distress that they had carried for so many years. Many of today’s contributions have outlined what action Members would like to see from the Government, and I believe that there is cross-party consensus on our asks. The hon. Member for North Down reiterated the two aspects of truth and justice, and he laid out a practical approach to getting answers, as well as the mechanisms needed to find out what really happened. I completely agree with him that the families deserve truth, and I align myself with a key point that he made: we need to provide justice for the dead and—from what we have seen recently—restore faith among the living. Ultimately, we are all asking for this because no one wants to see such a thing happen ever again. The hon. Member laid out the three parts of the argument—the moral, the constitutional and the practical—and I think we can all agree that they are very compelling. I also put on record my apologies to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for missing him out in my last wind-up speech. He brings a great deal of experience to this House and contributes to many debates. He is also a veteran and speaks up for the people of Northern Ireland repeatedly. I completely align myself with his approach. The time and the energy that the bereaved families have had to put into the campaign to get basic answers is a stain on multiple Governments, and I really hope that answers can be found. I am glad that the Minister and the Government have agreed to meet the victims’ families before Christmas. That is important, and I look forward to hearing the findings. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said that an indelible mark has been left on so many lives across Northern Ireland. She lives and breathes that every day, and I know she fights for her constituents. She highlighted the loss to our intelligence and security community; losing such key personnel at a time of increased instability will have had a massive impact on operations in Northern Ireland. She talked about the need for openness and trustworthiness. It is right that the families and those who are interested in this matter find out what happened. We have heard several times today that there were significant inconsistencies in the multiple investigations over 31 years. She rounded off by saying something that the families would agree on: they are not seeking to blame anyone; they just want to find out what happened. The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) talked about the impact that the crash had on his constituency. I have watched the documentary and seen the interviews with the families, but it is difficult to put myself in the shoes of the local people who were just going about their daily businesses when such a horrific crash was inflicted on their community. It has had a lasting impact across multiple generations. He spoke about the previous investigations, many of which have been discredited. I am glad to see the effort he put in to get together the 51,000 names to be presented to the Prime Minister in a petition, and I heard his calls for a judge-led inquiry. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), my neighbour in Devon, talked about the years of uncertainty. He looks into matters of intelligence and security in this House and brings weight to this conversation. He talked about the inconsistencies between multiple investigations, and about the six inquiries over the years, which have not produced an acceptable response to the families. This issue is personal to me. I spent much of my career in the Royal Marines, and I relied on Chinooks. After a long night’s work in a hostile country, the moment that we heard one coming over the hill was the moment that we allowed ourselves to breathe. We trusted the aircraft and, of course, we trusted the people flying it even more. I know how highly trained and highly skilled the men and women who fly these aircraft are. They are utterly committed to their jobs. Having had the pleasure of being transported by special forces Chinook pilots, I can personally attest to their consummate professionalism. We knew that they would do everything in their power to keep us safe and get us where we needed to go. That is why the original finding of gross negligence was so hard to accept, given the complete lack of evidence. It ran directly against the RAF’s rule that deceased aircrew should be found negligent only when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Aircrew deserve the assurance that when something goes wrong every other explanation will be examined and, unless clear evidence points to fault, they will be given the benefit of the doubt. In this case, as we have heard multiple times across the investigations, there was a great deal of doubt, yet two of the RAF’s finest special forces pilots, unable to defend themselves or explain what happened, were held responsible. That decision ignored the uncertainty and the RAF’s own regulations. For those of us who have placed our lives in the hands of aircrew, I can understand why that feels like a breach of the trust that every service person must have in those responsible for bringing them home. We also know that there were persistent concerns that the aircraft itself may have suffered a malfunction—we heard that again from right hon. and hon. Members today. As has already been acknowledged, Boscombe Down, the military aircraft testing site, had repeatedly raised worries about the airworthiness of the Chinook HC2 variant. In the period leading up to the accident, those concerns became significant enough that Boscombe Down stopped flying the HC2 altogether. This is a very important point: if test pilots—people whose job is to push aircraft to their limits—decline to fly something because of safety concerns, that cannot be overlooked. Despite those warnings, the aircraft were still brought into operational service. I have waited for Chinooks in some of the most dangerous moments of my life. The Minister probably has similar experiences. I cannot imagine being sent an aircraft that was even suspected of being unsafe. If we ask people to risk their lives for our country, we must ensure that the equipment they depend on and the decisions taken on their behalf meet the highest possible standard. I very much hope that lessons are learned from this incident so that nothing like it ever happens again. With that in mind, I again offer the families, some of whom are here today, my deepest sympathies that the full facts of what happened on that day remain largely unknown. I can only imagine the anguish that brings. I understand entirely why the families are asking for the 100-year closure to be lifted. When the Chinook Justice Campaign approached my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, he wrote to the Armed Forces Minister seeking an explanation for that decision. I understand that the Government’s answer pointed towards GDPR restrictions and the assumption of a 100-year lifetime for sensitive material. I hope the Minister might expand on that. Personal information must be protected, but a century-long closure is a substantial barrier. Surely there is some way to provide the families with at least some sense or measure of clarity. Under the current approach, they will never see the information in their lifetimes. That is deeply sad for anyone who has lost someone and wants to find out what happened. I ask the Minister to reflect on the inconsistencies of the wider Government position. One of the main arguments that we have heard time and again over recent months in support of repealing the Northern Ireland legacy Act is that the victims’ families have a right to know what happened, but that principle does not seem to apply in this case. I hope that changes when the Minister meets with families. It is difficult to reconcile. The Ministry of Defence has said that the 100-year closure will be reviewed in 2029. Although I appreciate that that is part of a regular cycle, it must feel very far away for families who have spent decades searching for answers. I am willing to work with the Minister and the defence team to see what can be done. I ask the Minister to work closely with the Chinook Justice Campaign in the meantime and to provide whatever information can be safely shared.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Remembrance Day: Armed Forces · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real privilege to close this debate on remembrance and the contribution of the armed forces for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I think we can all agree that it is even more special for falling on Armistice Day. I place on record my thanks, and the thanks of Conservative Members, to the Royal British Legion, our armed forces personnel and their families. Over this remembrance weekend, they stood in the cold and rain—something I think we all endured this weekend—organised parades, supported services in every community, and ensured that people across the country could remember with dignity and pride. We are grateful for their service—not only this weekend, but every day. One hundred and seven years ago today, the guns finally fell silent on the western front. The first world war, which was said to be the war to end all wars, came to an end. The cost was unimaginable: millions of men and women never returned, and millions more came home forever changed. Families were torn apart, futures were rewritten, and a generation carried grief that shaped the century that followed. Remembrance is our solemn promise to that sacrifice that we will never forget it. But remembrance is not exclusive. It belongs to all of us. Today, we honour those who served in our armed forces in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth from every nation, every faith and every background. We honour the families who bore the silent burden of fear and separation. In the past 18 months, we have marked significant milestones in our national history, including the 80th anniversary of D-day, and we once again heard from the extraordinary men and women who served in the second world war, but we all know that that living link to history is fading, and as it fades, our responsibility to carry their stories forward only grows stronger. We do not remember to glorify war; we remember to understand its cost. We remember so that future generations understand why peace matters, and why it must be protected with everything we have. We all know that the world is becoming more volatile, more unpredictable and more dangerous. History teaches us something simple and profound: when nations forget the true price of conflict, they become far more vulnerable to repeating it. We have heard many strong and heartfelt contributions from Members from across the House, starting with the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who talked about how our armed forces personnel are deployed globally every day of the year, and how they truly represent the best of British. The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) raised an issue relating to the Falklands campaign and the Sir Galahad faced by her constituents from the Welsh Guards. I hope that the Minister, in her closing remarks, can shed some light for the hon. Lady. My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) talked about the bravery of one of his former units, the special forces, which saved lives in Iraq and other conflicts around the world, and the dangers of lawfare for morale. We heard from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), whose constituency has been the foundry and beating heart of defence. I pay tribute to her constituents, who really are at the forefront of keeping us safe. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke powerfully about his time in Afghanistan on Herrick 11. It was heart-wrenching to hear the young ages of his fellow soldiers who lost their lives on that battleground. We heard from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) about the 85-foot granite tower that provides a constant and visible reminder to his constituents of the cost of war. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) raised the important point that this time in November, around Remembrance Day, is one of the only times in the calendar that civil society gets the chance to look at the members of our armed forces, and it is imperative that we strengthen the link to the armed forces wherever we can. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) talked about military personnel transitioning into civilian life; I hope that this Parliament can ease that transition as much as possible. I think we all know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) was decorated in multiple wars. He is an experienced soldier and officer, and I really hope that the Government will listen to his words. We heard brilliant contributions from the hon. Members for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia). We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who, as we all know, is an expert on security and defence matters, and who really enriches debates when he talks about those issues. We heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), and from the hon. Members for St Helens North (David Baines), for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew). The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who is an experienced aviator from the RAF, raised the salient point that remembrance belongs to all of us. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) highlighted the significant contribution of her countrymen and countrywomen from Northern Ireland. I align myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) about our formidable Gurkha force. We heard contributions from the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). I align myself with the comments of the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) —a fellow south-west MP—who said that defence can be a real engine for growth, and I look forward to working with her on that in this Parliament. Finally, we had contributions from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger). I want to take the last few minutes to raise an important aspect of remembrance that I believe this House must confront more openly. Remembrance must not be limited to the conflicts that are easy to talk about— the ones where history gives us a clean narrative and a clean moral outcome. When we talk about the second world war, the story is instinctively understood: it is democracy and freedom prevailing over fascism and tyranny. Although the human cost was unbearable, the outcome was unambiguous. It is a conflict we can speak about with pride and respect. The challenge for our country going forwards is how we remember with the same respect and dignity conflicts in which the outcome was less clear. I rarely speak publicly about my service, but now that I am in this House, I feel a responsibility to speak up for my generation of soldiers—friends who were sent to war as a result of decisions made in this House. I believe that the British state needs to talk more openly about the recent conflicts we have asked our young men and women to serve in, including but not limited to Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. These are conflicts without victory parades, without neat endings, and without a universally agreed narrative, and because they are complex, we sometimes avoid speaking about them altogether. That silence has consequences. There is a growing feeling in parts of the veteran community that I hear when I meet former Royal Marines who served in places such as Northern Ireland and when I speak with those I served alongside in Afghanistan. The feeling can be summed up in two painful questions: “What was it all for?” and “Does my country still have my back?” As someone who served in Afghanistan during a period that is now under intense legal scrutiny, I cannot pretend that those questions do not sting. I served my country, and I have pride in the way in which we conducted ourselves, yet sometimes it feels as though the country I served now wants to paint me and others like me as something we are not. We risk creating a culture in which those who served feel judged rather than honoured and where stereotypes replace understanding and assumptions replace gratitude. There is a deep and genuine fear among veterans that the nation no longer stands behind them. I know that the Minister responding also served, and I hope that she will take these comments in the constructive spirit in which they are offered—from one veteran to another. I will not turn this remembrance debate into a debate on current politics, but as has been mentioned by many right hon. and hon. Members, a letter was written yesterday by nine four-star generals warning about lawfare and its impact on our armed forces. That should be a wake-up call to the Government. Legislation affecting those who served deserves full and open debate in this House. Most people who join our armed forces do so out of service to our country. We must remember that. Let us be clear that the courage shown in recent conflicts is equal to the courage shown in any war in our national history. The sacrifice is the same. The cost to families is the same. These young men and women went there because this House sent them. They answered the call of Parliament. They put on the uniform knowing the risks. Some returned with life-changing injuries. Too many did not return at all. We must not allow the complexities of a conflict to diminish the honour of those who served. Their courage is defined not by the outcome of a war but by the character they showed when our country asked them to go.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Defence Industrial Base · Hansard source

  More

  I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the appalling attack in Huntingdon over the weekend. We all know that the Government cannot deliver a strong defence industrial base without seriously boosting defence spending, yet multiple media outlets have very recently reported that the Secretary of State’s Department is asking the armed forces to make cuts of £2.6 billion this financial year. Very simply, can he tell us what will be cut to find the money?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I have one minute left and I will make my final points. The Act aimed to bring mandatory transparency, through standardised billing, greater rights to challenge charges, and easier routes to taking over management, but those reforms are not yet implemented. Why is that? I hope that the Minister, in his closing remarks, will set out a course for when those measures will be implemented, and will say what new legislation will be brought in to ensure that people are protected. I finish on a point on which I think we all agree: residents who are on these schemes do not need more consultations; they need action, and this Parliament must deliver.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is nice to have his name on the record. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for bringing the topic to the House’s attention. In my constituency, this is rapidly becoming one of the most frequently raised issues. The biggest problem is that people who have worked hard, saved responsibly and bought a home in good faith find themselves trapped in a system that is opaque, unaccountable, and, in the worst cases, exploitative. Like other Members, since being elected I have been inundated with complaints about one company in particular. We all know its name: FirstPort. It is, by some distance, the most problematic housing management company operating in my constituency. My office is dealing with almost 40 open cases relating to developments that it manages. The stories are depressingly consistent: residents describe unexplained charges, unclear billing and long delays in resolving the simplest issues—we have heard many such examples today. They send long chains of unanswered emails. They attend my surgeries exhausted and frustrated. When my team contacts FirstPort on residents’ behalf, we often wait an unacceptable length of time for a reply, and progress—if it comes at all—is slow. Earlier this year, I and other Members of this House met FirstPort’s managing director. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you see me as a chilled-out kind of guy, but I left that meeting with my blood boiling, and other Members had a similar experience. We asked straight- forward questions but received vague answers, rehearsed corporate language and no clear commitment to improving customer service. A group of MPs will meet FirstPort again soon, and I hope that the company has set to work in earnest. On reflection, what angered me most was that many of the people caught up in these issues are elderly. They feel intimidated by the complexity of the system. They are passed from pillar to post, ignored when they raise legitimate concerns, and made to feel like an inconvenience simply for asking what their money is being spent on. However, when FirstPort wants payment—this is something that it is very good at—its communication becomes clear and very persistent. When residents in several developments tried to move away from FirstPort, essential financial documents, including sinking fund balances and reconciliation statements, were withheld. In some cases, large sums of residents’ money were retained for months, preventing new management companies from planning maintenance or accounting properly. In my constituency, local resident directors Karen Wheeler and David Buller—fierce campaigners—have documented delayed fund transfers, missing paperwork and opaque accounting. Karen eventually gave up trying to reconcile the final balance because the spreadsheets were, in her words, “unfathomable”. For Karen’s development, the cost was about £500—quite a significant sum for many elderly residents—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate rightly said, the real issue here is the power imbalance. Residents have no transparency, no clarity and no meaningful route to resolution, despite FirstPort’s own code of conduct, which promises transparency, value for money and excellent customer service. I think we can all agree that that does not stack up. This is neither an isolated concern nor a partisan one. Former Ministers have highlighted FirstPort and other companies being consistently associated with high charges and poor service. The BBC has reported homeowners being billed for things such as “terrorism insurance”, without any context, while basic grounds maintenance is not completed. More than 30 MPs have written jointly to FirstPort demanding action. We all know that the problem is structural. Far too many homeowners are locked into contracts they never chose, are forced to pay service charges for poorly maintained communal areas, and have no ability to change providers when the services fail. As we have heard, many homeowners on private estates—the so-called “fleecehold” estates—are effectively paying twice: once through council tax, and once through service charges. Leaseholders trying to sell their homes frequently face long delays and eye-watering administration fees, and what should be a proud milestone—owning or selling a home—becomes a source of stress and financial burden. We have heard that legal protections exist, but they are not enough. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 will bring mandatory transparency—

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister expresses deep regret that this case has not gone to trial. I want to believe him on that, but the case did not go to trial. With the power of hindsight, if he was to go back and do this all again, what would the Minister have done differently to ensure that this case did go to trial?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that the Government have now set a perverse incentive for British officials, in that admitting to espionage problems with China is seen as rocking the boat?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to close the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Although I did not have the privilege of knowing Sir David personally, I have heard time and again from colleagues across the House about the warmth, generosity and conviction that defined him. He is remembered not only with great affection but with admiration for his tireless commitment to his constituents and the causes that he championed. His ability to weave so many of those causes into these end-of-term debates became something of a parliamentary tradition in itself—and stands as a lasting example of what it means to be a true local champion. That this debate now bears his name feels entirely fitting. It offers Members the same opportunity that he so clearly valued to test ideas, highlight local concerns and give voice to the communities we represent. I have no doubt that Sir David would have listened to today’s contributions with great interest and enthusiasm. While we rightly pay tribute to Sir David and reflect on his remarkable contribution to public life, we must also acknowledge the difficult but necessary questions surrounding the circumstances of his death, as many right hon. and hon. Members have said. Sir David’s widow, Lady Julia, and their daughter, Katie, who are with us today in the Public Gallery, have shown great strength in their efforts to ensure that meaningful lessons are learned. Sir David’s murderer had previously been referred to the Prevent programme. Yet despite that, he went on to commit an abhorrent act of violence. In the years since, other cases, such as those in Reading and Southport, have raised similar concerns, as individuals known to Prevent were able to carry out attacks. Those are not isolated incidents; there is a pattern that warrants serious scrutiny, and the Opposition would like to see a full public inquiry into Prevent, bringing together those cases to understand what went wrong and how the system can be improved. The Prevent programme is an essential part of our national security framework, but it must be effective to command public confidence. Where there are systemic failings, we have a responsibility to address them. As the Government will know, the Amess family do not feel that the recently released Lord Anderson report alone delivers the whole truth, accountability or justice that is needed. It is imperative that a full public inquiry is commissioned, to learn the necessary lessons from the systemic issues that clearly exist. I take this opportunity to ask the Government to commit to a full public inquiry into the failings of the Prevent programme. I now move on to the fantastic contributions we have heard from Members across the House in this final debate before we break up for the summer recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) did a brilliant job of opening the debate. He mentioned Sir David Amess managing to raise 27 different topics within five minutes. In my hon. Friend’s speech, we had the middle east, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, schooling, potholes and crime—near to 27, but no cigar this time. The hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) talked about mining and industry, health and transport. Over the past year, I have seen that she is a fierce campaigner for her constituents, and I join her in thanking the school staff in her constituency. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), spoke with conviction about his friend Sir David Amess. He called out the service failings in the Prevent programme and the poor treatment of Sir David’s family. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and hope to see the Government take action on this matter. I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for his kind words about Sir David. He raised the dangerous effects of hepatitis C and the work needed to eradicate it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), my shadow defence team friend, did a fantastic job of opening this debate a year ago, which I enjoyed attending. He paid tribute to his best friend, Sir David. Having watched my right hon. Friend over the past year, I have learned a great deal. He is a tireless campaigner for his area, and it was brilliant to hear him talk about supermarkets and devolution. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) talked about Sure Start, green jobs and the importance of the northern industrial powerhouse. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) talked about housing management companies. We all face that issue, especially in my constituency of Exmouth and Exeter East, and I look forward to working with him over the coming years to ensure there is proper accountability. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) made the really important point that Sir David Amess showed us that “politics at its best is about service, not spectacle”— I will use that one. The hon. Member talked about him and his team making 200 visits in their first year; it has obviously been a very busy year for them. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) talked about the important work he is doing on the renovation of this building. I think we all know that our place of work needs restoration —there are significant fire risks and security risks—and I look forward to that debate happening, so that we can have a national conversation. I am keen to reference as many colleagues as possible, so I will speed up from a canter to a gallop. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) shared a story about his late friend, Julian, and Sir David’s true friendship and compassion to Julian. The hon. Member is a strong voice for his constituents. I do not think I have ever heard him talking about being a teacher, but I look forward to that. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) talked about one of his predecessors being tragically murdered. He said he has mentioned Eastbourne 200 times this year—the number 200 must be on everyone’s minds at the moment—so I congratulate him on that. The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) championed local businesses in her area. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) talked about the issue of access to cash in his constituency. I am running a similar campaign in my constituency, and I am sure that many other Members who have seen bank closures in their constituencies will be looking for banking hubs. The hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) spoke about local health services. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke powerfully about his dear friend, Sir David Amess, and called for a public inquiry into the Prevent programme. The hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) paid tribute to Reading football club and spoke about the redevelopment of a local disused jail. I look forward to visiting once it is up and running—hopefully not because I have been incarcerated. The hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) spoke about upgrading river infrastructure. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) talked about our fantastic Lionesses and local football in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who I have learned a lot from over the last year, talked about children’s mental health services in his constituency. That is another debate that I think we will have to have next year to talk about the links with the mental health crisis. We have had fantastic contributions from the hon. Members for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), for Lewes (James MacCleary), for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), for Rugby (John Slinger), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) and for Carlisle (Ms Minns). A really interesting point was raised, again inspired by Sir David Amess, about the fact that we are fleeting custodians of our constituencies. The service that Sir David Amess brought to this House over so many decades is a north star for us all to aim for. I express my condolences to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on the loss of his father-in-law. I hope that he and his family are doing as well as possible. We also heard many interesting contributions from the hon. Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) and for Erewash (Adam Thompson)—I look forward to seeing videos hopefully emerging in the coming weeks and months of him rocking out in mosh pits. We heard from the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), my neighbours in Cornwall, which is the next county along from my constituency. We heard from the hon. Members for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), who made a fantastic final contribution to the debate. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket is a respected surgeon, and it has been really interesting to watch him bring forward health matters and enrich the debate in this Chamber. Before I close, I place on record my sincere thanks to all those who have supported us in this parliamentary year. I thank the House of Commons staff, including the Doorkeepers, the caterers, the Clerks and the event co-ordinators. Their professionalism and quiet dedication behind the scenes allow this place to function with such efficiency and dignity, and I hope that their work is never taken for granted. I am sure that all Members from across the House will join me in showing their appreciation for everything that they do not just today, but every day. Let me offer special congratulations to two members of the Doorkeepers’ team who work in Members’ Lobby, Holly Jackson and Vanessa Chapman, who are soon to be married. I know the whole House will join me in wishing them every happiness as they begin their married life together. I have one final remark: I pay tribute to Paul Kehoe, who is in his 45th year of service to this House. Just like David Amess, that is a true north star for what public service looks like. That leaves me to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all colleagues from across the House a very restful and happy summer recess. I look forward to seeing everyone again in the autumn.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Independent Water Commission · Hansard source

  More

  As the Secretary of State and the Minister for Water and Flooding will know, sewage is a major issue in my constituency. As we have heard, the Government plan to build 1.5 million new homes, tens of thousands of which will be in my area. Lots of people are understandably concerned that South West Water will not keep pace with development, so what guarantees can the Secretary of State give that South West Water will put in the required infrastructure?

• 17 Jul 2025 · RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz, and to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on the important subject of the contribution of the Royal Air Force Photographic Reconnaissance Unit during the second world war. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing today’s debate. This is a timely and fitting discussion as we mark 80 years since VE Day and VJ Day, and an opportunity to reflect on the immense contribution of a group whose role has not had the recognition it rightfully deserves, but was absolutely vital to the allied war effort. The missions flown by the PRU were among the most dangerous of the war. What lingers most in my mind is the nature of that risk and the quiet, unseen, uncelebrated courage it demanded. These young pilots flew solo into enemy airspace, unarmed and in unmarked aircraft, without recognition or fanfare. Their missions were secret, and many did not return. We rightly honour those who fought on the frontline, those whose bravery was visible, shared and publicly recognised. As a former Royal Marine who served in conflict zones, I know at first hand the reassurance that comes from seeing the whites of a colleague’s eyes in the thick of danger—the unspoken bond that comes from facing fear side by side. But the pilots of the PRU did not have that comfort. Their missions were long, silent and solitary. They flew alone, deep into enemy territory, without escort, unarmed and exposed. I cannot begin to imagine the isolation they must have felt, or the courage it took to take off knowing that the odds were often against them coming home. It is through speaking about that kind of service, and attempting to put ourselves in their place, that we begin to appreciate the full scale of their sacrifice. Members across this House have done a sterling job in raising constituents’ names and experiences, and in keeping their memory alive. The hon. Member for Carlisle—the daughter of a world war two veteran and someone who was close to the experiences of her parents—did a fantastic job of outlining some of the big things that the PRU did. Twenty-six million photographs is a staggering amount; 80% of the intelligence helping out the war effort came from the PRU. They saved hundreds of thousands of lives. It is truly impressive—but it came at a significant cost to their own lives, and they were willing to go out and take that risk and make that sacrifice for the wider mission. I thank the hon. Member for Carlisle for giving us an update on the memorial. I am happy to hear that it will be just a stone’s throw away from this place, outside the war rooms. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) mentioned the important figure that the death rate in the PRU was 50%. As a former solider, going into a unit and knowing that your chances of coming home were one in two would have been absolutely fear inducing. The hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) noted that someone actually committed suicide on base because of that fear. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) made the point that members of the PRU had a life expectancy of two years. Understanding that when they joined the unit must have been harrowing. She raised an important point about the international effort behind this unit, with 22 nations involved, and told the powerful story of John Boys-Stones, who died at the age of 22. This is the first time that some of their names have been spoken publicly; it is important to do it today, and I am glad to be involved in this debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) raised the wider point that, with some of the RAF missions that we have all heard about—the dam busters, the hunt for the Bismarck, D-day—the PRU played an important role in ensuring those famous missions were able to go ahead successfully. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) also made the point that it was not just about pilots; the death toll affected ranks from sergeant up to wing commander, on the ground prepping aircraft, and while they were coming back. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a strong and powerful voice for defence in this House, and a powerful advocate for Northern Ireland’s history. I always enjoy listening to him to hear the different sides of the story from all corners of our United Kingdom. He said a line that will stick with me: we are the keepers and guardians of the PRU’s history, and we must honour that and carry it forward. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked about her constituent James, who died in an unrelated accident—a heart attack on the way back—but played a vital part in the PRU’s mission. His name should be included. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) spoke about the need for altitude, speed and luck in those missions. The PRU pilots were going out unarmed and unescorted, unlike many other pilots who flew during world war two. She talked about the family service—two brothers who served together in the RAF. From a parent’s perspective, it must have been horrifying to have two children go off on secret missions and not be able to talk about their service—not to know what they were doing, but to know that they were part of a very dangerous unit. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) talked about the sheer number in unknown graves. It is not good enough. By bringing this subject to the House, we will start the process of remembering them in the proper and fitting way. I found myself in the shoes of the hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) this time last year. Although I knew that this type of operation went ahead and that this type of intelligence was produced, I did not know much about the PRU. Over the past year, I have really enjoyed getting to understand the unit’s efforts and hearing about the personal stories and sacrifice of those involved. Like others, I want to take a moment to honour those who served in the PRU and had ties to my home, East Devon, to ensure that their stories are told and their names remembered. One of the most remarkable stories is that of Flight Lieutenant Peter Dakeyne, who was born in Kuala Lumpur in 1917 and later settled in Budleigh Salterton, near where I live now. He was fortunate and survived the war, but he did very daring things over France and in Belgium. The stories of others ended far too soon. I want to raise the names of Flight Lieutenant Robert Donaldson, Lyndon Gordon-White, Pilot Officer Charles Ousley and Flight Lieutenant William Scafe, who did not return home. To each of them, and to the families they left behind, I offer my sincere and enduring gratitude. Eighty years on from the end of the war, we find ourselves asking, “How do we keep these stories alive?” That was a theme that came out in almost every speech today. Fewer and fewer people hold living memory of the second world war. This may be one of the final times that veterans can come together in person and tell the stories of their experiences in world war two to the younger generations. That makes our responsibility all the greater to not just commemorate but teach, and pass on the history and, vitally, the meaning behind it. The stories we have heard today are extraordinary. They are the kinds of stories that we should be telling our children. They leave young people with a sense of pride in our country and those who protect it. We all know that the world is not becoming a safer place. We face new and growing threats. That raises the question of how we inspire the next generation to step up and serve. We cannot simply talk about the need for recruitment; we must foster a culture that respects and values service and speaks to young people today. Yet what do we see? The RAF banned from careers fairs at university, defence firms prevented from promoting legitimate roles to students and a college at Cambridge, one of our most prestigious universities, voting to sever financial ties with the defence industry altogether. Just imagine telling the young men and women who flew and worked for the PRU— who risked everything for our freedom—that, 80 years later, the very institutions they fought to protect would in turn be hostile to them. That is why we must keep telling these stories. We must ensure that their legacy is preserved, not distorted, and passed on honestly and with the respect it deserves. While we honour those who served in generations past, we must also stand up for those who have served more recently. Just days ago, 30 veterans who served in Northern Ireland sat in the Public Gallery during a Westminster Hall debate about the Government’s proposal to use a remedial order to reverse parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That change could see veterans prosecuted for actions taken during Operation Banner, often in extreme circumstances and decades ago. The cross-party support expressed in today’s debate is encouraging and speaks to the strength of feeling across the House about commemorating those who serve. But tribute alone is not enough. It is not acceptable to stand in this Chamber and honour veterans one day, only to abandon them the next. If we are serious about valuing service, we must honour all of it and all those who gave it to us. I urge the Government to change course on that issue. I understand that more than 200 Members from eight parties have now lent their support to a formal memorial recognising those who served in the PRU. I place on record my full backing for that proposal. It is overdue. I look forward to visiting the memorial once it is formally unveiled. I also join the hon. Member for Carlisle in calling for the Ministry of Defence to offer departmental assistance to those working to finalise the list of names. I understand that all publicly available sources have been exhausted, and it would be a real disservice if any names were missed. We must ensure that the memorial is complete and accurate for all those who served. I thank the hon. Member once again for bringing forward this debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You did your independent report in 2023. Obviously, the world has changed rapidly in the past couple of years. We are seeing global economic change, with tariffs, international supply chains becoming more contested, and increased conflicts and volatility. How have the conclusions that you drew in 2023 changed, and where would you say that delta is? Philip New: I think the key change has been in the United States. When I wrote that report, it was in the context of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. The concern was that we might be out-competed by investment in America, and we would end up being a net importer of stuff from America, not just in first-generation SAFs but in second-generation SAFs. They have lower energy costs, which are very important in these sorts of industries, and their build costs are about 20% less than ours. That was a real worry then. Especially coming out of the big, beautiful Bill, America is out of the game. That is kind of a good thing at one level, because it means that, particularly with the way the mandate is designed around second-generation SAFs, we now have a globally unique position. We could therefore become an incubator for a series of technologies that will have to play a significant role in aviation decarbonisation over the next couple of decades. The bad news is that if we fail to get this new industry kick-started, I do not think we can hope to rely on imports from somewhere else to get us out of trouble. It will mean that we will not meet our mandate targets.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Maynard, thank you for being with us. In your role within the aviation policy group, have there been any conversations with colleagues from the Ministry of Defence about the Royal Air Force potentially using SAF and the international logistical challenges of getting SAF into the UK? You raised some concerns earlier on. Geoff Maynard: We have had some discussions around the edges with the RAF, if I can put it like that. They recognise the need that, at some point, they perhaps ought to be using SAF. It is certainly possible for them to do so, albeit not necessarily to the same percentage that you can use it in commercial jets, as I understand it, because the engines have not been designed for it. There are some issues to resolve before they can use it in the way that the commercial sector does. Does that answer your question?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It does. Do you see this developing in the private sector far faster than in military environments? Geoff Maynard: Yes, because the use is much greater. There is a lot more SAF to be used in the commercial sector than there is in the military sector.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q If British money is being spent on British technologies, and if you are leveraging capital to go on those SAF programmes, where is that money coming from? Is the investment attitude right in this country toward green technologies and SAF? Which countries are quite front-footed in their approach to investing in these technologies? Josh Garton: We are most active here in the UK and Europe with sustainable aviation fuel and the investors that are interested. We deal with commercial banks, private equity and other investors, and they are all very enthusiastic about the prospect. Unquestionably, they want to deploy capital into this space, but they will not be throwing out their investment rulebook when it comes to their risk-return profiles and the way that they assess risk. For that reason, we need things like this revenue certainty mechanism in place to provide confidence that investors, when they deploy capital in this space, will get the returns they need to justify their investments, or that lenders providing debt capital into this will get the returns they need within the regulatory frameworks in which they operate.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Professor Maslin, thank you for being with us today. You talked powerfully about the international nature of this technology set. If a country or business is not going through a good time, that technology might not come through the supply chain. From a UK perspective, where are the main weaknesses with the international supply chain? As a follow-on, are any hostile states actively trying to weaponise elements of that supply chain? Professor Maslin : The first thing is that we have to work out a way of being self-sufficient in SAFs. If you want the mandate and the Bill to work, we have to have that self-reliance. The problem that is the quality, quantity and supply of SAFs around the world are highly variable. They are not as good as you think they are. We therefore need to be able to protect our own regulations by having a homegrown community. On weaponisation, no, I have not seen any evidence that hostile states are going after SAFs at the moment, because they are a very small percentage of the aviation mix. At the international level, it would be helpful if the Chicago accords could be renegotiated so that you could tax aviation fuel internationally, even if the tax was small—$1 per tonne, or something like that—to shift the balance away from aviation fuel and towards SAFs being more accountable. I doubt that will be possible in these interesting political times, but that is the problem we have. We are able to tax aviation fuel internally but not internationally. Therefore, at the moment, there is no aviation fuel tax on international flights, which would be a really nice mechanism. Of course, you can see that as weaponising against the fossil fuel industry.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I think it is fair to say that the international supply chain is becoming more constrained and that there is a more protectionist international global economy. Can you give us a flavour of some of the economic and logistical challenges that you would face, importing SAF into the UK? As a follow on, if there is a requirement around energy security to set up shop in the UK, given the known knowns, would you look for subsidies from the current Government to set up production in the UK? Ruben van Grinsven: I am afraid I cannot fully answer that question because it is not the part of the business that I am in. I am not importing SAF to the UK, so I do not know how trade limitations are currently impacting SAF supply. I would have to ask a colleague and come back to that question. It is also hard to predict what the future is going to bring for global trade and how protectionism will impact the global free trade of all types of fuels. If you produce domestic fuels, that is, of course, going to be helpful if you want energy security. I must say, though, that if you look at the volumes that we are talking about today, the energy security element in the early days is going to be limited because of the volume of the fuels involved.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Just a small follow-up, if I can. You are saying that the biggest change is the US pulling back from innovation and production of SAF. Is that in direct response to what the Chinese are doing? Philip New: No. For most global markets that have started to look at SAF, the preferred mechanism has been to impose some form of mandate—even China has put in place the beginnings of a mandate mechanism. None of them are as ambitious as those in Europe and the UK, but that is the normal mechanism. The reason for that is simply that SAF costs more than aviation fuel. Left to its own devices, an airline in a very competitive industry is unlikely to voluntarily buy more SAF than it needs to buy. If it has big corporate clients that want to offset some of their scope 3 emissions and are willing to pay a premium to have their flights decarbonised, that is fine, but there is a real limit to how big, dependable and investable that market will be. That is where America is right now, and it is because of the structure of the other incentives in the American mechanism. A critical part of that was a change in the big, beautiful Bill, in which the premium given to SAF producers was removed completely. They now get no more money than those making diesel for ground transport use, but it costs more money to make SAF. The airlines do not have an incentive to buy SAF because there is no mandate, and the producers do not have an incentive to make SAF because it costs more to make and they get less credit from the American mechanisms in place to support renewable fuels.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q That is a very good answer; I am happy with that, and it is obviously coming from a company’s perspective. In terms of Government engagement, how many conversations have been had with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero around energy security and your production capability? Sophia Haywood: It is not something that we have had great levels of conversation about, particularly when it comes to energy security. It is a really important part of energy security. Coming back to the point about access to locally produced bioethanol, I see it as another great example of something that would be sustainable, affordable and secure, if we are able to take wheat that is produced locally by British farmers, and convert it in local facilities and then at a SAF facility. With all the additional benefits on things such as CO 2 , that is a great opportunity on energy security, but speaking more broadly it has not been a huge part of the interest in SAF. Noaman Al Adhami: I will focus more on scalability. When it comes to scalability, allowing all the routes to SAF and not focusing on one route will potentially enable SAF production to be scaled up. Green hydrogen will also potentially be there in large quantities with an affordable price, and that will contribute. For example, we could utilise green hydrogen to triple production if it were available, but currently it is not. We are also designing our plant to utilise multiple types of feedstocks. It is mainly solid waste to SAF. I would start with a less challenging feedstock to prove the line-up and then explore much more difficult feedstocks, such as MSW. Even sewage sludge, chicken manure and grease, for example, could be used to co-fire the gasifier, so we think the supply chain will potentially build once it sees a home for their waste. We will start with a safe option for the feedstock, but our objective is to explore all other potential feedstock and increase capacity. We have plans for at least phase 2. Our site in Teesside can accommodate phase 2 and we are already planning for that. Hopefully, once we reach FID, we will announce phase 2 of the project.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Following on from the shadow Minister’s questions about scalability and production, Ms Haywood, you talked about the globally distributed nature of this technology sector. With international supply chains becoming more contested and the view that traditional production methods will be scaled down and SAF will be increased, where do you see the biggest blockers to growth and scalability, and how do you balance that against energy security? Sophia Haywood: That is a great question. In terms of the international value chains, as I said before, all eyes are on the UK. For a lot of projects that are developing globally, even if they are being developed in countries significantly further away from here and Europe, we are going to see a lot of opportunity for product to be moved over to the UK, at least until other mandates in other countries are put in place, and then we will start seeing shifts in where this goes. Instead of a blocker, perhaps, I would phrase it more as an opportunity about things that we could maybe do slightly differently. One example that we have just had is a project in Japan that we have done. We had a large amount of funding. It is quite similar to the advanced fuels fund principle, but a lot larger in terms of the quantity of funding that is available, albeit with a smaller number of participants. That has enabled a much larger-scale project in partnership with one of Japan’s largest oil companies to develop a SAF project. This is a transition, and they are going to move at the same pace as one another. As much as we can support investments on existing sites with existing infrastructure, such as both of our projects in Teesside in terms of the regeneration, I think more activities like that could be a great opportunity for the UK. The steps that have been taken so far with Project Willow are a good example of how that could be taken to the next level. The project is looking at opportunities on the site of the former refinery at Grangemouth; maybe this could be a similar example, where you could take it to the next level. However, we will see increasing competition globally. Coming back to the points around planning and electricity connections, anything that could help us to bring investments to the UK, where we have some of the highest energy costs, would be welcome. We saw a commitment in the industrial strategy to reducing electricity costs, which is fantastic. We would welcome greater clarity as to whether SAF can definitely be included in that. I saw that it is an extension to an existing scheme, which is why I am asking that question. These are some of the things that help us to compete better globally.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To pick up on Mr Greenwood’s point about unintended consequences, at a time of increased international instability, the need to produce things domestically in the coming years has become more and more apparent. Do you think this will impact our traditional ways of producing those fuels that we will probably need in the UK? Paul Greenwood: First, from an energy security point of view, and as Gaynor rightly pointed out, a very significant amount of the road fuels in the UK are imported. They are imported rather than refined here, as it is not economic to refine them here, because of all the cost issues we face in energy, labour and carbon dioxide. That has effectively driven refineries to not invest or expand, and in some places, to go bust. That is the major driver here. If you are prepared to import 70% of your jet fuel now, I do not see why you need to increase local production of SAF. There is a very good reason for doing that—the creation of jobs—but there are unintended consequences in the costs and how you are going to pay for that, which need to be thought through seriously. I do not think this is an energy security issue, given the amount of product that you are importing into the country now. By layering cost on to refiners and fuel suppliers as you are doing now, you actually risk precipitating the decline and demise of the refining sector even more, which will mean importing significantly more fuel across the piece. To my mind, that is a quid pro quo. Gaynor Hartnell: We import about 85% of our road fuels. Lamentably, that figure is going to go up, because existing biofuel and renewable fuel production facilities are falling away. There was a Greenergy announcement last week about the closure of the Immingham plant, and two bioethanol producers are at risk of closure. They are linked into the UK in so many different ways, from CO 2 production to the market for grain that does not meet the required grade for milling, so it has to be used as feed wheat instead. We will suffer the consequences of not taking care of our domestic industry. We need production in the UK. It is not just a question of saying, “We can simply buy it from overseas”. As Rob has pointed out, the SAF mandate creates a specific demand for waste-based SAF that is not specifically encouraged by any other mandate around the world, so we need this. If we are not going to make it, we cannot rely on other people making it, and the airlines and fuel suppliers ultimately rely on pulling that into the UK to avoid paying the buy-out for the mandate. Paying the buy-out for the mandate would be a really bad situation for everybody, so we need to safeguard against that happening. You also asked about the waste hierarchy and what could be done to encourage residual municipal solid waste to find its way to the best carbon outcome, rather than being used to produce electricity, which is already going on to a largely decarbonised grid. Adjusting the waste hierarchy to recognise the carbon benefits of this route for residual solid waste would be really helpful. At the moment, local authorities are in a situation where they have a reliable route through just sending it off to an energy from waste project, against prospects of hopefully SAF projects coming down the line in future, if all else goes well, then RCM comes along and they win contracts. There is a lot more risk involved in choosing the SAF route. That has to be specifically encouraged, and the waste hierarchy would be a way of doing that.