Luke Taylor MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Croydon Crown Court: Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  16. What steps he is taking to help tackle backlogs at Croydon Crown court.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Croydon Crown Court: Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  I visited Croydon Crown court recently and saw at first hand the impact that the delays are having on victims. Backlogs across London have increased by 122% over the last decade, which is having a particular impact on domestic abuse and sexual offence victims. Given that, will the Minister consider listening to Liberal Democrat calls to abandon plans to restrict trial by jury and instead create specialist sexual offence and domestic abuse courts so that those sensitive cases can be dealt with as quickly as possible?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, the Metropolitan police confirmed that a criminal investigation is under way into allegations of foreign money reaching Reform UK. The allegations are being investigated under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The party denies any wrongdoing and it is right that the police continue their investigation without any interference from this House. However, just a week ago we finished considering the Representation of the People Bill and it is now in the other place, where it can be strengthened. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or the Speaker’s Office indicate whether a Minister intends to come to the House to update Members on whether the Government think that the measures in the Bill are still sufficient? The public should not have to rely on an undercover reporter to reveal where their politics is being funded from.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I hope to continue the excitement of that result in the Chamber. As an engineer, former aviation consultant and now chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, I know that hon. Members will have become accustomed to me calling for stronger growth in the aviation space, and to my belief that technology and innovation can enable us to do that while achieving our obligations to reach net zero and stop the climate crisis. Aviation is the bedrock of our trade agreements. It enables high-value cargo to move along supply chains in a way that no other form of transport can. It makes it feasible for businesses to operate across borders and make connections with other businesses that drive economic growth forward. It has meant that the last three generations of Brits have been able to take advantage of affordable foreign holidays, with massive benefits for them, their mental health and their ability to expand their horizons and make enriching memories in unfamiliar settings. It has been so transformational for Governments, businesses and individuals that it can be safely hailed as one of the most influential technologies in history. But aviation has come at a cost. Consumer and commercial aviation has, without a doubt, contributed to the climate crisis we face. Estimates suggest that annually aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO 2 emissions. However, it has contributed around 4% to global warming to date. As the MP for a constituency halfway between Heathrow and Gatwick, and given my former life in the aviation industry, I know that the politics of airports is fraught with complications. The impact on communities, if not handled properly, can be deeply challenging. It is my hope that the Government will listen and engage with the points I make about how we upgrade and improve civil aviation in this country for consumers, communities and the planet, and that they will have understood that events like those we saw yesterday serve only to underline how crucial this mission is, and how, following the third major failure of our airspace management in the past three years, it is imperative that this Bill is amended to include measures to stop that happening again. NATS is quite clearly not fit for purpose. We cannot suffer a major air traffic outage once a year. Following the outage yesterday, I am told by industry contacts that, again, communications with airlines were poor. I gently suggest to the Minister that whoever briefed the media that the disruption was akin to “a day with bad weather” should be found another position far away from the media team rather sharply. In the Lords, amendment 65—submitted by Lord Young—would have required NATS to hold responsibility for compensation for disruption caused by its failure, rather than airlines that were not at fault for these delays. The Government declined to accept the amendment, and Lord Hendy responded in a letter to Lord Young in July that he was satisfied that, following the 2023 outage, “the Government was able to place considerable pressure on” NATS “and appointed the person who led the review into the outage. This helped ensure that NATS took the necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of those particular circumstances.” For the benefit of Hansard , I raise my eyebrow and glance at the Minister knowingly. I invite him to address this issue directly in his response and seriously consider the merits of that amendment—a change supported by the International Air Transport Association and airlines. That specific challenge aside, the Bill needs to address three broader challenges, and I hope to work with the Government to ensure that it does. The first challenge is the generational risk of decarbonising aviation, which will require short, medium and long-term solutions as we work with researchers and companies to develop the breakthrough fuels that could reshape the industry. That is how we enable sustainable growth to drive our economy. The second challenge is the more procedural, but equally important, task of updating and upgrading our aerospace infrastructure to keep it competitive, while keeping communities impacted by these changes informed, engaged and fundamentally in control over what happens to them. Here we must secure our infrastructure at the same time as empowering communities. The third challenge is rebalancing the power mismatch between airlines and passengers, giving power to people and not the big airlines, so that the passenger experience can be as positive as possible, and not continue to allow airlines on some occasions to scam passengers like cheap fairground hucksters. We need serious measures that will allow the airline industry to decarbonise. That will require the same collaborative work across the public and private sectors that informed the passage of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026, on which I was grateful for the chance to work with the Government in passing. Such enormous industrial transitions take a very long time, and moving existing fleets and fuel infrastructure to green alternatives while they are still in use is outrageously difficult. Contrary to what some would like us to believe, however, it is not impossible. The interchangeability of sustainable aviation fuels and fossil-based aviation fuels, mixed and fed into the same pipelines and engines, makes this a transition that is unusually straightforward compared with other decarbonisation challenges. However, the sheer scale of the challenge and the existing infrastructure is the real difficulty. That, as well as the laws of physics and Breguet’s range equations, which I have mentioned in the Chamber before, mean that by sheer necessity the industry may be among the last to transition away from fossil fuels fully. We should not be afraid of that—it is the reality of achieving the growth we need—but we cannot ground aerospace or regulate it into submission, because to do so would have a catastrophic impact on our economy. We hear from neo-Luddites that we should effectively do that anyway—that we must constrain our horizons, put up with constraints and self-enforced recession, and tell families and businesses that they must put up with penalties and restrictions that their peers and competitors around the world do not put up with. The intention of protecting our world from catastrophic climate change is absolutely right, but these solutions are utterly wrong. Aviation is a Pandora’s box technology—once invented and tasted, it cannot be put back into the box. Like the internet or artificial intelligence, the only valid pessimistic question ought to be about how we transform it to regulate the externalities and make sure it continues to serve people, communities and the planet. The positive question concerns how we grasp the opportunities it offers to keep pushing progress forward. That means backing decarbonisation technology, which is the only way to achieve the future we need. There are great examples of this being done in practice: I spoke about Operation Blue Skies as merely a concept in the SAF Bill debate almost a year ago, but it is now funded and ready to be trialled this winter. That is concrete proof of the progress being made. However, there are things that we are failing to do as a state to remove roadblocks to this progress and there is a need for real leadership from the Government to continue to drive these opportunities forward. Yesterday, I chaired a roundtable discussion about sustainable aviation fuel to allow MPs to hear from the industry about the progress being made and what roadblocks remain. We heard how the pipeline of SAF production is not progressing at the rate needed to achieve the SAF mandate targets over the next few years, and that further Government action is needed to ensure that we do not plateau and then fall behind the target of 10% SAF by 2030 and of 22% by 2040. At the Farnborough international airshow earlier this summer, I was fortunate to witness the first flying demonstration by a fully electric aircraft, and the exhibition halls showed the huge progress on hydrogen and electric aviation that will be the future of travel. Last week, the Hydrogen in Aviation Alliance released its report, “Hydrogen-powered aviation: a pathway to delivery and growth”, which set out a clear set of steps towards harnessing that exciting new technology. Particularly interesting was news of trials led by the Cryogenic Hydrogen Optimised Systems for Aviation—CHOSAN—consortium to be based at Bristol airport, which hopes for the first hydrogen-powered flight from a UK commercial airport by 2028. That is hugely ambitious and gives hope that solutions are available, but it also reminds us that the Government need to play their part in speeding up development and roll-out even more. Whether aviation decarbonisation ends up being achieved by SAF, hydrogen, electricity, methane or some other pathway not yet discovered, it is a huge opportunity for us to grasp in order to continue our great British global leadership in aviation technology. The Bill does not bring forward specific measures on these decarbonisation goals, other than through improvements in efficiencies delivered by airspace modernisation. I see that as a huge missed opportunity, and I will look for chances to bring forward such measures in Committee. Turning to the second task on infrastructure, I greatly welcome the elements of the Bill that will help to deliver the airspace modernisation that will improve the efficiency of the UK’s airspace, reduce nuisance noise pollution around airports and facilitate the decarbonisation I have just spoken about. Far from being change for change’s sake, airspace modernisation is a vital step forward in upgrading our essential infrastructure, which has not been maintained and developed to keep up with changing and growing demands, and is at risk of periodic and then more consistent failure, as we all witnessed yesterday. Airspace modernisation should be done as part of a wider project of renewal across our transport and otherwise critical infrastructure. The lack of modernisation is visible in the chronic and consistent mismanagement of our roads and bridges, in certain aspects of public services and even in the political infrastructure that sits beneath everything else in this country. That is why, to unlock safe and sustainable growth and drag our infrastructure not just into the 2020s, but into a state of readiness for the future, airspace modernisation is utterly essential. However, my support for this Bill is not without reservations. In particular, I am disappointed that, in its current form, it does not guarantee communities a meaningful say over the impact of these changes on them. Progress and improvements in route efficiency will inevitably have negative impacts on many, with new flight paths and concentrations of disturbance taking shape over communities previously not impacted by noise. Those impacts must be considered carefully, and the communities impacted must have a genuine and meaningful say in the changes that will be delivered. As I have said before, my approach is a desire to get to yes on delivering these changes, but doing so requires buy-in from the communities that will live with the decisions for decades, so my response to this Bill has to be yes, if: yes, if we build meaningful community involvement that actually changes options; yes, if we can ensure that the scheme is able to benefit from public scrutiny; and yes, if it can be done in a way that is sustainable and not likely to be unpicked years later because it did not achieve some level of consensus. While the moving parts in aviation are aluminium, steel and carbon, these are ultimately human systems. It cannot be that changes are made that deliver what might look good on a spreadsheet or on the maps that I used to draw in the aviation industry; this must be about how the human situation is impacted by those changes. On Monday, I attended a meeting of the APPG on airport communities. We heard how the airport night noise effects study has shown the huge impact of aviation noise on families living near airports. While aircraft types have become considerably quieter over the years, the more we learn of the health and psychological impacts of noise disruption, the more it is clear that the science is consistent and the impact is real. As such, we must demand that programmes to mitigate those impacts are made available to all those affected. It is also true that as airline traffic approaches capacity and demand continues to grow, airlines are likely to upgauge their aircraft fleets, which typically leads to higher noise signatures from larger, heavier aircraft. We should also remember that the very constraints we put on air traffic are creating an increase in those disruptions. The parts of this Bill that will make airspace modernisation easy to deliver must not be allowed to cut scrutiny of the impact of that modernisation on residents or limit their voices over the options considered and how final flight routes are designed. I am particularly concerned about the impact on communities in my neck of the woods in south-west London, at Heathrow and further afield at Gatwick, which have already been sounding the alarm about the impact of night flights, particularly on their wellbeing. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) have worked on this issue for many years on behalf of their constituents, and this Bill needs to do more to protect the interest of their residents. I expect to hear shortly from my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on a similar issue. The Civil Aviation Authority and The BMJ have both demonstrated that living under night flights not just harms mental health, but will inevitably damage a person’s productivity the next day. In extreme cases, it can increase the risk of stroke. If it is done properly, airspace modernisation can improve many of these issues, but, where it cannot, we must insist on mitigations through soundproofing programmes or respite periods. Airspace modernisation has the potential to shift flight paths to less densely populated areas and lower the noise impact on take-off and landing with more efficient, steeper approach and departure paths that balance emissions with noise reduction, but there is no guarantee that it will do any of those things if those living in the communities affected are denied a seat at the table, either through badly designed consultations or top-down diktat. Let me turn to my third and final challenge—I am sure Members will be glad to hear that. It is important to remember that the first two challenges will affect the planet and communities near airports, but the third challenge—passenger rights—is the one that will hit passengers most directly. In the Lords, the Liberal Democrats tabled amendment 36 to implement a passengers’ charter for air travel, with various targets for minimum service levels that an airline can deliver. Lords amendments 10 and 11 would have prohibited airlines from separating passengers on the same booking to force them to pay for assigned seating, or from forcing other passengers to sit next to an unaccompanied minor. Lords amendments 2 and 20 would have stopped the UK from implementing lower standards and diverging away from existing international standards. All of those are good things, and I hope to convince the Government of their wisdom in Committee. However, my favourite amendment, which I hope to push for and convince the Government of the merits of in Committee, is Lords amendment 13, which would have required airlines to standardise the maximum dimensions for permitted cabin baggage across all air carriers in alignment with recognised industry standards. Who here has a Ryanair bag, 55 cm by 40 cm by 20 cm; a Wizz Air bag, 55 cm by 40 cm by 23 cm; an EasyJet and British Airways bag, 56 cm by 45 cm by 25 cm; and an Aer Lingus bag, 55 cm by 40 cm by 24 cm? Each one is subtly different in size, and each one is liable to set someone back a hefty penalty if the check-in agent does not like the look of them. No, I did not think so; we do not have that number of bags—or we do not have all four. It is absolute madness. This is 2026; we have universal phone chargers and universal electric car chargers, and we have had standardised shipping containers for nearly half a century. There are also universally sized overhead lockers on aircraft, so Lord Hendy was not correct when he asserted: “Aircraft have different overhead and under-seat storage capacities. Setting a standard size would necessitate using the smallest aircraft capacity, resulting in many passengers needing to use a smaller case or bag.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. GC71.] That is incorrect and frankly insulting to the intelligence of the passenger who has just been stung for £75 by an over-zealous Ryanair boarding agent due to having an oversized bag, because they picked up the wrong one that morning, and that 5 cm difference cannot possibly fit into the overhead bin of a Boeing 737 but could slip smoothly into that of an A320. Passengers need protection from predatory practices; we need the BSS—the British standard suitcase. That is the well-regulated market that the Liberal Democrats believe in, and I hope I am able to make the Government see the benefit of that during the Bill Committee. In summary, the Bill really is a huge opportunity to take meaningful action to improve our airspace infrastructure to reduce emissions, to improve safety and reduce noise and to improve passenger experience and make flying less expensive and stressful. Those are good aims, but they can only be achieved with careful and clear leadership that listens to the voices of industry, communities and those of us who believe that they must be delivered in the context of a wider rethink about how we maintain and upgrade our systems in this country. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill, and I congratulate him on making a strong, if incomplete, start. I look forward to helping him fix the Bill in Committee.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  To add grist to the mill of all our travel experiences, I had a case in which a customer chose to pay for a seat allocation so that they could sit with their children. They got on the flight and were then moved, and had to claim compensation on the extra service they had paid for—otherwise they would not have got a refund. Does the hon. Member agree that these sorts of things need to be automated and quickened up to improve passenger experience and customer protection?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that particular reference should be given to the previous failures and to the 37 actions, I believe, that should have been completed to resolve the previous incident, as well as explaining quite how this was allowed to occur again? As he says, it is critical that we get to the bottom of what happened, but also that we are able to hold it to account.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak in favour of new clause 88, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would require the Government to establish a royal commission on political donations and campaign expenditure. It would examine the case for a donations cap review and whether existing campaign spending limits remain effective, and would report back within 12 months. Crucially, it would take account of the modern flavours of old challenges, because money can now shape political debate through social media platforms, algorithmic amplification, third-party campaigning and political advertising that can reach millions of voters almost immediately. When we knock on doors in our constituencies, or even when they are only our prospective constituencies, we are taking part in the most important act of our democratic system. We are listening to the concerns of citizens. We are empowering them to test us on our politics and to push us to champion their causes, and through taking forward the electorate’s concerns, we are giving them a voice. The principle is simple: one citizen, one vote. It is the basis of a democratic system. If a voter is particularly taken by our arguments, they may choose to donate to us to cover the cost of those snappy little pamphlets we leave behind in our wake, which some on the Liberal Democrat Benches are particularly passionate about. At this point, I will explain something that we did in Sutton to welcome the huge number of Hongkongers who moved to our borough and to my constituency over the last few years. We produced leaflets in their local language, so that those who did not have particularly strong English skills could read the information about our political party. They had travelled here, escaping the Communist regime to take part in a democratic process, and escaping the crackdown on democratic rights in Hong Kong. I invite an intervention from the Conservative Benches to explain why that communication, in a language that was understood by those who had not long been in our country and did not have the language skills to understand the English leaflets, is such a bad thing. There are none. When our election laws were written, donations to political parties would have probably have been covered by the existing laws. Maybe a big local donor would pay for an advertising board, or for posters and a loudspeaker on the roof rack of a clapped-out old Volvo of the kind that my dad used to go around his prospective constituency in the ’90s. However, our citizens still held the levers of power relatively directly. Today, the spending in our politics, and therefore the influence and power of money and donors, has shifted so dramatically that the question is how we rise to the challenge of constantly having to patch the cracks and the potholes in our outdated election law. If we fail to answer that question, we condemn the voting public to powerlessness, as those with the deepest pockets and strongest influence rip our hands off the wheel of the ship of state. We cannot fail to address the modern challenges first posed by those who bankrolled the Brexit campaign, who promised to give back control to the public and then handed it straight to their oligarch friends. For those reasons, I was disappointed the Government did not use this Bill to introduce a meaningful cap on political donations. Wealthy individuals are increasingly able to spend sums that would be completely beyond the reach of ordinary voters, while public confidence in the way politics is funded remains extremely weak. We can see how members of two parties in this Chamber have received more than £56,000 through X, a company owned by the very model of a modern fascist oligarch. It has an algorithm that he designs and the payments are therefore decided and funnelled directly to those political actors. There will always be those with bigger pockets who can make a larger contribution to political parties and projects than others. The vast majority do so for the right, philanthropic or ideological, reasons. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has given a passionate explanation of why political donation through unions, with proper controls, is absolutely an appropriate way to deliver political support and political power to those groups of people who need that representation the most. However, when money has been flowing in from those who would do our country harm and who want to rip control of the state away from the voting public and turn our nation into a Russian-style oligarchy, and when democratic institutions are just shopfronts for a nefarious state captured by the rich and powerful, we cannot stand idly by. That is why new clause 88 is so important.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her patience. Does she see the conflict between addressing problems with family voting, which may well be caused by members of a family not having English as their first language, or as a language at all, and therefore needing to be informed in a language that they are comfortable with, and taking steps to restrict information being produced in a language that enables a family member to understand the arguments that are being made in an election? We can all agree that understanding the English language, which the vast majority of us speak, learning it and having access to it is important for integration, but does she not agree that these measures will have two conflicting outcomes? One is to restrict communication with all members of a family; the other is to ban their influence.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way for a constructive question?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the Prime Minister is a huge advocate for the combined authority system of devolution. I have good news for him: all of London’s 32 boroughs called for exactly that in London, in a rare cross-party call last year. In the spirit of cross-party working, and to apply his experience from Manchester to the rest of the UK—as he has said that he wishes to do—will he reshape London’s devolution settlement by at last giving London boroughs a seat at the table when making decisions with the mayor?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I visited Croydon Crown court a few weeks ago with the Bar Council and listened to some of its members. It was clearer than ever that the demands of jury trials are not what is leaving victims waiting years for justice. The real question is how we get the most urgent cases listed, prioritised and heard fast to deliver timely justice for our constituents. Will the Minister listen to calls from the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and the right hon. Member for Makerfield—I do not know what Count Binface thinks about this, but I am pretty sure he will be on the right side of the argument—to instead consider reforms that would make an immediate difference to Crown court backlogs, such as having specialist sexual offences and domestic abuse courts, as the Bar Council has recommended? Those would ensure that victims get justice sooner, without curtailing the fundamental right to trial by jury.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Iran Conflict: Ceasefire · Hansard source

  More

  The Iranian regime is abhorrent. It has oppressed its people for decades, murdering protesters and activists, and it is no friend of ours. Its attacks on civilian shipping risk a global crisis, yet Donald Trump’s escalation and the US’s poorly targeted attacks have put civilians and our friends in the Gulf at huge risk, with the risk of a large-scale regional conflict. Will the Minister assure us that the FCDO keeps plans for the evacuation of British nationals in the region under review, in case they should be required?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Police Leadership Commission Report · Hansard source

  More

  The report finds structural issues within police forces, with fragmented and inconsistent systems that do not make the most of our police talent. If an officer sees cronyism, nepotism and abuse of power around them, they will not have their future career at the top of their mind or trying to break through that system. Given the impending Government reorganisation, how will whichever Home Officer Ministers are in place under the new Prime Minister ensure that the proposed police reorganisation puts strong systems in place, so that there is effective police leadership and development and we break out of the situation that has developed?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Foreign Interference in UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who last week took the decision to take her Department and herself off Twitter—or X, or whatever it is called these days? We talk about online misinformation and malign foreign influence, so it is worth remembering that Twitter is a platform owned by an individual who is hostile to British values and has openly fomented violence on our streets. At a march last year, he said: “Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die”. Does the Minister have any thoughts on removing her Department, or any further advice for Ministers or Members of this place on whether staying on that platform is in the interests of our democracy? What steps are the Government and the defending democracy taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign influence currently, before the measures in the Representation of the People Bill can be introduced?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. On Monday, with colleagues, I wrote to the Health Minister following the news that women’s health and maternity services may be relocated away from St Helier hospital due to building safety concerns. Yesterday we heard Baroness Amos’s review state: “Poorly maintained buildings…affect how safe people feel, how effectively staff can work, and whether care can be delivered in a way that is private, respectful and reliable.”It has been reported today that the Department of Health and Social Care’s capital budget will be cut by more than half a billion pounds over this Parliament to fund the DIP, which puts the new hospital programme timeline in doubt. Will the Prime Minister arrange for the Health Secretary to visit St Helier hospital with me to see its condition and hopefully agree to bring forward the build of the new Sutton specialist emergency care hospital—build it today, not in 2034—to ensure safe and modern healthcare and maternity facilities for my constituents?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Prisoner Early Release · Hansard source

  More

  I was contacted by a constituent who had received one of these letters earlier this week. The offender in question was a vile monster responsible for decades of sexual abuse, and he was sentenced to 30 years for 31 counts of sexual assault, rape and processing indecent images. He has served less than five years. Can the Minister explain how these are not the most heinous crimes, and how an offender like this is still eligible for this scheme? Can he also reassure residents that they will be written to as soon as possible to set their minds at rest, if their abusers are indeed going to be part of this scheme?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  I was recently contacted by a constituent whose daughter was diagnosed with SMA type 1 at five months old and, in her own words, five months too late. Her child is now two and needs a wheelchair. She cannot sit or stand unaided. She depends on specialist equipment and multiple weekly visits and appointments. That is no way for a toddler to live. Does the hon. Member agree that families like my constituents urgently need the Government to fast-track the roll-out of a testing programme to all children in all areas to ensure the best possible outcomes for children affected by the condition?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have statistics for Worcester Park station, which is also served by South Western Railway, and in the very last period before nationalisation—period 2 for 2025-26—punctuality was 89.3%, which is still not good enough, and cancellations was 1%. In all the periods since then, performance has been worse. Under nationalisation, Worcester Park has seen a worse service in every single period. Does my hon. Friend agree that our residents, particularly those of Worcester Park, do not care if a train turns up wrapped in a Union flag, but about whether that train is on time and not cancelled?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  There is an interesting dynamic between the impact of a fuel crisis, which is likely to have quite a short lead time, and these regulations, which give almost a six-month warning. Does the Minister recognise the need for oversight of how the rules are used to ensure that this happens in response to a fuel crisis and not for business reasons, or to expand the flexibility given by the existing JNUS rules?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is helpful to look at the consultation responses from airlines and airports when changes were announced. Only two out of 38 airlines opposed the changes, whereas airports were unanimously opposed to the measures. Airlines argued that, without a hand-back mechanism, they would not be able to adjust their schedules early enough to provide passengers with meaningful notice, even where known risks to operations existed. Airlines also considered the 10% limit on hand-backs too low and pushed to increase that to 20%-plus; generally speaking, we support the restriction to 10%, to reduce the potential impact on consumers. Airport respondents opposed the proposal; they were not against alleviation in principle but against the hand-back mechanism specifically. They argued that the existing justified non-utilisation of slots provisions are sufficient to enable cancellations where operational constraints, including fuel shortages, arise. For instance, JNUS has already come into effect, providing slot alleviation to operators because of airport and airspace closures from the disruption in the middle east. It is worth noting that, given that there is no fuel shortage now and none is expected according to Government data and airline bosses, this approach risks appearing to be unjustified, disproportionate and not entirely required, given that the measures in place are already helping with those issues. There is a risk that, instead of ensuring reliable services as stated, it could undermine consumer confidence and growth and investment opportunities. The Liberal Democrats recognise that flexibility during this tumultuous period is important; as we have seen, events can move very quickly in the middle east. We want to protect the long-term financial sustainability of the airline sector. We do not want airlines using slots for empty or near-empty ghost flights, where demand is insufficient, in order to maintain the historical rights to slots, but these changes would result in flight cancellations with little notice, with huge disruption to consumers. The proposal to allow hand-backs with as little as 14 days’ notice is contrary to the stated aim of preventing disruptive late cancellations, and it is unnecessary given that JNUS can be used at this late stage if a genuine fuel shortage occurs. In a cost of living crisis, with flight prices already through the roof, customers will be forced to spend more money on replacement flights at the last minute or lose money on hotels or onward travel. It is also the case that 14 days’ notice is too short a period for airports and other users to make effective use of the vacated slots, as airports typically need six weeks’ notice to reallocate slots commercially. This means that we would likely have unused slots, which reduces income to airports and reduces investment in passenger and freight infrastructure. Slot alleviation on its own cannot be considered the solution to fuel resilience issues; other action is needed. The Government must outline what other steps they will take to ensure the continued, resilient supply and availability of jet fuel in the UK. That includes going further and faster on the adoption and scaling up of sustainable aviation fuel projects, so that the UK is able to secure supplies of SAF and both ensure the lack of disruption to flights and enable further decarbonisation of aviation. Will the Government commit to formally monitoring hand-backs under the flexibility offered by this legislation in order to ensure that they are the result of genuine fuel shortages, are undertaken in a timely manner and are not being abused? I also echo the concerns of the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, about the impact on consumers. I will be voting against the draft regulations.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  We could have considered it, but we never got the chance because it was filibustered—it was spoken out. As with so much of our unwritten constitution, that principle’s ability to prevail, including for private Members’ Bills that enjoy significant support, relies on the good chaps and chapesses theory of government. Peter Hennessy described that theory as an unwarranted faith that “those who rise to high office will be ‘good chaps’” and chapesses who know “the unwritten rules” and want to “adhere to them, even if doing so might frustrate the attainment of their policy objectives”. When we examine the amendments and speeches in the Lords, it is clear that, in this instance, that theory has spectacularly failed. When the Bill fell, 1,280 amendments had been tabled. Seven of the most vocal opponents put forward nearly 700 amendments between them. It is worth looking at a couple of those who are most responsible for blocking the Bill. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff tabled 169 amendments and Baroness Grey-Thompson tabled 131, including amendment 458, which proposed, as we have heard, that every applicant, including men, people over 75 and those who are infertile, must supply a negative pregnancy test. Lord Carlile of Berriew tabled 72 amendments, as did Baroness Coffey, whose amendment 15 sought to exclude anyone who had left the UK in the previous 12 months, which would have meant anyone who had been on holiday or received a terminally ill prognosis of six months while abroad. Lord Sandhurst tabled 68 amendments, Lord Goodman of Wycombe 59 and Lord Moylan 46, including amendment 236, which would have forbidden the patient’s co-ordinating doctor from ever being employed in any way by the NHS at the same time that the process was being followed. None of those amendments was about making the Bill better, improving safeguards or refining the Bill. They were meant entirely to frustrate the will of MPs and the will of the public. In the same way that Boris Johnson obliterated the good chaps theory in the Commons, those seven Members of the House of Lords have been most directly responsible for finally obliterating the good chaps theory in the Lords. As we have heard, constitutional expert Mark D’arcy said that the process was clearly a “filibuster”. We have heard Rod Liddle, who was opposed to the Bill, say that his “side won by cheating”, and that opponents of the Bill had used “the machinery of government, rather than honest debate, to get it booted out”. Lord Moylan, who tabled 46 amendments, openly posted on Twitter that, “Peers are justified in blocking assisted dying bill”. He also shared an editorial from The Times saying that, “Peers who want to continue blocking this bill and prevent it from ever becoming law are justified in doing so.” Clearly, that is a reference to the use of amendments and speeches to block the Bill. Thus far, I have focused on the process, but it is important to mention the real human costs of those who are faced with one of the most heartbreaking decisions possible at their most vulnerable time. As with so many other private Members’ Bills in our long and proud history, the human story that hides behind the constitutional fray that we have been arguing about can get lost. Once it reaches the statute book, the net gain and the quality of life of those that it affects shine through. It was the same for the right to an abortion, and for someone’s rights to love and marry who they love. Now, it is the right to the most fundamental exercise of individual will and liberty imaginable. This debate is about hope, choice and taking control of the end of life. That hope and choice has been taken away by a tiny number of unelected legislators who have wilfully tested the good chap theory to destruction. We must take every opportunity to ensure that this is not allowed to go unchecked, that the lessons do not go unlearned and, most crucially, that the alleviation of suffering offered by the Bill is not lost for another generation.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing the debate so capably, as well as the petitioners, who are the reason we are having this debate. The petition is incredibly simple. It asks to apply the very basic principle that when Bills are supported by MPs and the public, they have time to complete all their parliamentary stages. We have heard a couple of extraordinary arguments against that in this debate—that is a surprise. I no longer have to read, “We won’t hear a credible argument against that principle”, although I think that is still true. It is entirely possible to support the need for a reviewing upper Chamber while believing that, if there is significant popular will in favour of a piece of legislation, and valid evidence in favour of its implementation, the Commons’ view that a Bill should at least be considered should ultimately prevail. Unfortunately, we are here because that principle has not been applied to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Let us quickly remember the Bill was given its Second Reading by 330 votes to 275. It was given its Third Reading by 314 votes to 291. As we have heard, in May 2025, after being told about the specific eligibility criteria and key provisions of the Bill that had passed its Third Reading, 73% of the public backed it. Even its opponents must accept that the Bill was supported by MPs and the public. When the petition was launched in February, there was hope that it would not be necessary—that the Lords would complete their scrutiny of the Bill and a stronger, improved Bill would come back for debate in the Commons. Unfortunately, that was not to be. As the Government’s response to the petition on 26 February made clear, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 established the primacy of the House of Commons as a cornerstone of democratic process.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly what happened.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Draft Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  We Liberal Democrats support this legislation. The regulations do not change existing policy but provide an updated legal framework for the regulation of animal use in scientific procedures. However, clearer animal welfare standards must be accompanied by stronger action from the Government. We should be working to minimise the use of animals in scientific experimentation, end animal testing in the cosmetics industry, and properly fund the development of humane alternatives. If the Government want Britain to be a world leader in animal welfare, they must go further and bring forward a comprehensive animal health and welfare Bill worthy of that goal.