Luke Taylor MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

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

  More

  rose —

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

  More

  I hope this intervention adds to my hon. Friend’s point. Does she find it ironic that the only person who has been imprisoned as part of the Epstein scandal is a woman?

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

  More

  I thank the Minister—I am not sure whether I do thank him—but I want to push back gently on that, and I would be interested in his response. Does not the fact that we have had 15 years since Andrew resigned in disgrace and it did not come before Parliament demonstrate that there is such a reluctance, or is it a true misunderstanding of process that that did not come before the House for us to discuss and really get into the weeds of the matter? Does he not see that as demonstrating the need for a change in the process, or at least an acknowledgment that we need to be digging deeper into these issues?

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

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I thank the Minister for his early acknowledgment of support for the Humble Address. He has engaged constructively with comments about its scope and exactly what it says. I thank him for his supportive attitude, as there has been across the Chamber. To return to the point about negative privilege and the fact that we cannot speak freely and have had to use a gymnastic approach to get to the point where we are today, I have submitted a number of requests for urgent questions to the Speaker’s office, which completely understandably has not managed to justify a discussion of the scandal as it has unfolded. By necessity, we have had to phrase the motion as an examination of the prince’s arrangements and his use of property, and there have been all sorts of confusing attempts not to discuss certain matters, which, as has been mentioned, have precluded us from doing so.

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

  More

  Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have to forgive me for dancing around to aid my pained back. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” That quote from 1887 is of the British historian Lord Acton, and its explains how power in its most essential form inevitably corrupts. Today we are discussing how that absolute power, that feeling of invincibility, has led to the behaviour that Members across the Chamber are all so utterly disgusted by. I speak on behalf of all residents who have been in touch with me over the last few weeks, whether they are a republican, a monarchist or ambivalent to the general principle. We see a scandal that is not just engulfing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, but dragging in the integrity of the wider royal family. As was said correctly by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), we must ask who knew what and when. What was known about the £12 million that was paid out to Virginia Giuffre in 2022, and how was that allowed to be used to settle a civil suit concerning allegations of Andrew’s alleged offences? How was that allowed to happen in the first place? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has said, we have seen one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, and a 12-year relationship that benefited them both financially, which has resulted in two arrests for misconduct in public office. This Humble Address refers to how that began, and it is absolutely the right place to start. As a politician, trying to convince the public that we are here to serve and represent them, that the conspiracies they read in the darker reaches of the internet are nonsense, and that there is no elite paedophile ring that runs the world’s institutions becomes increasingly difficult when we see links in the files that go directly from the Kremlin to the White House and everywhere in between, including the British royal family. We talk about standards in public life and integrity, but that is difficult to maintain if such things are known about and the information in the files is understood by the public but we are then unable to scrutinise it or to bring people to this place to ask questions about what has happened. As discussed, the Humble Address covers quite a narrow set of papers about Andrew’s appointment as the special representative for UK trade and industry. However, we have also discussed the parliamentary gymnastics required to get a discussion in the Chamber about the outrageous misdeeds allegedly conducted by that man. We have to call out those parliamentary gymnastics as an outrageous impediment to our performing our job as MPs and we need to dispel them from this place entirely. We have talked about the implications of Andrew’s position in the line of succession. When the photos of him walking in New York with Jeffrey Epstein were taken in 2011, he was fourth in line to the throne. When that scandal was occurring, he was very close to the throne—it is disgusting. Will the Minister give us an update on legislation that the Government might bring forward to remove Andrew from the line of succession? Andrew is eighth in line now, meaning his position may not be such a worry, but the principle of his being in the line of succession to become our Head of State is obnoxious in the extreme, so I would like to hear an update from the Minister about that.

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

  More

  I apologise for breaking that convention, but it is a useful demonstration that, however right the Speaker is in acting with such utter wisdom that we will never question, it remains a challenge to raise issues like this one in the Chamber. During the debate, Liberal Democrat Members have been clear that we have to have a full statutory inquiry into the whole Epstein affair and the tentacles that it has inserted into our public life. We must allow the criminal investigations to be completed, but the inquiry must be able to compel witnesses to appear, require them to give evidence under oath, and produce documents and other evidence. The inquiry must be used to punish those who have been complicit and have been involved in the heinous crimes we have heard about in the media. To echo the comments made by other hon. Members, the media and journalists have done incredible work investigating the crimes and poring over the files, and their effort cannot be overstated. To conclude, we have to ensure that the events that have transpired over the last 20 or 30 years as part of the Epstein scandal can never be repeated. The investigation must allow us to fireproof our constitution from similar events ever happening again.

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

  More

  Does the point about what the protection officers knew not show the outrageous power imbalance between a royal and an employee? We are talking about whistleblowing and reporting what has been seen. Is the prospect of having somebody in that situation—whereby they are being held to account for not calling out the behaviour of someone whose privilege and birthright have put them into such a position—not outrageous? Does my hon. Friend agree that this shows how the structure of our constitution has put us into such an outrageous twist and how difficult it will be to unwind that?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentions additional flexibility. Within that does she include allowing what I think are five inner-London boroughs, including Wandsworth, to increase their council tax by up to 10% without a referendum? Is that the additional flexibility that she mentions?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this important debate at an opportune time. “The streets of London are paved with gold”—or so the saying from the tale of Dick Whittington goes. But of course the point of that saying was to remind us that he did not, in fact, encounter riches and utopia when he got to London. That has been inner London’s story for centuries: portrayed as pampered by the rest of the nation while its people grapple with some of the biggest challenges imaginable. I am a proud Londoner, I am an MP and a still councillor in London, I am my party’s spokesperson for London, and I know vividly how drastic the challenge is across London. I have knocked on doors across the city and heard directly from residents about their challenges, their fury at the last Conservative Government and now their disappointment with the Labour Government. London is a city where 2.3 million people—that is twice the population of Birmingham, and one in four people in the city—live in poverty. According to data from the Trust for London, that figure rises to 38% for non-white households and 53% for single-parent households. It is a city where SEND deficits and adult social care deficits have thrown council finances into uncertainty for more than a decade. It is a city where, perhaps most shockingly of all, a teacher in every school can walk into their classroom in the morning knowing that, on average, at least one of their pupils at any given time is likely to be living in temporary accommodation. Year after year councils in London have been asked to do more with less. Reform of the system is long overdue, with the current formula not having been properly updated in more than a decade—not to mention the fundamental unfairness of the council tax system to raise money for local services. We were told by the Government that there would not be a return to austerity on their watch. It was a claim that most of us could believe, not just because they are a Labour Government with a social democratic tradition, but because they are a Government full of former councillors and council leaders who have seen at first hand that the reality of austerity is often most severe in local government. It is therefore outrageous that they have presented a funding review that simply doubles down on the disastrous cuts. Over the next three years, per capita funding, when council tax contributions are removed, will reduce by £109 in Camden, by £79 in Lambeth, by £75 in Southwark, by £37 in Lewisham, by £180 in Wandsworth, by £54 in Greenwich, by £220 in Hammersmith and Fulham, by £86 in Islington, and by £247 in Westminster and in Kensington and Chelsea. What is that if not Labour austerity? The current formula makes use of the index of multiple deprivation as the central measure of poverty but, as has been said many times, the IMD as currently designed does not properly reflect housing costs, housing poverty and what it means to be poor in a city where rent alone can swallow well over a half of a working person’s income. If we build a funding formula that ignores housing costs, we build one that blatantly ignores inner London. I am an engineer and know bad maths when I see it, and the proof that the Government’s latest announcements, published just this week, are smoke and mirrors is right there in the forecasted effects. Two thirds of the purported increase in total funding in London comes from the assumed council tax increases. When we account for that fact, we see that over the three-year settlement period, only two of the 12 inner-London boroughs—Hackney and Tower Hamlets—receive a real-terms funding increase per capita from the Government. Government Members like to talk about the austerity during the coalition period, but perhaps they would like to reflect on those figures for per-capita funding when council tax contributions are removed, which are a result of this Labour Government, and the effect on their inner-London residents. I have lots of data, which I am sure the Government know to be true, but a person does not have to be expert to know that the Government’s numbers do not add up—they just have to walk a few miles away from this place. I thought Labour Members were supposed to be in tune with and sensitive to inequality, yet here we are in a palace that is increasingly a boundary to their views while just a few minutes away, in Lambeth, Southwark, north Kensington and Chelsea Riverside, people are suffering because their councils are choked of the funds that they need to protect them. The support that this Government promised to deliver never materialised. Those working people have already been hit by inflation, the cost of living and rising transport fares. They now face not just lesser services but the prospect of huge council tax hikes because of this mess, which Labour might not have made but is doubling down on. Londoners are sick of being utterly let down while being told that they have never had it so good, or that they have a Government and a mayor who are on their side. I do not doubt that Labour Members’ intentions are good, that they got into politics for the right reasons, or that they have had incredible achievements as councillors—I am proud to have done that myself—but I sincerely ask them to please get their house in order and provide what London needs. With the devil in the detail of their unfair funding review, they are proposing the exact opposite. They have just a couple of months to get their act together before the local elections, but I suspect that for most Londoners the die is already cast against Labour because of its lack of care. This is not a sustainable foundation for any public service system. It is not fair funding; it is the accelerated starvation of a vital part of the public realm, masked by cosmetic changes. The Minister has heard it from around the Chamber; it is not just me ploughing a single furrow. If the Government are casting about trying to understand why people are not warming to their efforts—perhaps more so this week than ever before—they should remember that although they can mask an unfair funding formula under snappy headlines and public relations gloss, they cannot make it function as a good policy just by wishing it so. That is government by magical thinking. I am racking my brain trying to imagine why Members on the Government Benches cannot see the wood for the trees on this topic. I can only guess that they simply do not grasp the true value of well-funded, well-functioning and truly independent local government. I know that that is not true for some of the Members in this Chamber, who have come from local councils in inner and outer London. However, they are unwilling to challenge the dangerous idea that local government is a derivative of central Government, and the fact that the mayor’s powers are being used as a convenient shield by a Labour Government who are quietly keeping London in their back pocket for whenever they need someone else to carry the pain—because that is what the fairer funding review amounts to. It is hard to see it as anything other than a plan for managed decline of our cities, with inner-London boroughs first in the firing line. This can only be justified by misunderstanding the aphorism that I began with and not grasping that London’s streets are considered to be paved with gold only when it suits those who wish to ignore its many challenges. I invite the Minister to explain more clearly how a reduction in per-capita funding over the next three years for residents in 10 of the 12 inner-London boroughs that are the subject of this debate will result in better services for those residents.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the tone of the hon. Member’s comment at the end there. I will use the examples of Lambeth and Southwark. When we pull out the contributions from council tax and look only at the money that is coming from central Government, over the next three years, Lambeth residents will have £75 per capita removed from their support from central Government, and Southwark residents will have £75 per resident removed. Does she agree that that is not good enough from a Labour Government?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  On the information available, does my hon. Friend share my discomfort about the fact that the situation became clear to us only after this mass release of information by the Department of Justice in the United States? While I understand the Government’s reluctance to release information that may well harm international affairs, that does not seem to be a concern for the US Government.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Dowd. I also thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for calling this important debate. No one can live freely live under the fear of crime. Across London and in boroughs such as mine in Sutton, that freedom begins and ends with residents feeling safe to use their town centres and high streets. It is where people come together and shop, and in this day and age, it is one of the last truly public spaces left. When our constituents cannot see police on their high streets, they do not feel protected and are left feeling powerless. Their sense of security slips and changes how they live their daily lives. High street footfall drops, shops close earlier, parents worry, and women are forced to plan their routes home with keys clenched in their fists. Londoners should feel safe in their everyday routines without being threatened by an illegal e-bike tearing across the pavement, the fear of their phone being snatched from their hand, or being forced to put up with antisocial, disrespectful behaviour. Let me be clear: no matter what certain right-wing politicians say—fortunately, they are absent today—London is largely a safe city. Figures for serious crime in the capital are falling, which should be celebrated. The murder rate is at the lowest level in London since 2014 and violent crime in the city is down by 12% compared with 2024, though up by around 30% in 10 years. Improving figures for the most serious crimes contrasts with an increase in more visible crimes such as shoplifting, up 19% in London this year. The same is tragically true for sexual assaults, which are up by more than 10,000 in a decade, from 16,100 in 2016 to 26,800 in 2025. All crime reporting in London is up from 87.1 per thousand in 2016 to 106.4 in 2025, all under Mayor Khan’s watch and Government funding deals decided by Conservative Ministers. Those are sobering reminders that crimes that make life miserable—or, in the case of sexual assault, terrifying—are up despite the positive headlines. The lived experience of my constituents tells a far more uncomfortable story than the picture that the mayor and the Government want to paint. It is particularly heartbreaking for women and girls, who have faced under-reported violence on our streets for decades and had hoped that, as society finally begins to shine a spotlight on gendered violence, visible and proactive policing would finally rise to meet the challenge. Instead, they have to bear witness to the erosions of such policing. Between 2015 and 2025, the number of Metropolitan police officers stayed almost static at around 32,000 full- time equivalents. As our cities become more complex, new crimes and dangers have developed and the population has grown by more than 500,000 people, the Metropolitan police has not. Just last year, under Sadiq Khan’s leadership and a Labour Government, the Metropolitan police lost more than 1,400 officers and staff—a cut of over 4%. I expect the Minister will talk about decisions made by some of my predecessors up to 16 years ago as a reason for Labour’s failure properly to fund the Met this year, but the responsibility sits squarely on the shoulders of a Labour Government and a Labour mayor. For Londoners, those cuts are a kick in the teeth. Police officers should not seem a novelty. They should be spotted on the street and not thought unusual.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I genuinely thank the hon. Member for his contribution; he must have read my next paragraph. CCTV cameras and facial recognition tech watching and monitoring us going about our business cannot replace a friendly face with a welcoming smile and advice on getting assistance for a lost phone or mislaid keys. I fear that as funding for the Metropolitan police continues to be stretched thinner and thinner, that reassurance will begin to all but disappear. Having walked the streets of Sutton with my local police unit, I have seen at first hand the strain caused by falling officer numbers. My high street team has been cut from 11 to four. They are doing extraordinary work, but they are being asked to cover more ground and respond to more incidents with fewer colleagues by their side. Sometimes I fear that there is a dangerous strain of make-believe in this debate: the belief that police capacity can grow without the financial backing to support it. No one has been clearer about that than the Metropolitan police commander, Sir Mark Rowley. Last year he warned of severe consequences as the Met faced a £260 million funding gap. Even after emergency support reduced a much larger deficit, the pressures have not gone away, and policing capability in the capital continues to be eroded as we speak. Within the Met’s specialist teams, the flying squad, firearms teams and the Royal Parks police are all set to be cut, to say nothing of school liaison officers, who do some of the most important work in restoring and embedding trust in the police in the next generation and stopping the dangerous spread of youth violence at its root. Those units form the backbone of serious crime prevention in our capital. In recent weeks, we have been told that structural reforms will save the day. There have been proposals for mergers to create mega-forces, which apparently will do more for less. Police reform without proper funding is not fixing the problem; at best, it is delaying it and at worst, it is putting greater pressure on the cracks that are already showing. The changes set out in the police reform White Paper must be done right. I want to press the Minister for clarity on what the reforms will mean, particularly for the Metropolitan police. At a time when visible policing is so hard to achieve, we would expect priority to be given to those last vestiges of accessible law enforcement—police front counters. But no: having already lost police officers and stations and with a £260 million shortfall to plug, Londoners are now being asked to stomach the closure of counters across the city, leaving most of London a police access desert. The 12 complete closures and the loss of 24-hour counters in 25 other locations touch every part of London. A 24/7 counter in every borough gone—another broken promise from Mayor Khan. When those counters close, people lose the sense that police officers are present and accessible in their community. We can all see and agree on that, so it beggars belief that just last week, both Labour and Green assembly members voted against Lib Dem proposals for a funded moratorium on these closures. How can they expect Londoners to put their trust in them if they will not back us on this most basic of campaigns? The Liberal Democrats across London are calling not just for this to be stopped, but for more properly funded police front desks in every community based in local hubs such as libraries, shopping centres and town halls. That would allow people to report crimes and share information with the police face-to-face in convenient locations. To conclude, I simply ask the Minister this: when can our police forces expect to see the investment they deserve? What assessment are the Government making on an ongoing basis of the impact of below-inflation funding increases on the viability of community policing? Why, when the Government claim to want to restore community policing, will they not intervene when their own party’s mayor is driving policing in the opposite direction in the capital?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member acknowledge that total crime figures are actually up over the last 15 years in London—from 87.1 crimes per thousand people in 2023-24 to 106.4 in 2024-25? Is she happy to correct the record and say that overall crime levels in London are up under Sadiq Khan?

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  I will have another try at the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) in his original statement. Can the Prime Minister tell us what President Xi said about the case of Jimmy Lai, and what gave him confidence that we might see movement in the case soon? Can he also let us know what response he received on challenging the bounties put on the heads of dissidents here in the United Kingdom? Did he challenge the transnational repression that Hongkongers across the country fear? Is there any prospect of them being able to walk our streets without worrying about interference from the Chinese state?

• 2 Feb 2026 · US Department of Justice Release of Files · Hansard source

  More

  The files released on Friday are an horrific record of the relationships among the rich and the powerful, including Elon Musk and Donald Trump, and we have seen mention of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and of course Peter Mandelson. It is horrific and, as other Members have mentioned, we must keep the victims at the forefront of our minds. We have heard the discussion of the email that Peter Mandelson sent to Epstein about business issues, and there was a second one in 2010 in which he gave a preview of the €500 billion bail-out that was imminent. In the light of that, will the Government be proactive in encouraging a police investigation? Are they in discussions with the US Department of Justice about unredacted emails and, potentially, documents that have been withheld and not yet released, which detail the offending further? Will they also republish Peter Mandelson’s entries in the register of interests from his election in 1992 through to 2010?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Consumer Energy Bills: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member highlights the gap between families who are eligible for support and those who just cannot quite make ends meet. Clearly, there is a challenge in making any measure completely comprehensive and ensuring that those in need get the support they require. When Beveridge wrote of his five great evils all those decades ago, he had in mind specifically the kind of poverty that we are talking about here—not just in material terms, but in access to living conditions that make a higher quality of life possible. In the decades since, we have clung to the findings of his report while slowly letting the meaning of those words decay, assuming that things such as freezing to death in one’s own home were evils conquered by the “white heat” of revolution. We were wrong, and squalor, by means of poor housing, insulation and lack of warmth, is back in Britain. It is here, not just in the homes of the poorest and most vulnerable, but all too often in the suburban houses of middle-income families and in urban flats where young people raise kids. That is to say nothing of parts of rural Britain, where very old, pre-modern insulation in housing is still the norm. For too many families and pensioners I meet, across neighbourhoods, ages and even incomes, this is the single most pressing issue in their lives. We do not need a new Beveridge report to tell us that—not that we are wanting for heartbreaking statistics. We can see it with our own eyes and hear it with our own ears, and we feel it in our bones when we knock on doors in our constituencies, time and again, day in, day out. When an issue gets to the heart of people’s quality of life in such a huge way, the state has a duty to cut through the roadblocks, take the lead and do something about it quickly. This Government, however, have taken too long to do so. The announcement last week of the warm homes plan is welcome; we Liberal Democrats have been pushing for it for years. Many organisations working in this space, such as the MCS Foundation, are relieved to see it finally outlined.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Consumer Energy Bills: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I agree 100%. Whenever we have novel technologies, there is a rush to fill the space; unfortunately, cowboys may well get there first. The Government have a huge role not only in encouraging quality installation but in protecting against that vacuum being filled by disreputable traders. On the subject of the home upgrade programme, as with most Liberal Democrat policies we urge the Government to steal it. It would complement and, frankly, complete their own strategy. I invite the Minister to take this opportunity to outline specifically how the delivery of that strategy will work. As we Liberal Democrats have said, without a clear replacement for the ECO programme or future homes standard, we face losing skilled installers and risk long delays for the kind of ambitious programme of insulation that we need. That is not a theoretical loss: homes with lower efficiency standards are actively dangerous to people’s health. We will hold the Government accountable for their legally binding targets, but I encourage them to remember that full disclosure of the practicalities of implementing the strategy would help all of us work harder to tackle fuel poverty. In fact, the Government should be working more closely with new projects such as the Citigen network, which I recently visited in London, or with local councils such as my own in Sutton, to see how new alternative heat sources are already making a difference to people’s lives. We can and must be more ambitious. We must surely now recognise that the scale of the crisis is so severe that tinkering with infrastructure investment, while useful for the future, does not solve the problem for families shivering and cutting back every single day. To genuinely rescue people from the cold, we must tackle the real cost of energy now. That is why we need a social tariff to provide targeted energy discounts for vulnerable households, including those on low incomes and in receipt of personal independence payment. That is why the Liberal Democrats have been calling for the renewables obligation levy to be removed from people’s energy bills and instead funded by a proper windfall tax until April 2027—after which the Government should develop a new way of funding RO contracts, implementing Liberal Democrat proposals to move them on to a contracts-for-difference model. That would decouple energy prices from the wholesale gas prices and ensure that ordinary people across the country can benefit from cheap renewable energy. I am sorry not to see any Reform MPs here, although it is not a surprise; it was written down here in my notes. They deserve to be told once again that net zero does not mean higher energy costs. How we fund our energy transition is a political choice. They are choosing to remain wedded to the very system that has left us so vulnerable and Britons literally freezing to death in their own homes, rather than making sure that the fat cats pay their fair share towards keeping people in this country alive.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Consumer Energy Bills: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, and I will come on to the package that the Government outlined last week. It was very welcome, but we need to go further on immediate measures. More than 12 million households are struggling with high energy bills today. It is not just the cold, but what creeps in with it: the damp and mould in children’s lungs and the reliance, for some families, on heating that produces dangerous carbon monoxide, which presents a threat to life and limb. Let us be clear: in parts of Britain where fuel poverty is all too common, we are at risk of letting one generation slip away slowly, sitting lonely in their homes, shivering, while we raise another forever stunted by a cold childhood.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Consumer Energy Bills: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for consumer energy bills. It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms Jardine. This morning, hon. Members may have caught the same package on the breakfast news as I did. It followed Ukrainians on the outskirts of Kyiv who had been without heating for more than two weeks. They have suffered in conditions unthinkable to those of us in modern Britain, with temperatures in some places dropping to minus 20° overnight. The pictures —of children with frozen faces wearing four or five coats, and grandmothers slipping on sheets of ice that had formed on the floors of their apartments—were heartbreaking. I hope that hon. Members will indulge my making that aside at the start of my remarks; as I watched those scenes, I could not help but feel alarmed at the sense that Russia’s targeting of Ukrainian energy infrastructure mirrors the shockwaves it has wilfully sent across Europe’s traditional energy mix since it first crossed the Ukrainian border nearly four years ago. Those shockwaves were amplified in the UK when they collided with the unstable economic conditions wrought by Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, whose impacts are still rumbling on today. We are fortunate in this country not to suffer temperatures consistently way below 0°, and especially lucky not to have to contend with that while bombs rain down on our heads. But the reality of the dangers of cold is present everywhere, and our cost of energy crisis is forcing people to live without heating mere miles from where we stand today, in the world’s sixth largest economy. It is always innocent, ordinary people—from Kyiv to Kilburn and everywhere in between—who suffer because of huge energy price shocks: ordinary people such as the pensioners in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, who are living in homes that are sealed shut against the winter, their windows “boarded up” with blankets and towels as they try desperately to keep inside what little heat they can afford. In the Chamber last week, I mentioned an incident in which I knocked on the door of a resident who answered in a coat and scarf—not because she was going out, but because she did not have the heating on inside; it was around 3° or 4° outside. It happened again yesterday, when I was out canvassing in Worcester Park. I have heard from households that now avoid using their ovens, not out of choice but out of fear of what switching them on will do to their finances. Local hospitals prepare for influxes after cold snaps, because the cold weather thickens blood and causes clots and heart attacks in older people. Anyone who has experienced true cold—awful, core-shaking cold—can only dare to imagine what it feels like for children and older people, whose temperature regulation is developing or fading. The End Fuel Poverty Coalition estimated that 4,950 excess winter deaths in the UK were caused by living in cold homes during that first chaotic winter of 2022-23.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Consumer Energy Bills: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more: energy security is national security. It sounds like a trite cliché, but it is so absolutely true when we look at the dangers around the world today. The Minister has heard my arguments and the arguments made by other colleagues who intervened. The Minister will have seen, like the rest of us, the findings of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, published earlier today: that the number of people living in the most extreme form of poverty has reached its highest level since records began. In addition to my other asks this afternoon, I ask the Minister to simply look us in the eye and tell us why, when people are freezing, the Government are not moving faster?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Consumer Energy Bills: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. As an engineer by background, I think we need to focus on the outcome and the goal, rather than prejudicing the tool. While air-source heat pumps are suitable in many cases, they rely on air tightness and insulation, which may well be a barrier to quick implementation. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation and heat pumps for those on low incomes.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Residents in Sutton and Cheam are seeing the very real impact of the cost of living crisis. It may sound like a cliché, but they are seeing the impact on their energy bills, their rent and particularly their food and grocery prices. Staples such as eggs, milk and butter have increased exponentially, as has the price of treats like chocolate—it is now 45p for a Freddo bar, which shows the scale of the crisis more than anything. Will the Government schedule a debate to discuss how we can tangibly bring about solutions to the cost of living crisis, including consideration of measures such as negotiating a bespoke customs union deal? I am sure the Leader of the House will tell me that is not in the Government’s mandate, but it is definitely in mine, having stood on a Liberal Democrat manifesto to push that matter if elected.