Luke Taylor MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. Transport links are essential to our economy, tourism, trade and everyday life, but all too often they have been neglected. Up and down the country, people in businesses have been plagued by an inefficient, unreliable and unaffordable public transport system, which was completely neglected by the former Conservative Government. Now, as with many other areas of our creaking infrastructure, the public find themselves wondering when the change promised by the Labour Government will finally arrive, as if it were another heavily delayed train. As we have heard at length today, too many rural communities remain effectively cut off from public transport. I grew up in Market Rasen in Lincolnshire, and I distinctly remember the frustration of simply trying to get to Lincoln—or beyond, to Newark or Nottingham—given the unpredictable and unreliable single-carriage trains that filled the air with thick, black diesel smoke. Those challenges impacted the job opportunities of the people I grew up with and left our local economy—though beautiful and traditional in its own way—hanging off the edge of the rest of the east of England like a loose thread. It is startling that now, more years later than I care to admit, very little has changed. I am going to channel the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and join his calls for improved services to Market Rasen, including a direct link to King’s Cross, which may well improve my home town’s connection to the rest of humanity. We have already heard how suburban communities such as Smethwick and Solihull, Loughborough and Long Eaton have suffered for years with poor train and bus services. In fact, it could be said that suburban towns do not get the attention that they deserve in the wider debate about this issue. As someone who represents a suburban town on the outer bounds of London, I reassure Members present that the problems discussed today are not completely alien to those faced by commuters in Sutton. Having lived in rural Lincolnshire, lived and worked in Lichfield, Ilkeston and Nottingham, and travelled to Broughton in north Wales for years on the train and bus services, I have personally suffered the impacts of that lack of connectivity. Improving people’s lives, however, is not just about grand plans for infrastructure—even though as an engineer and recovering transport planner, I do wish that all problems could be solved by it—it is also about delivery and real funding for those projects, coupled with good leadership and real results. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s announcement last week that they are backing the long-standing Lib Dem calls to finally deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail—a clear Lib Dem win if ever I saw one. The plan, following the completion of Northern Powerhouse Rail, to build a new rail link through the midlands from Birmingham to Manchester is also welcome.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales · Hansard source

  More

  When we see the investment going in, the tracks being laid and the services turning up to stations, I think we will agree that that is a win for any Government. For too long, we have seen empty promises that have not been funded and have not arrived, so perhaps we should all pause our congratulations and backslapping until those projects finally materialise. With just over £1 billion of funding allocated for those projects so far, however, we had hoped for something more concrete. Indeed, beyond the headline that up to £45 billion can be spent, the mere £1.1 billion commitment to spend another five years making a plan to make a plan to consult on a consultation is cold comfort to those whose dreams of a truly joined-up economy rest on the delivery of this project—those are the dreams of not just businesses and councils, but ordinary people and community groups. The Government have not yet done enough to convince us that, following a decade of broken promises and distant dreams for transport in the north, we are actually on the cusp of real change. For communities that have been waiting for rail upgrades for years—like a young boy waiting for the train to Lincoln on the platform at Market Rasen station—there will be another long wait before we see spades in the ground. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to go further and faster, like the trains that we so badly need, to improve transport links in the midlands and north Wales. The economy of our entire country will benefit from reversing years of overlooked investment in transport systems. The statistics make that clear, with my home region of the east midlands receiving the lowest transport spending per head in 2023-24 at just £368 per person—a quarter of that in London and half of the average for England. Wales received just £566 per head, compared with an average of £693 in England and £763 in Scotland. Passengers and businesses across the midlands and north Wales deserve better, and the Liberal Democrats will continue to hold the Government’s feet to the fire in delivering improvements for them. To reiterate, we do not pretend that the challenges that the Government inherited are easily fixable. The British railways were left in a terrible state by the previous Conservative Government, but nearly two years on from the general election, many Brits remain fed up with the state of the British railways—with a network still plagued with delays, high ticket prices and overcrowding. The Government would do well to remember that most passengers just want the strong delivery and good leadership that I mentioned, regardless of who owns the railways. People want better, more reliable and more affordable services—full stop. If nationalisation fails to make the impact that it promised, as the early warning signs indicate may be the outcome of the Government’s intervention, nothing will have changed. In the spirit of constructive opposition, I invite the Minister to consider how the Government might align their plans more closely with the Liberal Democrat plans for our railways. Namely, I invite the Minister to meet my Liberal Democrat colleagues to discuss introducing a passengers’ charter like that laid before the House yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). It would go a long way towards offering passenger protections on reliability, accessibility, affordability, amenities such as wi-fi and toilets, and seat guarantees. It could be folded into the ongoing development of the Railways Bill. Similarly, will the Minister outline how the Government plan to significantly extend the electrification of Britain’s rail network without committing, as we have done, to a 10-year plan for more electric trains, greater investment in batteries, and ensuring that all new lines are electrified as standard? Such measures could make a huge difference to the carbon impact of our train network, including by creating new capacity for freight to be carried by rail rather than road, while delivering real results for passengers at the same time. Finally, I invite the Minister to outline why the Government are not working with local authorities, not just in the midlands and north Wales but across the nation, to unleash the pent-up capability of transport-led economic growth in our towns and cities. The repeatedly delayed Leeds tram would be a great start, as would—if you will indulge me, Ms Furniss—extending the Transport for London tram to Sutton. However, I imagine that the Minister will be able to discuss some of these matters with the Mayor of Greater Manchester face to face much sooner than he had anticipated when he woke up this morning.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome this plan and the ambition that the Government are showing, and I will try to dispel some of the official Opposition’s misconceptions. I am sure we have all been out knocking on doors in our constituency. When I was doing so in Worcester Park last week, a lady came to the door in a big jacket, and I moved to let her pass, because I thought she was on her way out. However, she was not going out; she was in her home in a jacket because she did not have the heating on. I am sure we have all experienced that. We know how the cost of living crisis is hitting our residents, whether through their grocery bills, their rent or their energy costs. Can the Secretary of State give a bit more detail on how we will address energy costs and insulation issues in the short term? Are there programmes in the plan that can fund easy wins, so that we get fewer energy leaks from existing gas boilers, while the industry spools up by getting those with the right skills to install heat pumps, and while we are getting production lines ready?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  Hongkongers and other Chinese dissidents in the UK will be rightly concerned about this news. I want to make it completely clear that the Liberal Democrats have serious concerns that this project will enhance China’s ability to conduct transnational repression against Britons and Hongkongers on British soil. What is the timeline for closing the seven existing Chinese consulate buildings, once Royal Mint Court is opened? Will the Government publish the 2018 note verbale confirming that the embassy was contingent on planning approval, ensuring that the Government did not prejudge the application? Finally, paragraph 62 of the Secretary of State’s permission letter states that “lawful embassy use of the site” would give no cause for worry about interference with the sensitive cabling that runs adjacent to the secret basement rooms. After China’s proven record of unlawful espionage against MPs and British institutions, does the Minister agree that this is a catastrophic misjudgment, and that we have no hope of our laws being observed by the Chinese Communist party?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Proposed Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats have made it clear from the beginning of this saga that the approval of China’s super-embassy would be a terrible betrayal of Hongkongers who moved to the UK to escape the very repression that the Government are now inviting to their doorstep. The Government must halt the application and summon the Chinese ambassador to make it clear that we will not accept Beijing’s efforts to spy on our Parliament or to intimidate and harass Hongkongers in our community. On the specifics of the application, in a 2018 letter the then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson granted diplomatic status to Royal Mint Court. That letter made no mention of a condition relating to planning permission and, under section 1 of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, represents a fulfilment of the condition to provide express consent. Eight years later, we are now being told that consent was somehow conditional on planning permission, based on a secret note verbale from May 2018 that has not been published. Will the Government release that note verbale, which is the only evidence that diplomatic status was provided conditional on planning permission and, therefore, that the application was not prejudged by the Government?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  Diplomacy relies on rational actors, yet even in the last fortnight we have seen Donald Trump declare that he is not bound by international law, only by his “own morality”. He has deployed paramilitary forces against his own people, and he speaks of cancelling elections. How apt! We have also seen the unilateral kidnapping of the President of an independent country. We are not dealing with a rational man; he responds only to shiny baubles, as we have seen with the incredible saga of the Nobel peace prize. I agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and ask the following question: will the Government consider removing the King’s visit to the United States and boycotting the world cup? The only thing to which Donald Trump responds is his own pride.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for submitting her application, and Mr Speaker for granting another urgent question on this issue. Although we are not yet happy with the answers, we have at least been given repeated chances to scrutinise the issue as it has progressed. I am here on behalf of Hongkongers in Sutton and Cheam and across London who are aghast at the prospect of this project being given permission. We have seen the persecution and conviction of Jimmy Lai; transnational repression of Hongkongers in the UK through, among other things, the withholding of their mandatory provident fund savings that allow them to survive here; bounties placed on activists; and action taken against MPs, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) being prevented from going into Hong Kong, and sanctions being placed on other MPs. If a hostile state is rewarded for all these actions with permission to expand and increase its capabilities for surveillance, espionage and repression in our capital city, what hope can any of us have that the Government will stand up against hostile states for Britain and Britons in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world?

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for what is a clear Lib Dem win. I repeat the question from my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), on the need for a transparent assessment of the potential economic growth benefits of a customs deal. In three years, we will all be seeking a new mandate, and if we can really understand the potential economic benefits at that point, our residents and citizens will be able to make an informed decision. Can I please encourage the Minister to give a second thought to that study?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to clear up concerns following the statements by the Home Secretary yesterday. The Met police are expected by March 2026 to have 2,508 fewer officers than they had at the time of the May 2024 election. Fewer officers means more space for men to commit crimes against women and girls and fewer police liaison officers in schools. We see the lack of confidence on our streets, where Sutton’s high street team has been cut from 11 to four officers. Part of the response for that is by Reclaim Sutton’s Streets—a group set up to stand up for women’s rights in the area. My question is about funding. Will the Minister ensure that Thursday’s announcement will provide full details of the funding for the programmes in the plan, and ensure full funding in the police settlement next year, so that we do not see further erosion in police numbers, especially in the Met police?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Jimmy Lai Conviction · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sebastien Lai, whom I and a number of colleagues met earlier, and who has shown courage and fortitude throughout this process. Ever since the verdict was announced I have been inundated with the concerns of Hongkongers in my constituency about what this might means for their safety under the programme of transnational repression and persecution being conducted by the Chinese. They say that diplomacy works until it doesn’t, and now we can see that it has not worked, so there must be consequences. May I press again for an answer on why China has not been placed in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? I understand that, as Home Secretary, the right hon. Lady submitted evidence to the Housing Secretary regarding the security implications of the super-embassy. Has she updated that advice since new risks and threats have been identified?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. Together, the 100 smallest carbon-emitting countries represent more carbon emissions than China on its own, so if all those smaller-emitting countries make their own contribution it can make a bigger contribution to cuts than China. Does the right hon. Member not agree that those small measures add up to a huge difference globally?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the hon. Member has a lot of knowledge on this issue. I think that looking at all the options that maintain capability is critical. What might come out of this is an ask for this Minister— or potentially the aviation Minister, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather)—to sit down with our APPG, in which there is a lot of expertise, to talk about some of the ways that we can maintain capability but also achieve our transition and net zero goals. A pragmatic approach could be not to apply the rules to smaller users of hydrogen—for example, where hydrogen accounts for less than 5% of feedstock—while a longer time is taken to consider the impacts for large-scale hydrogen users. I now turn to our wider ecosystem of logistics infrastructure. Pipelines, storage and distribution networks are essential for connecting supply and demand, especially as the market shifts towards sustainable fuels and as we look to improve our energy security. For example, Exolum, which runs a 2,000 km onshore pipeline network that delivers 40% to 50% of the aviation fuel used for UK flights each year, is transforming its aviation fuel pipeline network to supply SAF. To unlock further investment in the infrastructure and ensure a just transition, industry is calling for long-term policy signals, such as extending and increasing renewable fuel mandates; targeted incentives like business rates relief and payment holidays for new infrastructure; inclusive subsidy schemes for hydrogen storage; and fast-tracking obligations for renewable liquid heating fuels. At present, most support for fuel infrastructure is directed towards large-scale production projects. Conversely, investment in storage and distribution infrastructure is increasingly undertaken at an operator’s own risk and often ahead of immediate market need. That imbalance is amplified by a business rates system that can disincentivise new investments and high-end capital projects—including energy transition initiatives—especially when the investment is by overseas companies likely to be looking for more cost-effective placement of funding in countries with more generous and strategic policies. How will the Minister ensure that policy and investment frameworks can support storage and distribution infrastructure, thereby enabling the development of a future-ready energy system, capable of responding to evolving market conditions and minimising supply chain risks? The Liberal Democrats urge the Government fully to grasp the opportunities that our industrial capacity and workforce capability offer our country, to lead the world in a transition to next-generation fuels and energy. It is in our blood and our tradition as a country to grapple with these big technological questions, so it should be up to us to show what real leadership on the just transition looks like—not just because great feats of engineering are impressive in their own right, which they are, but because a whole generation of people whose lives and careers have been shaped by our oil refineries and wider energy sector, and future generations, are counting on that leadership. In recent years, the Conservatives abandoned it. We urgently need to get it back and provide stability for the communities most affected. Home-grown, local renewable energy and fuels can be clean, cheap and popular, and they embed resilience. The Government must work with industry because striving for theoretical perfection, rather than ambitious but deliverable policy, risks choking the sector and neutering this revolution. Our engineers and industry stand ready to deliver, as they have done time and again, the greener economy that we need and that communities up and down the country deserve.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. That is why we are talking about a transition. It may well bring shivers to the hon. Member’s spine to talk about transitions, but it is critical that we talk about them in a reasonable and sensible way, and about how we look forward to the future rather than to the past. Reform’s approach is equally dogmatic and damaging as that of the Green party and has already been found wanting in practice in local government. We can only make the transition a reality if we grasp the opportunity to utilise our existing oil refining infrastructure to turn to the chemistry of the future, with a diverse set of feedstocks from a wide range of supply points. We should be working with industry on delivering that, but industry leaders tell me that on the critical steps that the Government should be taking, they are going ignored or unheard. Let us take bioethanol, for example. At the start of 2025, the UK bioethanol sector provided 895 million litres of renewable fuel production capacity and thousands of direct and indirect jobs. It was also a significant market for British agriculture and providing critical co-products such as carbon dioxide for the NHS, and for the food and drink sector. As of December 2025, the industry has been halved, following the US-UK trade deal. An immediate solution would be to transition that bioethanol to SAF, as the alcohol-to-jet technology being developed in the UK can convert it into jet fuel. Under the SAF mandate rules, however, bioethanol readily produced in the UK—sustainable enough for a car engine—has been deemed not sustainable enough for a jet engine. Will the Minister consider the request of industry to support the UK’s bioethanol industry to continue operations and simultaneously support SAF production by allowing bioethanol use under the SAF mandate? The upcoming call for evidence on the role of crops under the UK SAF mandate should be released urgently, and a pragmatic approach taken. Similarly, opening hydrogen storage subsidies to include liquid fuel infrastructure would ensure that existing assets could play a role in the hydrogen economy. Hydrogen storage is critical, but hydrogen production and usage are also critical to our future renewable goals and to providing the supply of SAF that will be required to decarbonise aviation. DFT rules state that, to make compliant SAF in the UK, hydrogen must be green hydrogen—rightly—and cannot be supported by the hydrogen production business model, a scheme established by DESNZ to get UK hydrogen production off the ground. That alone is not controversial. However, there is no green hydrogen available in the UK that will not be supported by the HPBM, which means that a portion of SAF using these renewable molecules will be uncompliant and, essentially, very expensive fossil jet fuel, despite it actually being green. I convey to the Minister the ask from industry that the DFT and DESNZ should be urgently working together to ensure interconnectivity with hydrogen policy and SAF policy, so that SAF producers are not penalised for using domestic industry?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this important debate, and all the Members who have spoken for their contributions. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace—we have done a lot of work on sustainable aviation fuel—and that I met representatives of Exolum, the International Air Transport Association, LanzaJet and the Tank Storage Association in preparation for this debate. At times of great upheaval and change, it is tempting to look to political leaders, artists or other major cultural figures to get a sense of where the world is headed. That is certainly a popular approach among historians, but I think it misses something: the often pivotal role of engineers—and I say that not just because I am one myself, or was. It is not necessary to subscribe to an entirely materialistic view of history to recognise that engineers, no matter who they work for or where they work, are often at the vanguard of the kind of technological change that enables our wider political or social ambitions to be achieved. That was true at the cusp of the industrial revolution; it was true when the white heat of technology exploded the middle class in the ’50s; and it is true now, perhaps more than ever, as we embark on the mission to undo the damage to our environment that previous technological shifts have wrought. We must secure our energy supply so that we can withstand an ever more uncertain future, and transform our late-industrial malaise into a green, prosperous and abundant economy through a truly just transition. Data from the oil and gas industry shows that it directly supports around 26,000 jobs across the UK and indirectly supports 95,000 more. These are largely jobs in offshore drilling, rigging, catering, scaffolding, onshore fabrication yards, anchor manufacturing and vessel maintenance, and there are more. It is also estimated that there are another 84,000 jobs among the hospitality workers, taxi drivers and others who serve industrial communities and are supported by them in turn. We have seen before what happens when there is a major industrial shift and we fail to support jobs and the communities they help to keep alive—from the closure of the pits to the ongoing crisis of British Steel. We must learn lessons from past deindustrialisations to avoid similar damage to communities today. All policy makers should dedicate themselves to avoiding the traumatic manifestations of necessary—or, at the very least, foreseeable—moments. It is vital that any job losses in this sector are mitigated by reskilling and retraining with new green investment. However, right now in 2025, we are losing our traditional refining, chemicals and existing biofuel production capability and home-grown expertise. Complexity, departmental misalignment and a lack of pragmatism in public policy are holding back the existing and future fuels sector. The Government have the power to solve those things. I hope that today we can suggest and agree some constructive next steps. Earlier this year, Liberal Democrat colleagues and I recognised the importance of the Government’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill. Sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, will be one of the main enablers of aviation’s transition from polluting liquid fossil fuels to a future of hydrogen, battery and hybrid zero emission power plants. As part of that transition, SAF has a huge role to play in creating new green jobs and delivering on our energy security goals. Local production creates jobs, improves resilience, reduces import dependence and stabilises prices, but without efficient resource allocation and strategic investment, future refinery closures could create severe supply bottlenecks and undermine our energy independence. It is equal parts encouraging that there is consensus among the serious political parties in this country about the need for transition and energy security, and concerning that from different ends of the spectrum, the Greens and Reform are either wilfully ignorant or unwilling to accept that supporting the oil refining industry to transition is critical. The Greens seem willing to turn their back on any of the major technologies involved in the just transition of our fossil fuel infrastructure. They are locked into the pursuit of an ideological purity that sees those companies and producers solely as the problem and not as part of the solution. Reform’s static, stagnant and staggering belief that net zero is either bound to hurt working people or just bad in and of itself, only gives them the self-satisfied and smug smile of someone who thinks they know all the answers, but that could not be further from the truth.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?