Luke Taylor MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, sorry—I am close to closing. She went on to say: “The bill’s opponents portray it as cruel, heartless and macabre. I wish they could have sat at” —her friend— “Charlotte’s bedside, heard her groan, “Let … me … die”, and seen what cruel, heartless and macabre actually looks like.” This Bill is the right thing to do. It has been scrutinised, amended and debated. This Bill is ready. Please vote in favour today to give our residents a choice.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress, thank you. I start by making the somewhat unusual case that this issue, for which we are gathered here on a Friday, giving up bake sales and constituency surgeries, is not quite the big deal it has been whipped up to be by both proponents and opponents. I do not believe that we are considering a fundamental change in the relationship between doctor and patient, or seeking to change the relationship between the state and the individual. I do not believe that we are stepping on to a slippery slope or unpicking the very purpose of the NHS, as some have suggested. We are here simply to give those who already face terrible decisions—doctors, patients and their families—a real choice of how to face those decisions, and protection in law for choices that are already being made today.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some further progress. This Bill would simply give the choice to those who will die—and those eligible will die soon—on the manner and timing of their death, and it would protect doctors and families from legal repercussions at such a tragic time. This is not a Bill about the choice between life and death; it is about the choice, should we want it, of how and when we will die. This is the ultimate choice. We speak sometimes of the right to choose, of the right to decide how one might bring life into this world, a debate about which on Tuesday this Chamber showed that there is a huge majority in favour of the right of the individual. We have a chance to neatly bookend the week by establishing the existential right of the individual, when given a terminal diagnosis, to choose how one might exit this earthly realm.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Beddington energy recovery facility has an outstanding request to increase its annual permit tonnage to 382,000 tonnes from the originally approved 300,000 tonnes when planning was approved. I know the Secretary of State is familiar with this, as the facility is a mere 100 metres from his constituency. May I ask him whether the Environment Agency will listen to local residents, including his own, and to councils across Sutton, Merton, Croydon and Kingston and refuse the permit expansion, as sufficient incinerator capacity already exists in London?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 18 Jun 2025 · HS2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  The disastrous decision by the last Conservative Government to stop the works at Euston station dented investor and commuter confidence in our railways and in major infrastructure delivery. Their failure to keep costs under control and to manage the basics of the project—simple things such as turning up to meetings—has created the quagmire in which HS2 finds itself today, and I do not envy the Secretary of State the task that confronts her. I am glad to hear that the Government see the huge potential of a comprehensive redevelopment of Euston station, but can the Secretary of State reassure me that we will not end up with a cut-price station that does not realise the potential of the project?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member provides a clear and visible example of how the legislation is not working, if somebody with such a high profile and with additional security protection cannot be protected from stalkers. I thank him for his apt intervention. The burden of proof means that many victims withdraw from the process completely and give up on gaining justice. My new clauses would compel the Secretary of State to publish a review into the two clauses within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to make time for that review to be properly considered in the House upon its completion. They would also compel the Secretary of State to launch a review into the effectiveness and adequacy of the stalking awareness guidance provided by public bodies in England and Wales, and to make similar provision for proper consideration and debate in this House. I know that aim is supported by the Minister, so I would like to hear how it is being brought forward. New clause 43, tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), is incredibly important and deserves the support of the House. The new clause automatically commences the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 when the Crime and Policing Bill receives Royal Assent. That he has managed to corral together such luminaries in this House as the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) and for Clacton (Nigel Farage), to support the measure is a triumph in itself. We spoke about new clause 130 in Committee, and I very much support its measures on tool theft. It would add the theft of tools from tradesmen to the list of aggravating factors in the Sentencing Act 2020, and present a way forward towards more sensible regulations of temporary markets, where too many stolen tools are often sold out of car boots. I recently visited the Kimpton industrial estate in Stonecot in my constituency, where I heard more about the awful impact of that kind of theft from tradespeople, who too often are left with their livelihoods wrecked and very little proper recourse to getting their lives back on track, other than to fork out huge amounts to buy new tools, which in many cases are later stolen again. It is a horrible cycle, which I also heard about at the Stop Tool Theft rally on the streets outside this Chamber earlier this year. The measures set out in the new clause provide a good path forward but will not solve the issue alone. Without the kind of commitment to restoring community policing that I mentioned in reference to new clauses 85 and 86, police forces will remain too overstretched to mobilise the resources to investigate these crimes in the first place.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was to hear the contribution from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who seemed to ridicule the concept of having a minimum level of policing for communities, which would surely protect them and help to prevent thefts of farm equipment, which was the example he gave in his speech.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me start by highlighting my support for new clauses 85 and 86, which deal with neighbourhood policing. They would ensure that police forces are required to practise community policing “at a level necessary to ensure effective community engagement and crime prevention”. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) is not in his place to intervene for a definition on that. It is about engaging with local communities and ward panels to define the appropriate levels in their areas—which I am sure he would support— rather than taking a top-down view. The new clauses would compel the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the state of community policing. We have outlined a way of funding that too: 20% of future police grants would be ringfenced for community policing activities, literally making crime pay—in the reverse of the manner in which that phrase is normally used—by allocating funds recovered from the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to community policing. That is important, because commitments to policing numbers mean little without serious action to reverse the scale of forthcoming cuts, such as the cuts of 1,419 officers and staff that we in London are about to experience this year. Indeed, as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner recently told the BBC, “ambition and money go alongside each other”. I urge Members across the House to support those new clauses. I will now turn to my new clauses 95 and 96. It is good to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), in her place to continue a conversation that we have had many times on stalking. Stalking is a heinous crime: it throws lives into chaos, leaves victims in life-changing and near-constant terror, and too often goes unpunished. The current legislation forces too many victims to meet an improbably high bar of evidence, forcing them to jump through hoops to be a perfect victim, just to prove the scale of the threat against them. I have heard from victims in my Sutton and Cheam constituency who have had their lives completely upended by their stalkers, and who are completely at their wit’s end after facing so many obstacles to getting justice. It is clear that the two relevant sections of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 are the root of those obstacles. The distinction between a lesser section 2A offence and a more severe section 4A offence is failing victims and fails to recognise the total scope of stalking. Successful prosecutions of section 4A offences are far too hard to achieve. The burden of proof is placed so heavily on the victim.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend’s words have convinced me and hon. Members across the House about her new clause. The Met police recently responded to a freedom of information request about tool theft, which revealed that nine in 10 tool thefts in the last five years in London went unsolved, which shows the scale of the problem and the importance of supporting new clause 130 today. I would like quickly to draw attention to some other amendments. New clauses 87 and 88, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, would hold water company executives to account properly for the first time, and that would mark a huge step forward in tackling the sewage crisis we face in this country. Those individuals should be held liable for their carelessness and fixation with raising bills, while running companies into the ground and ruining our rivers. I wish I had more time to outline my reasons for supporting the clauses, but I refer the House to my many prior contributions on the subject. New clause 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), would mark a step forward in providing support to victims of honour-based violence and murder. New clause 122, tabled by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), would strengthen the law on hate crimes directed at disabled, LGBT+ people, and rightly seeks to protect people who are victims of hate crime because of their association with individuals in those groups, and I wholeheartedly support it. In contract, new clause 7, tabled by the official Opposition, would weaken hate crime legislation in this country, and I fear it is motivated by a complete lack of respect for the decades of progress we have made in recognising the types of discrimination faced by people the length and breadth of this country. For this Bill to push us forward, and not drag us backwards, that new clause must be rejected.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the advice from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare and the British Medical Association, who all know much more than we do about the issue, to vote firmly against new clause 106, because it makes women more vulnerable?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was incredibly fortunate to sit on the Bill Committee considering this legislation. It is clear that, although opinions differ on details, we all share a common goal of tackling crime in a meaningful way, so that we can make people feel safe in our communities again. As a community-focused liberal, I have stated many times that keeping people safe and instilling safety in our neighbourhoods are some of the most powerful ways that we can foster strong communities and improve the quality of life and freedom of opportunity that everyone in our country should enjoy. I am grateful to the Government for their willingness to engage with the points that we all made in Committee, particularly to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). Despite several productive conversations, it is frustrating that several important additions to the Bill were rejected by the Government in Committee. For that reason, I rise to speak in favour of several new clauses before us. Although several of the measures closest to my heart—those regarding community policing, knife crime and stalking—are not before the House today, there are several pressing new clauses that I feel I must speak to. They pertain to what should be fundamental rights in our country: the right to freedom from oppression, and the right of access to proper healthcare for women. I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) on the courage he demonstrated in his speech earlier, and encourage the Government to consider the measures he spoke to if they come back from the Lords, if not to consider them beforehand. I start by expressing my support for amendment 19, which deals with spiking and was tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). Spiking is a horrendous offence—a deeply violating act of harm and potential exploitation that must be treated with the utmost seriousness. In Committee, we heard evidence from Colin Mackie, who is the chair and co-founder of Spike Aware UK. Colin gave important evidence for the Committee to consider, indicating that spiking offences can often be intended as pranks, rather than intended to cause harm. His son Greg died in a suspected drink-spiking incident in a club, and Colin has since campaigned alongside Greg’s mother Mandy for a change in the law to stop similar incidents from occurring. I also thank the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) for raising broader concerns about spiking. I agree that further measures need to be introduced, including A&E awareness, so that testing takes place, further evidence can be gathered and a conviction can be secured. Amendment 19 is a sensible and necessary clarification of the law. It makes clear what seems painfully obvious: that what matters in spiking cases is not the nature of the intent, but the recklessness and callousness of the act itself. I encourage Members across the House to support the amendment when we vote. I am also pleased to support amendment 160, as well as related new clauses 92 and 93, which we will discuss tomorrow. Taken together, these amendments create vital safeguards around the right to protest; they would subject facial recognition technologies to the proper scrutiny of a regulatory framework for the first time, and would enshrine the right to protest. From many people in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam and from campaigning groups such as Liberty, I know that these measures are long overdue, and will provide much-needed clarity to police forces as they use new technologies to fight crime. Police forces themselves are asking for these measures, and I am looking forward to a briefing later this month from the Minister on that subject. In particular, I remind the House that Hongkongers in my community are deeply worried about the impact of unregulated use of facial recognition technology on our streets. They fear that, if compromised, such technology could provide a powerful tool to the Chinese Communist party in its transnational oppression of Hongkongers here on our streets in Britain. We know that facial recognition technology can be a powerful tool for police forces as they try to keep us safe, but as with any new technology with great capacity to infringe on our liberties in daily life, it must be properly regulated. Liberal Democrats have a proud tradition of standing up for those civil liberties, arguing that we must never throw them away or sleepwalk into surrendering them. Amendment 160, which the Liberal Democrats have tabled, is rightly in that tradition. It would make sure that facial recognition technology cannot be used in real time for biometric identification unless certain conditions are satisfied, such as preventing or investigating serious crimes under the Serious Crime Act 2007 or public safety threats such as terrorist attacks, or searching for missing, vulnerable people. It would also make the use of such technology subject to judicial authorisation, with a judge needing to approve its use and appropriately define its scope, duration and purpose. These regulations would allow for safe use of this important tool, protecting our civil liberties while keeping us safe from crime.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Hydrogen-powered Aviation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for securing this debate and for continuing the conversation that we have been having over the last couple of weeks about the future of aviation—something it is always a pleasure to talk about. Nothing is inevitable about the pollution in our skies. Aviation does not have to be the easy poster child for conspicuous consumption of resources and casual carbon emissions. It does not have to be part of the problems we face with a warming planet, melting ice caps and increasingly extreme weather. With the right choices, it can be part of the solution. Britain is already feeling the mounting toll of climate change: flash floods, record heatwaves and freak storms. That is not abstract; it is already costing lives and livelihoods across the country. Aviation contributes to that problem and we cannot pretend that it does not. In 2022 alone, UK domestic and international flights produced nearly 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 7% of the nation’s entire greenhouse gas emissions. If nothing changes, the Climate Change Committee projects that aviation will account for 16% of UK emissions by 2035. We cannot meet our net zero goals without tackling this issue. This debate is particularly well timed following the introduction of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill last week, which addresses the climate emissions of existing technology fuels. There is good news beyond that, however, and aviation can be part of the solution to our fight against climate change. Thanks to scientific progress and industry innovation, we now have the technology to fly without fossil fuels. Green hydrogen, produced using renewable energy, is a clean fuel that emits no carbon when used. It is one of the most promising solutions for decarbonising aviation, whether by powering aircraft directly or by creating sustainable aviation fuels. That is not a pipe dream; it is already happening. Hydrogen aircraft are being trialled, green fuel production is scaling up and aircraft around the world are beginning to prepare for a hydrogen-powered future. However, the UK risks being left behind unless we match ambition with investment. The ATI estimates that aerospace’s economic contribution to the UK economy could increase from £8.4 billion today to over £37 billion by 2050, driven by new low and zero emission technologies such as hydrogen-powered aircraft. Britain’s aerospace sector is ready, but it lacks confidence that essential infrastructure exists, such as the hydrogen production that those aircraft will require. ADS, the UK trade association for aerospace, defence, security and space, estimates that global aviation could require more than 100 million tonnes of hydrogen by 2050—3 million tonnes of which would be used in the UK. It is essential that we scale up the production of green hydrogen to meet that challenge, and enable the shift in the industry to take place. Investment is required in production, as is massive investment in refuelling systems and supply chains, as well as the planning approvals that are required to approve projects necessary for that development. The ATI strategic programme has supported several key projects in the shift to develop hydrogen-electric propulsion systems, including ZeroAvia’s HyFlyer and advanced fuel cells for aviation decarbonisation projects, GKN’s H2GEAR and H2FlyGHT—lots of confusing acronyms and project names—and Project Fresson, led by Cranfield Aerospace Solutions. Some of those projects, including those by ZeroAvia, have resulted in or will soon result in certification applications with the Civil Aviation Authority that will complete in the coming years—the earliest of them by 2026. ZeroAvia, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), is backed by many huge investors, including Airbus, British Airways, and the Amazon Climate Pledge Fund. It is already attracting orders from airlines such as Alaska Airlines and United Airlines. Critically, it has also had investment from the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Scottish National Investment Bank, which shows the immediate viability and attractiveness of investing in this technology. Having raised over $250 million and grown a team of more than 200 employees across Gloucestershire and London, ZeroAvia is already making a significant contribution to the aviation industry. It is currently targeting certifying with the CAA a hydrogen-electric powertrain for planes with up to 20 seats, with the target of it entering service next year. The step after that will be developing an engine for larger 40 to 80-seat aircraft by 2028. The certification will require investment in the CAA to provide the skills and expertise to evaluate and then certify the aircraft as safe. The advantage of ZeroAvia’s approach is the ability for airlines to retrofit the engines into existing fleets. This is not a tale about a technology of the future. ZeroAvia has already performed several world-first breakthrough flight demonstrations of its powertrain technology from its base at Cotswold airport. ZeroAvia is an incredibly exciting new entry to the sector, but existing aviation giant Airbus has also seized the opportunity of hydrogen. Its plans are bigger and depend on more infrastructure; as a result, Airbus recently announced its ZEROe hydrogen-powered aircraft programme would be delayed by a decade because of concerns about the availability of infrastructure to support hydrogen flight. The ZEROe aircraft features an electric-propellor propulsion system powered by hydrogen fuel cells that uses the hydrogen to generate electricity on board through a chemical reaction, similar to the approach taken by ZeroAvia. The only by-product of this reaction is water, and when combined with green hydrogen production, the process is carbon-neutral. The ZEROe approach with propeller propulsion is the likely first-generation hydrogen powerplant type, replacing domestic and regional aircraft, like those ZeroAvia is already developing, for shorter flights. That approach contrasts with the one Rolls Royce is taking with its project to modify existing technology engines to run on gaseous hydrogen, instead of requiring a conversion to electrical energy to power an onboard electric motor. Rolls showed the huge potential of that work back in 2022 when it successfully ran a modified AE 2100-A engine, which is a variant of the turboprop powerplant that equips the Saab 2000 regional airliner, which is a long-established and widely used regional turboprop. The next stage of that work is to modify a Pearl 15 business jet engine, which is a twin shaft turbofan that currently powers the Bombardier Global Express, showing that this approach is potentially applicable to turbofans as well as turboprops. The direct combustion of hydrogen in a modified existing-technology engine shows an alternative route to harnessing hydrogen to decarbonise the aviation industry. These projects show the huge potential of this fuel to take aviation into the modern era of low and zero-emission operations. There are three approaches: eSAF, fuel cell to electrical production on the aircraft and direct hydrogen propulsion. They are all viable technologies and approaches that the market, industry and research will understand and develop for the appropriate sectors. For now, those projects are all being held back by infrastructure availability, and I call on the Minister to fix that. I welcome his Government’s July announcement of the commitment of over £100 million for the development of hydrogen and electric aircraft through the Aerospace Technology Institute, and nearly £1 billion over five years to support innovation in the aerospace sector. There is no denying that those are serious, positive moves, but they must be only the start. If we get sustainable aviation fuel right, the benefits for cities such as London will be enormous. Clean flights mean cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses, fewer days lost to sickness, and longer, healthier lives. Getting it right would also mean economic leadership, new green engineering jobs, revitalised manufacturing, and a chance for Britain to lead the global hydrogen economy. Of all transport sectors, on a first-principle basis, aviation is the one to which hydrogen is most applicable. In fact hydrogen will be essential if aviation is to make its net zero targets. Aviation is the most energy-intensive mode of transport and the most sensitive to mass, as the Breguet range equations that I explained to all hon. Members last week show. That is why aviation will be the most suitable use of hydrogen fuel in the future. Aviation has the least competition from other zero-emission pathways, due to their various shortcomings. The sector’s energy demand is plannable and high, creating significant offtake that can bring H 2 down the cost curve. Additionally, the professionalised and regulated environment of aviation is very well suited to handling the new fuel, and establishing standards and safety. Hydrogen’s success in aviation will be a major proof point against many existing investor concerns for other sectors. I urge the Minister first to provide longer-term clarity to industry on the availability of hydrogen. The Government must signal their intentions on renewable energy and hydrogen production targets beyond 2040, and, to bring forward the business models for hydrogen transport, storage and power, they should also extend Aerospace Technology Institute funding to a 10-year horizon. Unlike what we have heard from other hon. Members in this debate, this is absolutely not a call for flights to be grounded and Britain isolated. This is a call to fly smarter and cleaner, to back British science and leadership to build a better and more sustainable future. Aviation connects us to people, places and possibilities. It can drive innovation. It boosts economies and it brings the world closer together. With the right action, it can keep doing all of that without costing us our planet.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In April, I wrote to the Minister for School Standards about the Angel Hill free school, which will provide 96 desperately needed places for children with SEND in my constituency. I thank her for her response in which she said that we would get an update shortly. I ask again: when does she expect construction of the Angel Hill free school in Rosehill to begin?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  Not any more!

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. The Liberal Democrats are proud of our clear and consistent commitment to legal recognition for humanist marriages, which has been official party policy since 2010. It is a position anchored by a strong tenet of our liberalism—the belief that couples should be able to celebrate their marriage in the way they wish. We believe that all types of marriage ceremonies, whether religious, civil or humanist, should be treated equally under the law. It is the right thing to do and the fair thing to do. Frankly, it is deeply sad that it has not yet been done in England and Wales. As has been mentioned, humanist marriages have been legally recognised in Scotland for 20 years, having been introduced in 2005 by the coalition Government that included the Liberal Democrats. Humanist marriages have been legally recognised in Northern Ireland since 2018, in Jersey since 2019, and in Guernsey since 2021. Today, we are reckoning with an alarming discrepancy across the British Isles in a crucial aspect of our legal system. Do not get me wrong—I am a localist. I believe firmly in devolution of policy, and I recognise that one thing that makes our country so great is the co-existence of strong and diverse legal traditions and systems. But on the question of what really should be a fundamental right for people to marry whoever they love in the manner of their choosing, it is right that we should look to extend and entrench that right as far and as wide as possible. All of that is to say nothing of the growing recognition of humanist marriages in other countries with similar legal traditions, a shared Commonwealth history and, in countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, a shared Head of State. Indeed, I have intimate knowledge of the latter. When I lived in Toronto, Ontario in 2013, I married my wife in a beautiful ceremony with our choice of officiant, in the snow, in the bandstand of a park near Niagara Falls. A word of warning, though: the temperature plunged to minus 15° during the ceremony and my eyelashes froze shut. It was not explicitly a humanist wedding, but nor was it a religious or strictly civic wedding either. We had the freedom to choose where and by whom we were married, without the need for a second, separate official ceremony or registration, which humanists are forced to do here in England. We simply had to procure a marriage licence from the city hall and then wait for the marriage certificate to arrive in the post following the ceremony. This ceremony is recognised as a marriage here in the UK—at least I hope it is—so my personal experience might speak to a further discrepancy in the law by which I, a British national, have what I believe is a legally recognised non-religious and non-civic marriage, while other British nationals in this Chamber are not afforded that same right and freedom of choice were they to be wed in England and Wales. As several Members have outlined in today’s debate, humanism is a proud tradition with roots stretching back across the centuries. Today, it is alive and well in Britain, with around 5% of the population identifying as humanists, which is more than 3 million people. For the record, I am one of them. The humanist tradition is clearly well established, and the demand for recognising this kind of marriage is clearly significant. It is not just humanists who want this kind of marriage to be recognised in law: polling published this week by YouGov and Humanists UK shows that 70% of UK adults are in favour, and that this support is widespread and cross-cutting across a wide range of religious groups and political preferences. Recognising humanist marriage in law is clearly the right thing to do, and it is time for the law to catch up with public sentiment. The public clearly respect and are permissive of a meaningful, non-religious alternative that aligns with the values of many couples, and that recognises that the current situation—in which couples who have a humanist marriage effectively have to duplicate their enjoyment at a later date, usually in a civil ceremony—is unfair. Recognising that unfairness and treating these marriages equally under the law would be a great step forward for millions of people, and it would provide legal clarity for couples. The moment is ripe for this kind of change. The past decade and a half have seen meaningful revision of our marriage laws, on which the Liberal Democrats are proud to have led the way. The tireless efforts of Liberal Democrat Ministers such as Baroness Featherstone were instrumental in getting the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act passed. I am so grateful for the hard work of people like Lynne and the countless heroes from the LGBT+ community who made this a reality. It was the Liberal Democrats in government who led the charge to get the ball rolling on recognising humanist marriages, too. Pressure from the Liberal Democrats resulted in the coalition Government proposing what is now section 14 of the Act: the order-making power that could give legal recognition to humanist marriages at any time. Since then we have had more than a decade of missed opportunity, as Government after Government have dragged their feet on responding to a series of Law Commission reviews. In that time, support for humanist marriages has only grown stronger, and the urgent need for change ever clearer. This Government, who talked a good game in opposition on finally delivering this change using the section 14 power, have dithered in their first year. I ask the Minister to outline the timetable for moving forward on recognising humanist marriages, to explain the Government’s consider-ations in relation to the Law Commission’s review into the matter, and to tell us why they need more time to consider the change when the issue has been under review for 12 years. I take advantage of this opportunity to personally call for the right to recognise any marriage conducted by a registered officiant for all other groups, as I enjoyed in my marriage, because there is no reason why a humanist should have rights that any other group is denied. Far from leading to “Las Vegas-style free-for-alls”, as the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) described—somewhat tongue in cheek—I see it as a basic choice in a liberal society. If a couple choose to be married by a man in an Elvis Presley costume, they should have that right. If the Government wanted, they could start making this change tomorrow. They have inherited a state apparatus that has had that power for more than a decade, as has been clearly expressed today. I hope the Minister agrees about the need to change the law, and I invite her to say to all of us, “I do.”

• 11 Jun 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, I very much welcome this step to push the aviation industry into a sustainable future. I encourage Members to join the APPG and come along to our meetings if they want to find out more about sustainability and the future of aviation. I worked in the aviation industry for 16 years before being elected to this place, and I studied aeronautical engineering for four years before that, so it would have been remiss of me not to come to the Chamber today to share with hon. Members my expertise on the subject, but I will try not bore them. I welcome the support for future technology and the investment previously announced by the Government. We have massive and historical expertise in aviation here in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and we really must grasp the opportunity to develop those skills and that technology further. It is an incredible opportunity for UK plc and we need to grasp it. I want to pick up on a comment by the Secretary of State in her opening speech about airspace modernisation, because it is relevant to the discussion. We must grasp the opportunities of airspace modernisation, which have the potential, as she mentioned, to deliver shorter, more direct and more efficient flight routes. But as MPs, we must engage with the process. We must understand and learn about how that is happening around us. It is inevitable, but we must get the best for our communities. We must understand and engage with that process as it goes along. It is an incredible opportunity. Over the past few months, the APPG has been hearing about the technologies that we have today. Of particular interest is ZeroAvia, which is already flying a hydrogen-electric, zero-emission aircraft in the UK—it has a hydrogen fuel cell with electrical propulsion, which offers completely zero-emission flight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) mentioned, this is only a stepping stone to the truly zero-emission flight that we really need to capture. If hon. Members will forgive me for boring them slightly, the Breguet range equations that I learnt about for my degree are the reason why an Airbus A380 will take off from London at 580 tonnes and land in Sydney at around 340 tonnes. The burning of fuel throughout the journey means that it is able to maintain the range and maintain the flight levels that the burning of the fuel and the reduction in the weight require. That is one reason why liquid fuel will almost always be required for very long-haul flights, no matter how far we progress with hydrogen and electrical power plants for short and medium-haul flights. That amplifies the need not just for the current second-generation SAF production, but for looking at alternative fuel sources such as algae-derived SAF. Others have correctly made the point about the reduction in residual waste, which is the current fuel source for a lot of biodiesel for the development of SAF. As those sources decrease and the cost potentially increases, we need to look at truly zero-carbon sources of SAF. I will not bore hon. Members more. In closing, I will just echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and of my party and encourage the Minister to go further and faster to achieve truly zero-carbon and lower-noise aviation technology so that we can continue to enjoy the incredible freedoms and opportunities in both economic activity—jobs, skills and trade—and the broadened horizons that aviation has offered us for more than a century. Long may it continue.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would challenge the hon. Member’s commitment to aviation spotting if, during university, he did not take a date to the final approach at Heathrow airport and have her observing the flights coming in for a good two hours. He may be a geek, but he is not quite there yet.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that there is, if not a red flag, potentially a question about why only one ambulance service made a specific request to retain the powers, while others did not respond, or potentially do not have the correct procedures in place to deal with requests of this type and manage the data? That would be a concern for me. Are those that specifically requested to be removed not utilising a power that may well improve their operations, and their ability to serve their residents?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  As always, Dr Murrison, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. We are very supportive of the approach taken in the regulations, but will the Minister briefly explain what roles or tasks the ambulance services that are retaining the powers are undertaking that those that have confirmed that they do not require them are not? Why would some be performing those tasks and others not? I think that would help to explain why this change—and this specificity—is required.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Chinese Embassy Development · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for submitting this urgent question. The potential approval of the Chinese super-embassy sends precisely the wrong signal at a moment when we should be pushing the Chinese Government hard on human rights abuses and their repression of the people of Hong Kong, both in that city and right here on our streets. Notwithstanding the risk of interception of sensitive comms at the site, Hongkongers and Uyghurs are deeply worried about what it might mean for China’s expanding surveillance capacity here in the UK. In March, alongside other Opposition Members, I spoke at the protest in front of the proposed site. I say the same thing to the Minister as I said that day: the Government must block it. Taking into account the scale of opposition, both domestically and by our allies, will the Minister confirm that representations made in this place will be considered as part of the planning approval process? If I may, I will also ask: considering that the original timetable for the China audit to be published has now passed, will the Minister tell the House when they expect finally to present it?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  The British public are not fools—they know when the emperor has no clothes and, indeed, when a regulator has no teeth. Ofwat has failed, just as Thames Water has failed. Will the Government now act on the Independent Water Commission’s findings, published today, scrap Ofwat and replace it with a regulator that can end this crisis, which has been decades in the making?

• 21 May 2025 · Chronic Urinary Tract Infections · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered chronic urinary tract infections. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak about a horrific condition that has been ignored for much too long. For thousands of Britons chronic urinary tract infections turn ordinary lives into living nightmares. The pain and permanence of the illness has left thousands suffering on a daily basis. Having heard many of their stories it is clear to me that what they are living through is nothing short of torture. This speech is not just about a medical condition; it is about a scandal that highlights the systemic failure to take women’s pain seriously in this country. Over the last few months a brave community of patients have shared their stories with me—stories of trauma, suffering and desperation. I have been utterly heartbroken by what I have been told. The cruelty of the condition is matched only by the cold indifference that its sufferers have faced from our healthcare system. It is a national disgrace that thousands of chronic UTI sufferers have been so profoundly let down by modern medicine.

• 21 May 2025 · Chronic Urinary Tract Infections · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for her contribution to the debate on the broader health inequalities for women, and I wish her the best of luck in securing the debate that she seeks. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He talked particularly about the strain on NHS resources that is caused by the lack of attention on this condition, which further compounds the challenges and backlogs in the system. I thank the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) for his account of the impact of this condition on his constituent, who had to give up her job; that shows the terrible impact it has on people’s lives. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for talking about the challenges around the antibiotic regime, including antibiotic resistance, and the complexity of that issue. I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for her contribution. Her focus on the treatment of children was particularly instructive, because, as we have heard, the challenge is stopping a UTI becoming a recurrent UTI, which then becomes a chronic UTI. That is a real focus on that in the treatment of children. There is also a focus on Pharmacy First to help by stopping UTIs in children from becoming an issue in the first place. That was a particularly insightful point. I also thank her for bringing her knowledge as a doctor to the debate. I thank the Minister for confirming that she will meet me and campaigners to further discuss the issues. However, I do not think that she gave a specific answer on how NICE and SIGN guidance would be updated to incorporate guidance on UTIs, but we can discuss that later, and I apologise if I missed it. However, I will really focus on the contribution from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). She spoke heartbreakingly about her experience of this condition and about how it has driven her into politics. I look forward to working with her to try and raise awareness of this issue and keep it current, and to try to understand how we can help her and the incredibly brave campaigners who brought the condition to my attention, so that we can really see some action on all the various streams of work that we can propose in this place. Once again, I thank the Minister for being here to listen to the stories of sufferers and for responding to my points. I thank all hon. Members who took part in this debate, particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for her bravery. I also thank campaigners, including Phoebe, who is in the Public Gallery today. Their strength and resilience have given us a chance in this place to try to take clear action to give them their hope back. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered chronic urinary tract infections.

• 21 May 2025 · Chronic Urinary Tract Infections · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for raising those related issues, which are so important to consider. I will come on to talk about the wider challenge of women’s health being treated without the importance that it requires. I understand that she is attempting to secure a debate on a similar subject, so I wish her the best of luck in that endeavour. Many of us have already heard of this illness and have heard people’s stories. I first learned about it from my constituent Phoebe, who has lived with a chronic UTI since she was three years old. Now in her mid-20s, she has become a tireless advocate for others suffering in silence. She shows remarkable perseverance and strength, even when the pain she lives with is beyond anything I can describe. Phoebe is here with us today, along with a number of other sufferers. It is my absolute privilege to stand in this place and speak for them and every other individual enduring such an awful condition. Will the Minister meet me, Phoebe and representatives of other campaign groups to hear how they have been let down by the system? A chronic UTI is not just a diagnosis; it is at present a life sentence of torture that eats away at every part of a person’s existence. The condition first develops when bacteria from an acute UTI become permanently embedded in the lining of the bladder. Left untreated, the infection becomes entrenched, wreaking long-term havoc on the rest of the body. I want to be absolutely clear: a chronic UTI should not be confused with the recurrent version of the condition. A patient diagnosed with a recurrent UTI might experience one or two infections over a six-month period. Although it is still serious, patients suffering from a recurrent UTI experience distinct intervals of relief from their symptoms. Chronic UTI sufferers live in constant and excruciating pain, with the infection never relenting. They are in agony every single day and every single night. Many sufferers have lived with the condition for decades, with the illness at present incurable. Chronic urinary tract infections can affect anyone at any age, but they disproportionately affect women. At the UK’s only NHS specialist clinic, which I will come on to later, 95% of patients are women; only 5% are men. Individuals living with a chronic UTI are often forced to urinate more than 20 times an hour. I have been told that each time they use the toilet, it feels like they are passing razor blades through their urethra. Their urine is bloody. Their bladders are so tender they struggle to walk, and their bodies are consumed by fever. In many cases, the prolonged infection spreads from the bladder to the kidneys and the bloodstream, causing sepsis, with complications for other organs. I have been told harrowing accounts of the agony caused by this illness. The pain has been likened to corrosive acid burning through the abdomen, glass shards lodged in the bladder and the feeling of mice eating away at the sufferer’s insides. Some liken it to scorching knives slashing forever at their stomach, or a hot cauldron constantly bubbling in their groin. The most common comparison I hear is that people’s bodies are perpetually on fire. To reiterate, the torment never stops—for the majority of patients, it is 24/7. These symptoms destroy lives overnight. The illness renders individuals severely disabled, often forced to live a life of bedbound isolation. The pain is so overwhelming that patients can lose their ability to sleep and become trapped in a cycle of exhaustion. Household chores become impossible, and individuals can lose the ability to care for their children. Sufferers often lose their dream careers, as they cannot function with their symptoms in the workplace. They are unable to work or afford costly bills for private medicine. Young adults living with the condition often have to forgo university studies, with the severity of their agony making their education unbearable. Romantic relationships break down, with at least one case of a marriage of over 40 years ending due to the illness. Sexual intercourse is virtually impossible due to the immense pain. Many people with the condition fear they will never be able to start a family. Patients face an utter loss of independence and, unsurprisingly, depression and suicidal ideation are daily struggles for the chronic UTI patient community. This brings me on to my second ask for the Minister: every healthcare professional in the UK must be properly briefed to recognise and treat a chronic UTI. Since 2022, the NHS website has formally recognised the existence of chronic UTIs, yet I have heard that many GPs and urologists still deny the existence of the illness. Patients suffering from chronic UTIs are left to fight for recognition and are misdiagnosed with conditions such as internal cystitis or recurrent UTIs.