Luke Taylor MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: London · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: London · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate and sharing her tragic experiences for the benefit of others. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on launching the APPG for the survivors of Fayed in Harrods, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain)—a huge scandal that affects women across the country. There has been lots of talk in recent years, and indeed in the Chamber today, about changing social attitudes—educating men to stamp out violence against women and girls at its root. We have all heard the terrifying statistics that seven out of 10 women have experienced some form of sexual harassment in public. Each London borough faces more than 2,000 domestic abuse offences and 4,000 incidents annually. Even in the context of known under-reporting, the Metropolitan police recorded an average of 24 reports of domestic violence per day in 2023. It is important that we also bring into sharper focus the crucial fact that we have a role—not just as legislators gathered here today, but in the wider public sector and its various arms of governance and jurisprudence—and a responsibility to lead from the front. I echo the call by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for us to become the first White Ribbon Parliament, which would make a small step in that direction. Although it is true that, far too often, changes in this place happen because of a changing world beyond our gates, it is also true that, in many ways, society looks to the state to take the moral lead on the fundamental issues of equality and justice. When the state is failing in its duty to take that moral leadership, we do not just compound the problems; we actively undermine efforts happening across society to tackle them. Sadly, in the case of violence against women and girls, I fear that that is exactly what we are at risk of doing, if we do not redouble our efforts to stamp it out. Perhaps nowhere is that more pressing and concerning a matter than with the Metropolitan police. It can no longer be denied or ignored that there are elements in the force who hold views entirely incompatible with the state taking this issue seriously. Although commendable work has been done by Commissioner Rowley, who I have met and I trust is treating the historic mission with the gravity required of it, recent events have underlined that this is still a serious, systemic problem. The recent revelations broadcast by the BBC’s excellent and sobering “Panorama” investigation about officers based at Charing Cross station, leading to the dismissal of four officers, was shocking and profoundly depressing. To reference just one particularly demonstrative example of the unacceptable behaviour that was uncovered, Police Sergeant Joe McIlvenny, an officer with nearly 20 years’ service in the Met, was dismissive about a pregnant woman’s allegation of rape and domestic violence after a colleague raised concerns about the decision to release the accused man on bail. He replied, “That’s what she says.” The station had been the focus of an investigation by the police watchdog—the Independent Office for Police Conduct—into bullying and discrimination nearly four years ago. It found that some officers had discussed hitting their girlfriends, shared offensive and discriminatory comments, and joked about rape in a private group chat, and yet nothing changed. Those are not isolated incidents, nor am I latching on to the most recent example for ease. We know there is a systemic problem in the Met: the Casey review in 2023 told us that one in three female officers had experienced sexism at work, and that around one in ten had experienced sexual harassment or assault. Four years on from the death of Sarah Everard, we are left asking whether work is really happening at the pace required to root out those men from the force. Fundamentally, this is about trust. We would always encourage any woman fleeing violence, or looking to report an assault or harassment, to find a police officer and seek their protection. That is a fundamental tenet of a free and fair society. However, like many men across London, I simply cannot provide them the total guarantee that doing so will mean they are met with the support of someone who understands and respects the problem they are facing or, more importantly, who understands and respects women themselves and all the manifold challenges they face. That is an awful place for society to be. The uniform of the Met should be a symbol of trust, not a shield for misogyny, hatred and racism, but too many officers have broken that trust. Policing is done by consent, and trust in the police is essential for the safety of Londoners. Incidents such as the ones I have mentioned undermine that trust. The Home Secretary has a responsibility to intervene and work with the Met to tackle this behaviour, owing to their unique role in its governance. I invite the Minister to tell us in more detail what the Government are doing not only to tackle the misogyny that spurs violence against women and girls across society but, crucially, to address it closer to home—in the arms of the state directly under the purview of the Home Office. It is not just in policing that these issues rear their ugly heads, but across other arms of the state too. The Crown Prosecution Service, perhaps most notably, is failing victims of violence against women and girls so frequently that it undermines the confidence of women everywhere that they can ever truly seek justice. I know this quite vividly. When I met Claire Waxman in her role as Victims’ Commissioner for London, I heard about women left waiting for months, even years, with their lives on hold while cases crawl through the CPS. I have also listened to the stories of many of my constituents who have had to retreat from seeking justice, despite the awful things that have happened to them. One constituent was kept waiting for two years while her abuser was released on bail, only to be told that, even though what had happened to her constituted common assault, a charge of actual bodily harm could not be pursued due to the time that had elapsed since the incident. That is despite the fact that several lawyers, during that period—while she was waiting powerlessly for the CPS to move forward—agreed that the incident met the threshold for ABH. Colleagues, I sincerely invite you to consider the scale of that Orwellian, Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare: the powerlessness, anxiety and exhaustion it wrought on my constituent, and the distance we have allowed ourselves to travel as a society from the promise of justice for all by allowing the CPS to become so gridlocked. It is so backed up and broken that it is telling female victims of crime that they cannot seek justice through the state system because of the system’s own failings. In case anyone doubts that those failings are not serious or speak to a lack of evidence, let me tell the House about another constituent of mine who was assaulted in broad daylight on public transport during rush hour, in full view of CCTV cameras, and who is still waiting now, two years later, for the CPS to move forward with charges. The situation beggars belief. It is utterly unacceptable. I ask the Minister to outline in significant detail—and I strongly underline the word significant—what exactly the Government will do to sort this mess out. To return to the point on which I began these remarks, just as the state often looks to society for guidance on social change and progress, so too—and perhaps more powerfully, or at least more meaningfully for those of us in this place with our hands on the levers—does society look to the state for an exemplification of the kind of society we want to live in. We have a moral obligation to lead from the front. The state will never be the active, positive player in the field that it ought to be—an ally to all those who seek to root out the misogyny that plagues us and sprouts the poison of violence against women and girls—until it is absolutely committed, acting seriously and with pace, to getting its own house in order. The vaccine against the epidemic of violence and abuse that women face in our society will be administered in our schools, our youth centres and the hubs that remain, in our homes and community groups, in the mass media, but critically, too, on social media. It will also need to be inculcated in our police stations, court rooms, hospitals and many arms of the modern state—and, indeed, here in this Palace, which sits at the heart of the state. Only then will we see the revolution in safety that is needed for women and girls in London, and put an end to the horrifying statistics and stories that we have heard today.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: London · Hansard source

  More

  The feedback from the local police force in Sutton, which is part of the trial, is that they find them incredibly helpful. There is a ringing endorsement for the orders and we look forward to seeing them rolled out more broadly.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important and timely debate. Like so many of my constituents, I was delighted to hear last week that Hong Kong BNO passport holders will keep their five-year route to settlement. The Liberal Democrats have fought hard for that, so I am pleased to see the Government finally respond to our campaign. Britain and Hong Kong share a special relationship, and nowhere is that clearer than in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, and across Sutton borough. Thousands of Hongkongers have built their lives, raised families and grown thriving businesses in Sutton. They are part the very fabric of the borough that I am proud to call home. Although I welcome the Government’s decision, my inbox and social media have been flooded with messages from BNO holders who are rightly demanding further clarity. I therefore call on the Minister to answer their three most pressing concerns. The first relates to the new requirement for earnings. Will the new earnings requirement for settlement status above £12,570 be applicable to BNO visa holders? Many Hongkongers are retired, studying full time or caring for children or loved ones. That requirement will cut directly against the humanitarian intent of the BNO visa. Any new sustained and measurable economic contribution test or minimum income rule risks permanently excluding those entirely legitimate residents. Those Hongkongers are already fully integrated in their communities and contribute to British society in non-financial ways. Earning less does not mean contributing less; their contribution might not always show on a payslip. The second concern relates to the English language requirement. Will the new English language requirement of B2 be applicable to BNO visa holders? For many families, that will be a huge and unexpected hurdle. Tens of thousands of BNO visa holders will reach the five-year point and become eligible for settlement in 2026. A sudden increase to B2 level without adequate notice or transition would throw many vulnerable residents off balance and deny permanent status to people who have lived, worked and put down roots in Britain for half a decade. Thirdly, on the 20-year route protection, I am extremely concerned that the combination of the new 20-year baseline for refugees on the core protection routes and the suggested additional 20-year extension for anyone who entered as a visitor will apply to Hong Kong political exiles who have no access to the BNO visa scheme. Many young activists, particularly those born after 1997 or whose parents never registered for BNO status, have no safe and legal route to the UK. They are compelled to travel to the UK as visa-free visitors and only claim asylum once inside the country. They fear that declaring an asylum intention at the border would lead to detention or being refused entry and returned to Hong Kong. They are often subjected to surveillance and oppression by Chinese authorities while in Hong Kong, and have needed the time in the UK to prepare adequate evidence to present to the Home Office. These are political refugees fleeing persecution in Hong Kong at the hands of the CCP. Imposing a 40-year wait for settlement on brave young dissidents would be wholly disproportionate. In refusing to consider Hongkongers for this type of exemption, we do not simply adjust a policy; we threaten the humanitarian corridor that has long connected two nations through history, culture and a shared belief in freedom.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I offer broad support for the draft regulations. It is welcome that the CAA has lengthened the transition period in response to the consultation—the consultation seems to have been fairly well responded to. This is an example of the positive impact that hobbyists and private users can make on Government regulation. I encourage the Government to maintain that approach. I echo the concerns about convergence or divergence with European regulations, but I sound a note of caution: there should not be divergence for divergence’s sake. Let us look at where there are advantages, compatibility or competitiveness with what is likely to be a larger market for products close by, and make sure that we approach that in a reasonable manner. Can the Minister give some detail on how the CAA will engage with operating companies, particularly software manufacturers, to ensure that users are aware of the regulations? That is often done via apps and subscriptions. We must make sure that compliance is built in, especially with the geofencing altitude regulations and the night light operating rules. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations and wish him the best of luck in boosting our competitiveness and the quality of the products we produce in the United Kingdom.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences · Hansard source

  More

  It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The text of the petition makes specific reference to “posts on social media”, as if this modern medium is somehow separate from every form of speech that came before. Social media posts take seconds to write and publish, and then they are everywhere. They are seen by our parents, grandparents and kids, with no fact check and no filter. Terrifyingly, a 2025 Ofcom study found that three quarters of 18 to 24-year-olds use digital platforms and social media to get their news. The sort of reach once available only to professional journalists, filtered through editors and media owners, is now available to anyone with a phone. We can post with a moment’s thought during our morning coffee break, with the same ease as world leaders with armies of speechwriters, fact checkers and lawyers to craft their statements. One impulsive tap on an app can land in the timelines of tens, thousands or millions of people. Let us be honest: who has not posted online something they later regretted? I know I have, and I challenge anyone these days to have an unblemished record online. The incredible reach that modern social media has enabled, compared with the guardianship and control of legacy media sources for centuries, has rightly been compared with the unleashing of the evils of the world from Pandora’s box. We must recognise that attempting to reverse the exodus is as futile for us as it was for the Pandora of myth. To keep with an historical allusion, the story of the sword of Damocles described how a single hair of a horse’s tail held a sword over the head of King Dionysius, threatening to take away all that he enjoyed as a king, without notice. A second’s misplaced rage, or a misjudged reaction to somebody else’s message, can cause the thread to break and the sword to fall, with the nationwide media sent to a person’s doorstep, their career and life torn apart. That is the reality of casting our thoughts into the social media forum. The fragility of the risk cannot be used to diminish the impact, and hence the responsibility that must be held by users who can reach millions around the world in seconds. The ease of posting cannot be allowed to dilute the seriousness of the impact. I return to my earlier argument: I invite us to replace “posts on social media” in the petition with “words in a national newspaper” or “speech on national television”. Would there be the same uproar or calls for clemency if a journalist or TV presenter had urged their audience to set fire to hotels full of people? I suggest not. In the case of Lucy Connolly, her post inciting violence against a hotel full of people, as riots raged throughout the country, was seen by more than 300,000 people in the three and a half hours before it was deleted. That is roughly the same number as the combined daily circulation of The Daily Telegraph and The Times newspapers. I cannot agree with treating social media differently from incendiary violence elsewhere. There were 9,000 followers and it was viewed more than 300,000 times in three and a half hours. We cannot keep pretending that what happens online stays online. The digital world is now shaping how people think, speak and act, and the consequences are now impossible to ignore. The very power that social media holds is exactly why so many people wield it with such vigour. Let us not forget that it is a nice little earner for some, too. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has earned over £40,000 from Twitter since his election, showing the huge potential of the site, and potentially why he is incentivised to defend so enthusiastically people’s right to say inflammatory and shocking things to drive engagement, clicks and views. The online world has become a place where hate speech—or, as the petition puts it, “opinion…speech”—is allowed to spread like wildfire. Too often, social media platforms shrug their shoulders and walk away from the responsibility of monitoring it or, worse, they actively encourage disinformation. Twitter is the most obvious offender. I am told that, for those who still do, scrolling through Twitter feeds feels like stepping into the wild west. Abusive comments and dangerous posts are left to fester without consequence. A factual error is twisted and retold as the gospel truth before anyone has had time to draw breath. Communities are put at risk by conspiracies that proliferate like a virus. Twitter must do far more to tackle the surge of hate speech that we see on our phones and tablets every single day. Since Musk took control of the company in 2022, Twitter has rolled back on safeguards designed to prevent misinformation and dangerous rhetoric. The same Elon Musk suggested that America should liberate the people of Britain and overthrow our democratically elected Government. Incidentally, the US customs and border protection guidelines for allowing non-citizens to enter the USA state that if an immigration officer knows or believes that someone would be entering the country to attempt to overthrow the US Government, they are inadmissible. If we applied that reasoning to Mr Musk’s next trip to our country, I wonder whether he might have complaints about his treatment. There is free speech, but not without consequences. This is a foreign billionaire, armed with his global megaphone, fanning the flames of division and calling for the overthrow of our democratically elected Government. We call that treason here. We cannot allow tech oligarchs to set the rules for British society. Instead of allowing the world’s richest man to decide what toxic content floods national conversation, the Government must wake up and intervene. We Liberal Democrats call on the Minister to properly equip Ofcom to enforce tough regulations to clamp down on the spread of misinformation online. Online safety cannot rest solely on the shoulders of individual users, as algorithms push controversial content for views and shares. Legislation must be tightened to hold social media platforms accountable for the dangerous rhetoric they allow to thrive. Social media is simply the latest chapter in humanity’s long history of communication, and vectors for incitement, from clay tablets to the printing press to broadcast news. Because it is so accessible, it arguably needs more accountability from its users and operators—not less, as the petition proposes. Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society. We have always, and will always, stand up for freedom of speech. However, that does not mean no accountability for hate speech or speech that incites violence. Those who use violence, racist abuse or hate speech must face serious consequences. We do not support the suggestion in the petition that social media posts should be treated any differently from any other types of speech.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. What enforcement action is the Environment Agency taking against Viridor, the operator of the Beddington energy recovery facility, due to 18 months of exceedances of daily limits of NOx? Can the Minister also confirm that the permit increase request for the ERF will finally be refused?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q7. May I echo the words of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) of how proud I am to wear the marigold alongside my poppy? Last year, Sadiq Khan was elected London mayor with a promise to keep a police station front counter open in all 32 London boroughs 24 hours a day. Labour has just broken that promise to Londoners as only two will remain. This year, the Met police has 1,419 fewer police officers and staff—that is, fewer people working hard to keep Londoners and our visitors safe. In Sutton and Cheam, we have just had our high street police team cut from 11 officers to just four, inevitably leaving my constituents less safe. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Liberal Democrats and Sir Mark Rowley that a shrinking Met police force compromises their ability to keep Londoners safe?

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing this debate. It is extremely timely, because it is less than a fortnight since I was last in this Chamber debating housing policy—it seems that I am the Liberal Democrats’ housing spokesperson for London. Contrary to what some in the Government seem to think, there is no inherent tension between the three most important tasks facing us: to build safe homes, to build green homes and to build affordable homes. The limitations or structural problems with the market are self-imposed by our lack of ambition and our worrying proclivity to shun innovation. During the debate two weeks ago, the Housing Secretary and the Mayor of London were announcing the raft of measures that triggered this subsequent debate. The measures were announced not at the Dispatch Box, or even in this Chamber in front of what would have been a captive audience, but to the press, giving us no opportunity to scrutinise them and rendering that Westminster Hall debate moot. I invite the Minister to confirm that no subsequent major changes with such a profound impact on the local authorities that everyone in this room works with on a daily basis and on our constituents will be made outside of this place. Frankly, those measures are not small fry; they hand developers a get-out while Londoners on waiting lists across our city continue to suffer, and they are a threat to the financial stability and forward-planning ability of local authorities across London. The Liberal Democrats are clear: the plans will not solve the housing crisis in London, but make things worse.

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  Skipping ahead, I invite the Minister to tell us why anyone who cares about solving the housing crisis and protecting local councils in London should vote Labour at the local elections in May, particularly when the only party consistently standing up for those hit hardest by the housing crisis, and for our cash-strapped local councils, is the London Liberal Democrats.