Luke Taylor MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I will move on swiftly. In my experience in Sutton we subscribe to the “yify”—“yes, if”—approach that I have spoken about a number of times. We do not need to water down community buy-in. We might need to make it faster and more efficient, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater will only lead to the wrong housing being built in the wrong places and leave us wondering, in 30 years’ time, why the mistake was not glaringly obvious to people today. That is not a new approach that has reared its head in these measures; the decisions to cut the portion of affordable housing expected from developments in the recent “Homes for Londoners” plan, and to set the annual national social house building target at just 20,000 social homes per year, show that the Government simply do not have a credible plan to provide the kind of housing the country needs. We need an ambitious whole-of-Government approach to build up to 150,000 social homes each year. It can be done, and the Government need look no further than the Liberal Democrats’ plans. We would give local authorities the power to stop Help to Buy in their area and, as a last resort, to stop the right to buy too, and give them the first right to purchase all public land for social housing. We would also fix the Building Safety Regulator by ending the mismatch between fire safety standards and the Building Safety Act 2022, speeding up the backlog of confusion and incomplete assessments for remediation, while ensuring that the building safety levy covers all the costs so that leaseholders are protected from paying. As well as making it more affordable to insulate existing homes, we would ensure that all new homes are zero carbon and provide proper incentives for critical household infrastructure such as heat pumps. That is how we build more affordable homes—not by tearing up regulations with no regard to the impact, but by smartening regulations and intervening with serious, meaningful incentives to build the right kinds of housing. Secondly, it will be news to nobody that the financial picture for London councils is dire. The city’s 32 boroughs overspent by £330 million on housing and temporary accommodation budgets last year alone—double the previous year’s figure. As London Councils has demonstrated, the cost of the London homelessness crisis is the greatest threat to the financial stability of London boroughs. Watering down the community infrastructure levy—perhaps the most notable way that councils recoup costs and benefits from house building in the short term—is simply another hammer blow in that regard.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for providing that example of the impact on a specific project, which shows how difficult this will be for our councils. The announced measures will quietly reduce the requirement for affordable homes from 35% to 20%, forcibly slash the community infrastructure levy money, and barely scratch the surface of the bigger and more profound structural barriers to getting green, affordable and safe housing built. The Government have triggered great uncertainty and more financial instability for local authorities while achieving very little in the shake-up, seemingly because they think that big, decisive action with very little prep work and no consultation is the way to get things done. The Housing Secretary is clearly taking more than just headwear inspiration from a certain world leader—which would make sense if it were not his own zone that he is flooding with a substance that the courtesies of this House do not allow me to name. In all seriousness, the housing crisis in London deserves more than a knee-jerk reaction. There are 330,000 households stuck on social housing waiting lists—more than the total number of households in our two largest boroughs, Barnet and Croydon, combined. As we have heard, London boroughs are spending £5 million a day on temporary accommodation, although I have heard that figure for about a year, so it must be considerably more by now. According to London Councils, there is a £700 million shortfall in the housing revenue accounts that fund new house building. The proposed measures will simply make that worse, for two main reasons. First, the Government will facilitate the right kind of house building not by dropping the regulations that developers face, but by amending them and fixing the structural issues within the Building Safety Regulator. Secondly, the measures actively—and inexcusably—disrupt the already stretched financial picture for local authorities. I will take them in turn. First, granting the right to reduce the level of affordable housing per project fails to recognise that the proliferation of a particular kind of luxury, unaffordable housing in London means that it is unlikely that new building accelerated under the scheme will ease upward pressures on house prices in the capital. Giving the mayor new powers to call in decisions and accelerate them almost on a whim does nothing to address the concerns that local authorities and local residents will have about their ability to object to new housing that will not contribute to solving the crisis. The measures seem to be imposed in an imagined battle against the nimbys, when most in London have lived experience of housing instability—either their own or that of younger family members, co-workers or friends—and, as such, are in favour of the kind of house building that actually addresses the crisis.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Building Safety Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure as always to serve under you, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing this important debate. Eight years ago, London watched on in helpless horror as Grenfell Tower burned. Some 72 lives were lost, families were decimated and a community was changed forever. The tragedy was compounded by the fact that this was by no means a natural disaster; it was the direct result of a failed system that was allowed to prioritise cheap, flammable cladding over people’s lives. Almost a decade on, that system is still failing. Other major fires have burned on and seared themselves into our memory. In 2019, Richmond House in Worcester Park in my constituency burned to the ground, and tomorrow I will visit the Hampton estate, where the rebuilt Richmond House stands. In August last year, a building on Freshwater Road in Dagenham caught alight just days before the final Grenfell report was published. In July this year, we watched on as a major fire ripped through a 17-storey complex in Walworth. Those are just a few examples, but there are many more. Londoners are on edge every time they see a breaking news story about a building fire. They worry that another terrible tragedy is unfolding—another awful fire that will uproot lives and impose a terrible toll on communities. Hundreds of thousands of Londoners do not have confidence that they are safe and that they can sleep easy at night in their own homes. They live with cladding that hugs their home, keeping them warm in the winter and cool in the summer, but that threatens to become a towering inferno, leaving residents reliant on waking watches and, too often, faulty fire alarms. For too long, developers have been getting away with rolling the dice with people’s lives. When the Building Safety Regulator was established through the Building Safety Act 2022, people living in these unsafe high rises were promised action by the previous Government, but instead of accelerating remediation the BSR has become one of the biggest barriers to removing dangerous cladding from buildings. Since the BSR came into force in 2023, construction projects have been delayed, costs have spiralled and thousands of residents remain trapped in unsafe homes. One of the reasons for that is that the BSR approval process is weighed down by complex bureaucracy. Cladding remedial works to high-risk buildings cannot begin until the regulator has signed off the scope of the works. Officially, approval should take eight weeks for existing buildings and 12 weeks for new projects; in reality, cladding remediation applications are routinely taking more than 30 weeks and sometimes more than 40 weeks. We have heard even longer waits reported by Members in this Chamber. The communication from the regulator has been equally inadequate. Developers and housing associations report one-way communication and applications disappearing into the void. When a response finally comes, a high proportion of applications are rejected at the validation stage. That cannot just be labelled as administrative lag; it means months of avoidable risk for thousands of people. In many ways, the regulation is currently manifesting as the worst of both worlds, standing in the way of not just progress in remediating the existing properties, but building the next generation of safe, affordable homes that we need to end the housing crisis. The situation is not helped by the fact that there is a mismatch between the Building Safety Act’s definition of building safety risks and the approach to identifying defects under the PAS 9980 fire safety standard. That is quite clearly a lower standard that fails to take action on major fire safety risks and does little to nothing to bring down extortionate insurance premiums. The Liberal Democrats are clear that the standards for remediation under PAS 9980 should match the statutory standards in the Building Safety Act, so that there is a clear rulebook for everyone. If the Government want applications to the BSR to be faster, they must ensure that those submitting them are equipped with all the facts and given clarity about what is required to meet the right standards, and that the process for approving those applications is as fast as it is rigorous. Those two vital aspects of solving our housing and safety crisis—speed and accuracy—need not exist in tension; for the BSR to be effective, it must be more comprehensive. Limiting its scope to buildings over 11 metres tall is narrowing its ability to properly scrutinise and facilitate works on many other vulnerable apartment buildings. Indeed, Richmond House, which I mentioned earlier, would not have fallen under its remit, despite the fact that it housed 23 flats across four storeys. I invite the Minister to outline what plans—if any—exist to bring those standards together, facilitate faster processing of applications for works, and extend coverage and support to those in buildings less than 11 metres tall. What compounds this crisis in perhaps the most nefarious way is the impact it is having on leaseholders, too many of whom are still paying out of their own pockets for dangerous construction and regulatory neglect. They are sent eye-watering bills, living in fear of the next service charge. They are treated as an afterthought in a housing system that increasingly seems rigged in favour of developers. The Liberal Democrats will not accept a housing market in which ordinary people are left powerless while corporations walk away scot-free, and we are concerned that the building safety levy that the Government have proposed will not provide sufficient funding for all required remediations. It makes no sense whatsoever for the BSL to exclude properties under 11 metres, but that is what the Government are pushing ahead with. There must be a thorough and funded plan to assist leaseholders in properties under 11 metres to make their properties safe to live in. The Government should be taking swift and serious action to ensure that all leaseholders, including those currently excluded from the BSL, are protected from remediation costs in defective blocks with safety risks, as defined in the 2022 Act. I hope that the Minister can shed some light on whether the Government are considering taking those further steps, because leaseholders—not just in London, but across the country—are watching, and will be hoping not to be let down once again. None of this should detract from the need to build the next generation of green, affordable and safe homes. I reject the implication we sometimes hear that there is some inherent tension between those objectives. If we want to truly solve the housing crisis in this country with a renaissance of sensible and community-driven house building, we have to recognise the defects in the existing system upon which we are layering new infrastructure. Two things can be true at once—that allowing safety standards to become a barrier to house building will damage our long-term economic security, and that accelerating new building without rigorous safety standards and proper accountability for developers will damage our physical security. There are those who say that only a small fraction of new build units are defective, but I remind them that the fraction will account for a much larger overall number of units as we grow that stock. We can and must do both. A sensible, progressive, interventionist Government would recognise that their purpose is exactly that— not just to regulate the market, but to play an active role in it, discouraging cowboys and faceless, careless developers with rules, standards and real, comprehensive enforcement. In fact, any Government worth their salt would see this issue in its wider context: a housing market that is fundamentally broken, not just by years of inaction on house building or by the great council housing sell-off, but by decades—maybe even centuries—of lopsided relationships between leaseholders and landowners. If we are really to put the power back into people’s hands and reconcile the two dreams of housing that have dominated in this country over the past century—the right-wing dream of democracy in which everyone has an ownership stake, and the left-wing dream of a nation in which everyone’s right to shelter is guaranteed, no matter their income—we need to end the broken leasehold system altogether, both for owners and for renters. I invite the Minister to tell us why the Government have failed to commit, as the Liberal Democrats did at our recent conference, to ending that lopsided relationship by giving leaseholders new powers and rights to take collective ownership. Why have they not committed to removing dangerous cladding from all buildings, while ensuring that leaseholders do not have to pay a penny towards that removal—as is only right, because of the regulatory failure that enabled it? Why have they not committed to holding developers to the highest possible standards and introducing tougher oversight of building inspectors, and not just to capping unreasonable service and estate management charges, but to abolishing ground rents on all existing leases? That is the radical but necessary action that we must take, and actions such as these, which actually fix issues that our constituents face, are how we defeat the new populists on the right and the left who offer nothing more than simple slogans and catchy TikToks. It is up to the Government to respond to our calls and deliver the necessary changes.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Heathrow: National Airports Review · Hansard source

  More

  I have mentioned that the naming of Heathrow as critical national priority infrastructure is vital to ending the disruption to power and systems we have seen over the summer, so I encourage the Government to go forward with that. On the plans for transport to and from the airport and associated road schemes, can the Secretary of State confirm that the costs of the southern and western rail access, the new southern access tunnel that will ease congestion on existing roads and lower emissions, and the rail access to provide reliable public transport links for passengers and staff are included in the estimates we have already seen? I implore her, as others have done, to ensure that those plans are covered as part of the project, and that it is not left to the taxpayer to pick up the bill?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and gallant Member speaks very strongly about this issue. There may be reticence to support his new clause because of the implications for rehabilitation, but he has spoken about the huge impact on families when a life is taken in that way. Can he give some reassurance about the balance between rehabilitating through custodial sentences, for example, and the lifelong impact on families of incidents that happen in a moment?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) on his clear and comprehensive explanation of the flaws of short sentences. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place, gave us some insight into why we have ended up in such a mess: Government modelling was not able to reconcile the removal of prison places with rules for increased sentences. The result was more demand for prison places. The net figure of 482 prison places gained since 2010, given by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), shows the utterly damning mistakes that were made during the Conservatives’ time in government. I will speak in favour of new clauses 6 and 39. In Christmas 2021, Lillie Clack’s family were woken by police, informing them that Lillie had been involved in a traffic accident on Christmas morning. It was caused by a driver under the influence, who was speeding at up to 100 mph, and who failed to stop for the police. Following the accident, heroic local residents rushed to the scene with fire extinguishers, but sadly Lillie died in hospital three days later. Lillie’s family have campaigned tirelessly since then for Lillie’s law, which would result in licences being suspended immediately upon a charge, and a lifetime ban from driving when drivers are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving. I speak in favour of new clause 6, tabled by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), which would apply the lifetime ban, and in favour of new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), on the suspension of a person’s driving licence while they are on bail for a driving-related offence. Together, those new clauses would deliver the objectives of Lillie’s law and provide both punishment and deterrent for those who step into a car under the influence, or who do not take the care that is required when driving, which is a privilege, and not a right. I will speak briefly in favour of new clause 30. I encourage hon. Members from across the House to support the long-overdue resentencing of all prisoners currently held under a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. At the end of 2024, more than 2,000 people were held under an IPP, which is an ongoing scandal and a tragedy for those individuals. The Government claim that the jail terms are a grave injustice, but they are failing to move quickly enough. This new clause would force them to act. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) so clearly explained, there is a need for action, so I hope his colleagues can be persuaded to support new clause 30, in the absence of another measure to address the issue, which is badly required. Finally, I will mention new clause 40, on the provision of training during the period when an individual is on remand. We must enable rehabilitation wherever possible. Even if the new clause is not taken forward today, I join colleagues and the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) in encouraging the Government to look at the current situation.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent .

• 16 Oct 2025 · Grassroots Music Venues · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps she is taking to support grassroots music venues.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Grassroots Music Venues · Hansard source

  More

  Grassroots music venues across the country, particularly across London, are finding it increasingly difficult to survive as customers are spending less when they come to gigs because of the cost of living crisis. Will the Minister explain the progress on the levy? Will he consider the Lib Dem calls to reverse the national insurance rise on small businesses to give venues such as the Sound Lounge and the CryerArts Centre in Sutton, which are so valued by our local community, the best chance to survive and thrive?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to make a broader point about China’s activities in the United Kingdom related to this. The application for the super-embassy is currently on the Government’s desk. As the Minister says, and has been acknowledged, China is a threat and is actively working to undermine our national security. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that the Government “would never compromise national security”. How can the Government give any consideration to approving the Chinese super-embassy, which would give extraordinary capability to China to continue to expand its espionage activities and to target Hongkongers on British soil with its transnational repression?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I chair the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, and the debate on SAF has been a focus of many of our meetings. As a cover-all, I should declare my interests, having met with AirportsUK, Airlines UK, ADS Group, LanzaJet, Back British SAF, Valero, alfanar and others over the past six months. I also worked in the aviation industry for 16 years prior to being elected. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 1 to 5, tabled by my colleagues, and new clause 7. I also encourage the Government to support amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the Conservatives, which would strengthen and improve the Bill and give us the best chance to achieve its targets. I will tell the House why. In 2023, aviation accounted for 2.5% of global energy-related CO2 emissions; however, when non-CO2 effects are included, its contribution to climate warming increases to approximately 4%. Although that is a small fraction of global emissions, it is not insignificant. However, in my experience, few sectors take their role in bringing down emissions and tackling climate change as seriously as aviation, primarily because fuel burnt and emissions released is money spent. As other Members have already made clear, decarbonising aviation and achieving net zero carbon UK aviation will require a huge range of different measures. Measures such as Operation Blue Skies, a global contrail avoidance system, will reduce the density of the heat-trapping contrails produced by aircraft, which creates nearly half the overall climate-warming impacts. Continuing improvements in aircraft engine and airframe efficiency are also critical, and that too has been mentioned by others.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that ensuring protection online is important, but as we have already heard, the loss of officers who most closely support children outside the home, such as those in schools, is equally important. The loss of those in London will be devastating to our communities. Tackling knife crime cannot just be about enforcement; it must be treated as a health issue. It must be addressed early, consistently and systematically, and it must bring together a range of services that deal with young people, such as early intervention schemes, councils, NHS workers, carers, police officers, teachers, community leaders, social media influencers, parents, mental health workers, restorative practice advocates, and the various arms of Government that young people interact with, all under serious, mission-driven violence reduction units. That needs political buy-in, rather than meaninglessly aping its language without funding its tenets—a mistake that the former Government made with their serious violence strategy in 2018, and that the Mayor of London has made by not giving the violence reduction unit in London the tools it needs to do its job as effectively as possible. If we married that up with other key steps, it could be utterly transformative, turning good public policy into a vision for wider social renewal for young people. The Minister may be aware that I met her predecessor to discuss that approach in more detail earlier this year, and I ask whether she would be willing to meet me to continue that discussion and see where we can work together on this vital issue. Surely in 2025 we have grown beyond the two-dimensional approach to the causes of crime, or the response to knife crime that the hon. Member for Ashfield presents. Surely by now we should be able to recognise that violence spreads among the most vulnerable like a virus, but it can be stopped in its tracks by good interventions acting as a vaccine to stop the spread. Surely by now we have learned that we cannot punish or scare away violent crime, and that good deterrents are not enough to stave it off when it has already buried its roots far too deeply in our neighbourhoods. Not so long ago, a leader of the Labour party pledged to be “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”, and all I ask is that the Government recognise that we have done far too much of the former, and far too little of the latter. They must show that they recognise it is finally time to properly adopt a public health approach to save lives, save communities and save futures.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  This is my first opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I welcome the chance to talk again about knife crime in this place and I will outline the ways in which this heinous crime is marring communities and claiming too many lives. Although I wholeheartedly disagree with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on most topics, this is an important debate. I hope for the sake of all victims that we can make constructive suggestions to improve the situation. I think we can all agree, across the political divide, that young people in every corner of the country should not be growing up in a climate of fear. I have outlined the Liberal Democrat approach several times, because, unlike the Reform party next to me, we believe in evidence-based policymaking. The public health approach to knife crime, which has worked in Scotland and has also shown signs of success in London, holds the most promise. I reiterate that the Liberal Democrats are clear on the need for a proper joined-up approach to youth diversion, making it a statutory duty with proper funding, so that every part of the country has a pre-charge diversion scheme for young people up to the age of 25. I am increasingly conscious that over the past year or so figures on the extreme right of British politics, seemingly with the backing of a stream of American malcontents who reach from the mad fringes to the White House, have chosen to weaponise the issue of crime in London. They paint a picture that few Londoners recognise of a city rife with violent crime on every corner. It is as though we have all descended into lawlessness, scared to walk the streets because of a mad, feverish crime wave, driven by liberal, middle-class squeamishness. As a proud Londoner, I totally reject that nonsense. Violent crime fell in London by 6% in the year to last March. The following three months saw a 19% fall in knife crime compared with the same time last year. Knife-enabled offences have dropped in each month of 2025 from the same months in 2024; I invite the hon. Member for Ashfield to correlate that with the reductions in stop and search over the same period. I have been to Scotland Yard with colleagues and heard that the Met’s action in recent months has been modestly successful. I believe that, given the Met’s increasingly limited resources, it is affording the issue the priority level it deserves. To avoid the risk of being misrepresented, I will be clear that I do not wish to minimise the issue, for two reasons. First, looking further back in time, knife crime has gone up dramatically since 2016 under the Labour Mayor’s watch, as Conservative Government cuts to local government and the police obliterated the community support networks that the public health approach relies on. The hon. Member for Ashfield was happy to be part of delivering those cuts as a Conservative MP. Secondly, every childhood snatched, every pavement stained in blood, every family with one too many chairs at the dinner table is one too many. Policing alone cannot and does not pretend to effect the culture change we need. For that, we need to deliver the public health approach properly. In London, the growing funding gap for local councils after years of austerity is about to be made worse by the Government’s unfair funding review and the risk of new Labour austerity. That means that the cracks in the system are now chasms. For too many young people in Britain, feeling unsafe is not an occasional fear; it is part of the everyday fabric of their lives. I have met young people in London and in my constituency of Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park for whom that sense of vulnerability sits in the background of everything they do. What we too often fail to recognise is that, when young people start to believe that no one else will protect them, they ask themselves a simple but devastating question: “If no one is going to keep me safe, how do I keep myself safe?” For some that is a turning point, when anxiety stops being a feeling and starts becoming a plan. Far too often, that plan involves carrying a knife. We cannot wait until a child reaches that point. We have to intervene before that fear hardens into a decision to carry a weapon. Last May, 60% of young people surveyed told the Ben Kinsella Trust that they feel worried about knife crime. A 2009 study by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies showed that 85% of young people who carry a weapon say they do so for self-protection. Many of the knives they carry are not the exotic or illegal zombie knives that attract headlines, nor weapons smuggled in on small boats; they are kitchen knives. That is not organised criminality; that is the tragic banality of a deteriorating everyday experience.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend has turned down the opportunity to dine with Donald Trump in the next couple of days, and he has been roundly criticised for that by some people who may well still attend. Does he agree that it is an ample opportunity for those people to ask President Trump about his entry in that horrific book of birthday wishes for Mr Epstein? Will my right hon. Friend ask them to report back to us about what President Trump said?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. One of my constituents has been told that their Crown court case will not be heard until 2028, six years after the alleged offence occurred. The delay was due to court closures and a lack of capacity locally. The Government should not need a report to tell them that they need to make more courts available at more times and they need to fund our courts properly. We have had questions about this from around the Chamber already, so I will take a slightly different angle: what does the Minister have to say to my constituent, who has another three years to wait for their case to be resolved—three years of being unable to work and three years of uncertainty hanging over her head?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. When it comes to the welfare of our children, the details should never be drip-fed to parents and carers. They do not deserve worrying speculation about potential changes to their children’s futures. Teachers should not be kept out of the loop about the way they will need to run their classrooms. For months now, the Government have kept the potential reform of SEND services secret and under review. Families up and down the country have spent the entire summer on tenterhooks after the Government’s vague pledge for reform during the spending review in June. That is a whole school holiday of uncertainty. Confusion around reform has only been made worse against the backdrop of changes to council funding, which will see councils across London lose vital funding as demand for EHCPs increases, as it has in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam by more than 8% in the last year. Councils cannot cope with that rise in demand alone. Across Britain, they are in need of real financial backing. I have worked hard to secure confirmation from the Government of extra SEND places in my constituency, and I am delighted that work should begin soon on the Angel Hill school in Sutton. If we are going to fix the crisis in SEND, however, the funding must be properly ringfenced for local authorities so that children can receive the best possible education. If reform is to be serious, it must be rooted in the genuine improvement of children’s lives, not just the improvement of balance sheets. Without the right funds, and without addressing the looming cliff edge for council finances when SEND deficits are shifted on to the main balance sheet, we risk a collapse of services. I am sure that the Government are keen to avoid that, so I invite them to reassure us by ending this uncertainty, agreeing to make any changes transparently, and putting any child on an EHCP at the heart of the discussion. Reforms must ensure that those thousands of children with SEND have the right to support, not just because it is a legal requirement, but because we owe it to them and their families.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Draft Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. This statutory instrument is a technical change to the existing legislation. It makes changes to the safeguarding around counter-terrorism practices and follows advice by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Providing police and our security services with the appropriate powers to guard against terrorism is essential; however, civil liberties concerns remain. The powers under the counter-terrorism legislation allow people to be stopped, questioned and detained without reasonable suspicion, raising concerns about potential overreach, disproportionate use and risks of profiling. In addition, although the revised code says that schedule 7 cannot be used for public order policing, it still permits stops where protest activity may meet the definition of terrorism, which could have a chilling effect on legitimate protests. There are clear parallels to the overreaction to Palestine Action and the civil disobedience we are seeing in response. I ask the Minister and the Government to proceed with caution and restraint and with appropriate protections of civil liberties.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I am not rising to defend the Opposition in any way, but can we just remember why we are here? We are talking about a Government who are planning to move the goalposts for people who are halfway through an application for ILR. We can point at who is at fault around the room, but let us not forget that the Government are considering moving the goalposts, so that people will now face uncertainty for further months. Let us focus on who is being challenged here. Can we remember that, Minister?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his excellent speech in opening the debate, and hon. Members around the Chamber for their contributions. We have all made very clear our similar feelings on this, and I hope the Government Minister is ready to jump up and answer all our queries positively. I rise to speak on behalf of more than 265,000 people who have collectively signed these two petitions. Many of the signatures will be from the very people who would be impacted by the change being considered by the Government—people who pay their taxes, keep our hospitals running, manage local businesses and serve our communities. Families who came to Britain in good faith now face extreme uncertainty about their livelihoods. The Government’s immigration White Paper, published in May, proposes to double the wait for permanent British settlement status from five years to 10, except for those who qualify under earned settlement, among other key changes. This sudden decision has left hundreds of BNO passport holders and skilled immigrant workers in my constituency, and across the country, understandably anxious about their futures. I am in no doubt that, after years of Conservative mismanagement, the immigration system needs to change. It is completely right that the Home Office takes the necessary steps to fix a framework left in tatters. However, for months, potentially abrupt changes to qualifying for indefinite leave to remain have been shrouded in mystery for BNO and skilled worker visas. At the very least, those visa holders deserve clarity, yet since the publication of the White Paper, clarity is exactly what they have been denied. The Government cannot keep people in the dark; we need answers today. I am proud that my constituency of Sutton and Cheam is home to such a vibrant and inspiring Hong Kong diaspora—some of the more than 160,000 Hongkongers who have come to the UK under the scheme implemented by the last Conservative Government. Where I live, I see at first hand the contributions they make to my community every day. They serve as business owners, teachers, doctors and community leaders—and since May, one is my colleague, serving on Sutton council. Many fled repression by the CCP and put their trust in a life in Sutton. That trust was not abstract; for many, it was rooted in a promise that the BNO visa scheme would provide a safe pathway to rebuild their lives here, with settlement after five years and citizenship after six. The scheme was not an act of charity but a solemn commitment, born of Britain’s obligations under the Sino-British joint declaration and made when Beijing began to tear away Hongkongers’ freedoms in 2019. It was a recognition of more than 150 years of British control of Hong Kong, and of how our histories and futures are inextricably linked. In a world of transnational repression orchestrated by the CCP, permanent settlement in Britain is a vital safeguard for Hongkongers on this visa route. For those who have grasped the BNO lifeline, the prospect of doubling the wait for indefinite leave to remain could be devastating. So many families I have spoken to have built their futures around the promise of a five-year route. They have made the ultimate sacrifice in uprooting their lives in Hong Kong and moving to this country, because they believed Britain would stand by its word. To extend the pathway for BNO passport holders to 10 years for ILR would have brutal consequences for my constituents. Without ILR or a UK passport, many BNO holders are left with the Hong Kong special administrative region passport. Once that expires, they face major barriers to international mobility. For some, travel would become impossible without risking interaction with PRC authorities. Families would be cut off from loved ones, and careers requiring international travel would be closed off. Even children born here to BNO parents could be left waiting until they are 11 years old before gaining a passport. The consequences for education are equally stark. BNO students must secure settled status before qualifying for home fee status at UK universities. Under the new proposals, a 10-year wait would result in most BNO students facing international fees that their families simply cannot afford. When the decision was made to take up the BNO route and travel to and settle in the UK, this timing would have been considered and understood—an important consideration for families fleeing persecution, yet not wanting to compromise their children’s future and their access to affordable further education. That timing and opportunity now risk being torn up by the Government. This change would see the shutting down of futures and the door closed on an entire generation of young Hongkongers who want nothing more than to study, work and contribute to this country. Hongkongers came to places like Sutton to escape censorship, surveillance and persecution. Do we really want to answer their courage with confusion? Recent correspondence from the Home Office to a Labour MP, which I am sure many of us have seen, suggested that the existing pathway would remain unchanged for those already holding BNO visas, and that the proposed changes to the language requirements would apply to new applicants only from April 2026 onwards. However, that was contradicted by later correspondence, released in a number of letters issued to Members—including, I am sure, some around this room—so I would like assurances. I urge the Minister to reflect carefully before making any changes to ILR for BNO visa holders. Hongkongers’ lives are already clouded in so much uncertainty. They need clear guidance on how any changes to immigration policy will affect them. The impact of the White Paper on Hongkongers would be immense. Assurances must be provided when so much is at stake for so many of my constituents. And what of skilled worker visas, the UK’s primary visa route for individuals seeking to work here? It includes the health and care worker sub-category—the very nurses, doctors and carers who keep hospitals such as St Helier in our borough running every day and who look after our constituents in their homes. Britain cannot hope to attract the best and brightest talent while leaving thousands of those on skilled worker visas in limbo. The immigration White Paper was published four months ago, but those on this immigration visa still have no clarity about what lies ahead for them here in Britain. These are people who keep institutions like our NHS afloat, who fill critical shortages across our economy and who contribute to Britain from day one of their arrival. They deserved certainty about what changes to immigration policy meant for them from the very beginning. The Government cannot claim to fix our immigration system by pulling the rug out from under those who put their faith in it. Hongkongers and skilled workers deserve fairness and stability. I urge the Minister to stop changing the rules mid-game and play fair. As Members around this room have all made clear, the Minister should stand by his word and the word of the previous Conservative Government, who, in all fairness, brought the scheme in with foresight and compassion for the people of Hong Kong. Let us give people the certainty to build their lives as fully as they can in this country by retaining the five-plus-one time limits for BNO and skilled workers. I hope the Minister will give us that reassurance when he winds up.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Defibrillators · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. We have heard the terrifying statistics on the number of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that occur each year, and about the terrifying survival rates. The outcomes for cardiac arrests remain stubbornly poor in London—which should be one of the easiest places in the country to provide good access to defibrillators—primarily because the equipment is still out of reach. That is why the work of charities such as the Paul Alan Project is so important. The charity was founded by Sutton resident Clare Parish in memory of her late father, Paul Alan Parish. She was standing beside her father when, in January 2022, he died of a cardiac arrest without warning while they cheered on Fulham at Craven Cottage. I have heard Clare talk movingly about her father, and her resolve that CPR and defibrillator training should be widely accessible to everyone. She told me that losing her father in a crowd full of people, none of whom had had proper CPR training, was a tragedy that inspired her into action. The Paul Alan Project provides that training—which I have taken myself—free of charge, raises awareness of accessible emergency equipment, and fundraises for and installs bleed kits and defibs across the community. Clare is tireless in making sure that barriers to accessing not just training, but the defibs themselves, becomes a thing of the past. She partners with local businesses to get defibs—

• 17 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause , by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 3 Review of the supply of bioethanol for use in sustainable aviation fuel production “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a report reviewing measures to encourage the supply of materials for Sustainable Aviation Fuel. (2) The report under subsection (1) must include— (a) an assessment of the impact of the closure of bioethanol plants on the ability to encourage overall increases in sustainable aviation fuel production; (b) options for mitigating any adverse impacts on the availability of supply of sustainable aviation fuel by the closure of bioethanol plants; (c) recommendations for any necessary Government action to promote a stable supply of bioethanol for Sustainable Aviation Fuel.”— (Mr Kohler.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report outlining measures to encourage the supply of materials for SAFs, including considering the impact of bioethanol plant closures on encouragement to increase supply. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise very briefly to speak in favour of new clause 2, which I have tabled. Generally, the intent was to provide a check-in and reporting mechanism for the success of the Bill. We are all in favour of its objectives; I think that it is the care, and the attention to understanding how it is progressing, that is needed. I therefore ask the Minister what measures will be taken by the Government to achieve the aims of the new clause. Will that be through the jet zero taskforce, or will there be another mechanism for us to understand and monitor the progress and success of these measures? I would be interested to hear his response on how that might be done.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has spoken about the tonnage from SAF, but the real question is whether statistics and information will be available on the sources of each of those SAF types, so that we can examine how each of the various streams of SAF production are contributing and also understand the net carbon benefit. He has talked about the carbon production from the burning, but we need to see the detail of the SAF streams to understand the benefits and the progress towards decarbonisation in more detail. Is that something the Government might consider?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I move the new clause simply to discuss some of the interesting issues that it raises. In the evidence session on Tuesday, we heard about the opportunities for the diversion of residual municipal waste into the production of second-generation SAF. We have heard from many in Committee this morning about the challenges to do with the incineration of waste and the impact of that on our communities, but a lot of us maintain, or agree, that that is the least worst option. The opportunity here is that there is a slightly less worse option for the disposal of that remaining municipal waste. New clause 1 aims to give the Minister a bit of a nudge towards examining the opportunities and how the waste hierarchy could reflect how that waste is potentially reused. There are also broader questions not only about the residual waste but about plastics recycling, such as whether there is an opportunity to incorporate changes in the way that plastics recycling is prioritised, and whether it is a suitable feedstuff for SAF. New clause 1 is an opportunity to raise some of those questions, and for the Minister to give some assurances and responses on them.