Luke Taylor
MP for Sutton and Cheam · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“I visited Croydon Crown court a few weeks ago with the Bar Council and listened to some of its members. It was clearer than ever that the demands of jury trials are not what is leaving victims waiting years for justice.”
“The Iranian regime is abhorrent. It has oppressed its people for decades, murdering protesters and activists, and it is no friend of ours. Its attacks on civilian shipping risk a global crisis, yet Donald Trump’s escalation and the US’s poorly targeted attacks have put civilians and our friends in the Gulf at huge risk, with the risk of a…”
“May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who last week took the decision to take her Department and herself off Twitter—or X, or whatever it is called these days?”
“The report finds structural issues within police forces, with fragmented and inconsistent systems that do not make the most of our police talent. If an officer sees cronyism, nepotism and abuse of power around them, they will not have their future career at the top of their mind or trying to break through that system.”
“Q10. On Monday, with colleagues, I wrote to the Health Minister following the news that women’s health and maternity services may be relocated away from St Helier hospital due to building safety concerns.”
“Will the Prime Minister arrange for the Health Secretary to visit St Helier hospital with me to see its condition and hopefully agree to bring forward the build of the new Sutton specialist emergency care hospital—build it today, not in 2034—to ensure safe and modern healthcare and maternity facilities for my constituents?”
The complete record
Every one of 604 lines we hold for Luke Taylor, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 13.
“London’s care workers, bus drivers and street cleaners, who keep our city liveable for ordinary people, despite the rising cost of housing, are the fuel that keep the engine going. To hammer them with what turns out in practice to be a jobs tax is totally misguided. The Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that the £25 billion a year the hike is supposed to raise is far too optimistic, and the figure seems to be much closer to £10 billion.”
“If we were looking for a way to actively stymie London’s innovation and business environment, which is already dealing with global shocks and Trump’s tariffs, that misguided tax policy would be right up there. If Britain is an island of shopkeepers, London is its longest high street. Our economic activity makes up more than a quarter of the nation’s annual GDP. Were it simply the case that such growth was generated just by the hands of a few financial institutions in a glass tower above the City, that would be less impressive. However, it is in the enterprising small businesses—the family-run restaurants that punch above their weight—and the world-leading research institutions, big and small, that London’s real economic powerhouse sits.”
“Yet they face immense challenges: some of the highest rates of child poverty in the nation; crumbling hospitals; crimes such as knife crime and tool theft that destroy lives and livelihoods; profound infrastructure problems that hold back growth and cut off opportunities, not least for the disabled or disadvantaged; and lingering environmental problems, with pollution thick above some of our major roads and dense in our great river. I cannot pass up this opportunity to ask the Government not to leave London behind or simply continue to tack to the record of the last Conservative Government in failing to take steps to keep London as a world city, and a liveable one too. Yet I fear they are veering dangerously close to that path. Let me start with the hike in employers’ national insurance contributions.”
“As I sat in St Paul’s cathedral earlier this week for the commemoration of the 7/7 attacks, I reflected on what makes London so special: everyday heroes and ordinary working people, who face unbelievable challenges in a city that stands astride hemispheres and cultures, but who get up every day and carry on. It is often tempting to separate economic progress from cultural pride, but I think they are one and the same. It is the hard work and energy of Londoners that make this city contribute so much to the nation’s economy and society.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for securing this debate. London is not where I was born, but for so many of us who come to our great city, it is where our life begins. As a wide-eyed, bushy-tailed teenager arriving to study at Imperial College—as has been mentioned already—in the early 2000s, I felt the visceral sensation of my life changing. London is, and always has been, a melting pot, smorgasbord, tapestry and every other cliché you can find to describe the world’s greatest city—as I am sure all of us present in Westminster Hall agree. That is why it is the honour of my life to be the Liberal Democrats’ Front-Bench spokesperson for this city, which I love so dearly.”
“There has to be that champion, and I do not believe that the voice of the Mayor today is loud or clear enough in that regard. I take the hon. Lady’s points in the positive way that I am sure they were intended. We deserve the attention, investment and confidence of greater devolution—even more powers for the Mayor to do as he sees fit, as the London regions and councils should direct. We need to keep on doing our bit to drive the economic value and contribute to our great country.”
“The hon. Lady gives a stirring defence of the Mayor of London. We are trying to make the point that there is no cross-Government holistic view of London’s priorities. Londoners need a voice inside the Government: our interests ought to be not divided out across Departments and responsibilities, but co-ordinated and addressed holistically. That is the point about a Minister for London who would be able to co-ordinate Departments and responses. There needs to be conflict with the Mayor of London—somebody fighting for London and against the Government, whether that is a Labour Government, a Conservative Government or, heaven forbid, a Liberal Democrat Government. We need that conflict, challenge and alternative view, because their goals often do not align perfectly.”
“Also, are the Government taking this opportunity to finally pick up the National Infrastructure Commission reports from 2020 and 2023, which were ignored by the previous Government, and the report from 2024, which was not implemented quickly enough, and to implement standards and frameworks for resilience in key sectors such as aviation, telecoms, water and energy, which will future-proof our ageing infrastructure to make it reliable and safe?”
“We must look beyond the short term, with a strategic and long-term plan to join up national infrastructure and make it safe and reliable for all. The Government must bring about a strategy and act quickly to review the resilience of all similar assets, including every UK airport—they are all critical to our national economy and our society. With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether an assessment has been made of the likelihood of a repeat of this incident, at Heathrow and at all other pieces of critical national infrastructure?”
“We cannot possibly expect to remain a world leader in infrastructure if we cannot future-proof and seriously invest in the resilience of our assets. Building and maintaining infrastructure might not get pulses racing. There is no ribbon to cut when something just continues to operate efficiently, but that long-termism is an ideology that we should all get behind if we are serious about Britain’s future. The report outlined the many missed opportunities to fix the issues at the substation, and we will all have to look seriously into Ofgem’s consequential investigation into National Grid once it is published. This is not just about grid resilience, though. This time it was a fire caused by a fault, but next time it might be a deliberate cyber-attack or an act of terrorism, which could have a more disastrous impact.”
“This report is an utterly damning assessment of our national resilience, this time through decay but also through a lack of readiness as the climate crisis changes the dynamics, with old equipment operating at higher temperatures just as the loads for climate control and air conditioning are at their peak. The British people will rightly be alarmed that the problem that caused this substation failure was known as long ago as 2018, but there is a much wider point here. Beyond the technicalities of this failure, the resilience of critical national infrastructure has been neglected for far too long. As an engineer, I came to this place for precisely this reason: we are too short-termist and too narrow in our vision.”
“Earlier this week I was contacted by a long-suffering commuter using Worcester Park station. She wrote: “As a teacher my days are already demanding, often filled with pressure, high energy, and very little downtime. Sadly, commuting to and from work now feels just as stressful. Trains during peak hours are frequently so overcrowded that they feel unsafe and extremely uncomfortable. What should be a straightforward journey has become an exhausting and frustrating part of my day.” Now that South Western Railway is under Government control, will the Minister tell my constituents when we can expect to see the service and timetable finally improve for Worcester Park station?”
“It is four years today since the Apple Daily ceased publication, and Jimmy Lai still languishes in Hong Kong’s Stanley Prison. It is worth noting his name and encouraging the Foreign Secretary to raise his case as often as he can. It is welcome to see in the statement that we are “strengthening our response to transnational repression”. Can the Minister confirm that that includes restoring access to the Mandatory Provident Fund, which is another way the Hong Kong Government are spreading their chilling impacts on BNO visa holders here in the UK?”
“The choice we have with this legislation is whether we choose to do something about that status quo or not. Rejecting this Bill, imperfect as it may be, will continue the pain of those who are let down by the current laws. They are guaranteed victims of a system that is letting them down.”
“It is an honour to speak in this important debate on an issue that exemplifies why I chose to get into politics and come to this place: to be part of big decisions, taken in tune with public opinion, listening to evidence, and with the goal of making our residents better off. I have no doubt that all right hon. and hon. Members here today intend to make their residents better off, but in this case, tragically, better off means suffering less and giving them agency in the most painful moment of their lives. This Bill addresses a situation where the status quo is utterly unacceptable. I hope that we can all agree in this place that we have heard heartbreaking stories from the families of those who have watched a loved one die in pain or of the fear of someone with a terminal diagnosis facing the prospect of an agonising death.”
“I will make some progress, thank you. I start by making the somewhat unusual case that this issue, for which we are gathered here on a Friday, giving up bake sales and constituency surgeries, is not quite the big deal it has been whipped up to be by both proponents and opponents. I do not believe that we are considering a fundamental change in the relationship between doctor and patient, or seeking to change the relationship between the state and the individual. I do not believe that we are stepping on to a slippery slope or unpicking the very purpose of the NHS, as some have suggested. We are here simply to give those who already face terrible decisions—doctors, patients and their families—a real choice of how to face those decisions, and protection in law for choices that are already being made today.”
“I will make some further progress. This Bill would simply give the choice to those who will die—and those eligible will die soon—on the manner and timing of their death, and it would protect doctors and families from legal repercussions at such a tragic time. This is not a Bill about the choice between life and death; it is about the choice, should we want it, of how and when we will die. This is the ultimate choice. We speak sometimes of the right to choose, of the right to decide how one might bring life into this world, a debate about which on Tuesday this Chamber showed that there is a huge majority in favour of the right of the individual. We have a chance to neatly bookend the week by establishing the existential right of the individual, when given a terminal diagnosis, to choose how one might exit this earthly realm.”
“I will make some progress. Today, due to the extraordinary courage of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who has given us a once-in-a-generation opportunity for this place to catch up with public opinion, I truly believe that we can take one more step forward towards regaining public trust and confidence in the system. When public polling shows overwhelmingly time and again that the public back the change—between 70% and 75% in the latest polls released—I implore those on the fence to at least listen to public opinion, if not my words.”
“I will continue. Nothing I say, however, is intended to simplify the issue, and I acknowledge the fears of many that the palliative care sector is not funded sufficiently for there to be a rational and viable choice between managed care at the end of life and the choice to end one’ own life. I therefore welcome the inclusion of amendment 21, which matches my priority of the improvement of palliative care.”
“In conclusion, in the heart-wrenching words of Decca Aitkenhead, who wrote in The Times last week, and which I found particularly moving: “critics of the bill have begun to frame the debate as if leaving the law as it stands does not hurt anyone. It does.” She said that opponents “worry about speculative, hypothetical victims—but the status quo creates indisputable, real life victims”.”
“I will not, sorry—I am close to closing. She went on to say: “The bill’s opponents portray it as cruel, heartless and macabre. I wish they could have sat at” —her friend— “Charlotte’s bedside, heard her groan, “Let … me … die”, and seen what cruel, heartless and macabre actually looks like.” This Bill is the right thing to do. It has been scrutinised, amended and debated. This Bill is ready. Please vote in favour today to give our residents a choice.”
“The Beddington energy recovery facility has an outstanding request to increase its annual permit tonnage to 382,000 tonnes from the originally approved 300,000 tonnes when planning was approved. I know the Secretary of State is familiar with this, as the facility is a mere 100 metres from his constituency. May I ask him whether the Environment Agency will listen to local residents, including his own, and to councils across Sutton, Merton, Croydon and Kingston and refuse the permit expansion, as sufficient incinerator capacity already exists in London?”
“The disastrous decision by the last Conservative Government to stop the works at Euston station dented investor and commuter confidence in our railways and in major infrastructure delivery. Their failure to keep costs under control and to manage the basics of the project—simple things such as turning up to meetings—has created the quagmire in which HS2 finds itself today, and I do not envy the Secretary of State the task that confronts her. I am glad to hear that the Government see the huge potential of a comprehensive redevelopment of Euston station, but can the Secretary of State reassure me that we will not end up with a cut-price station that does not realise the potential of the project?”
“The distinction between a lesser section 2A offence and a more severe section 4A offence is failing victims and fails to recognise the total scope of stalking. Successful prosecutions of section 4A offences are far too hard to achieve. The burden of proof is placed so heavily on the victim.”
“Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), in her place to continue a conversation that we have had many times on stalking. Stalking is a heinous crime: it throws lives into chaos, leaves victims in life-changing and near-constant terror, and too often goes unpunished. The current legislation forces too many victims to meet an improbably high bar of evidence, forcing them to jump through hoops to be a perfect victim, just to prove the scale of the threat against them. I have heard from victims in my Sutton and Cheam constituency who have had their lives completely upended by their stalkers, and who are completely at their wit’s end after facing so many obstacles to getting justice. It is clear that the two relevant sections of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 are the root of those obstacles.”
“We have outlined a way of funding that too: 20% of future police grants would be ringfenced for community policing activities, literally making crime pay—in the reverse of the manner in which that phrase is normally used—by allocating funds recovered from the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to community policing. That is important, because commitments to policing numbers mean little without serious action to reverse the scale of forthcoming cuts, such as the cuts of 1,419 officers and staff that we in London are about to experience this year. Indeed, as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner recently told the BBC, “ambition and money go alongside each other”. I urge Members across the House to support those new clauses. I will now turn to my new clauses 95 and 96. It is good to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon.”
“Let me start by highlighting my support for new clauses 85 and 86, which deal with neighbourhood policing. They would ensure that police forces are required to practise community policing “at a level necessary to ensure effective community engagement and crime prevention”. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) is not in his place to intervene for a definition on that. It is about engaging with local communities and ward panels to define the appropriate levels in their areas—which I am sure he would support— rather than taking a top-down view. The new clauses would compel the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the state of community policing.”
“Without the kind of commitment to restoring community policing that I mentioned in reference to new clauses 85 and 86, police forces will remain too overstretched to mobilise the resources to investigate these crimes in the first place.”
“I recently visited the Kimpton industrial estate in Stonecot in my constituency, where I heard more about the awful impact of that kind of theft from tradespeople, who too often are left with their livelihoods wrecked and very little proper recourse to getting their lives back on track, other than to fork out huge amounts to buy new tools, which in many cases are later stolen again. It is a horrible cycle, which I also heard about at the Stop Tool Theft rally on the streets outside this Chamber earlier this year. The measures set out in the new clause provide a good path forward but will not solve the issue alone.”
“Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) and for Clacton (Nigel Farage), to support the measure is a triumph in itself. We spoke about new clause 130 in Committee, and I very much support its measures on tool theft. It would add the theft of tools from tradesmen to the list of aggravating factors in the Sentencing Act 2020, and present a way forward towards more sensible regulations of temporary markets, where too many stolen tools are often sold out of car boots.”
“They would also compel the Secretary of State to launch a review into the effectiveness and adequacy of the stalking awareness guidance provided by public bodies in England and Wales, and to make similar provision for proper consideration and debate in this House. I know that aim is supported by the Minister, so I would like to hear how it is being brought forward. New clause 43, tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), is incredibly important and deserves the support of the House. The new clause automatically commences the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 when the Crime and Policing Bill receives Royal Assent. That he has managed to corral together such luminaries in this House as the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), my hon.”
“The hon. Member provides a clear and visible example of how the legislation is not working, if somebody with such a high profile and with additional security protection cannot be protected from stalkers. I thank him for his apt intervention. The burden of proof means that many victims withdraw from the process completely and give up on gaining justice. My new clauses would compel the Secretary of State to publish a review into the two clauses within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to make time for that review to be properly considered in the House upon its completion.”
“In contract, new clause 7, tabled by the official Opposition, would weaken hate crime legislation in this country, and I fear it is motivated by a complete lack of respect for the decades of progress we have made in recognising the types of discrimination faced by people the length and breadth of this country. For this Bill to push us forward, and not drag us backwards, that new clause must be rejected.”
“I wish I had more time to outline my reasons for supporting the clauses, but I refer the House to my many prior contributions on the subject. New clause 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), would mark a step forward in providing support to victims of honour-based violence and murder. New clause 122, tabled by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), would strengthen the law on hate crimes directed at disabled, LGBT+ people, and rightly seeks to protect people who are victims of hate crime because of their association with individuals in those groups, and I wholeheartedly support it.”
“My hon. Friend’s words have convinced me and hon. Members across the House about her new clause. The Met police recently responded to a freedom of information request about tool theft, which revealed that nine in 10 tool thefts in the last five years in London went unsolved, which shows the scale of the problem and the importance of supporting new clause 130 today. I would like quickly to draw attention to some other amendments. New clauses 87 and 88, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, would hold water company executives to account properly for the first time, and that would mark a huge step forward in tackling the sewage crisis we face in this country. Those individuals should be held liable for their carelessness and fixation with raising bills, while running companies into the ground and ruining our rivers.”
“Was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was to hear the contribution from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who seemed to ridicule the concept of having a minimum level of policing for communities, which would surely protect them and help to prevent thefts of farm equipment, which was the example he gave in his speech.”
“It can drive innovation. It boosts economies and it brings the world closer together. With the right action, it can keep doing all of that without costing us our planet.”
“Hydrogen’s success in aviation will be a major proof point against many existing investor concerns for other sectors. I urge the Minister first to provide longer-term clarity to industry on the availability of hydrogen. The Government must signal their intentions on renewable energy and hydrogen production targets beyond 2040, and, to bring forward the business models for hydrogen transport, storage and power, they should also extend Aerospace Technology Institute funding to a 10-year horizon. Unlike what we have heard from other hon. Members in this debate, this is absolutely not a call for flights to be grounded and Britain isolated. This is a call to fly smarter and cleaner, to back British science and leadership to build a better and more sustainable future. Aviation connects us to people, places and possibilities.”
“Of all transport sectors, on a first-principle basis, aviation is the one to which hydrogen is most applicable. In fact hydrogen will be essential if aviation is to make its net zero targets. Aviation is the most energy-intensive mode of transport and the most sensitive to mass, as the Breguet range equations that I explained to all hon. Members last week show. That is why aviation will be the most suitable use of hydrogen fuel in the future. Aviation has the least competition from other zero-emission pathways, due to their various shortcomings. The sector’s energy demand is plannable and high, creating significant offtake that can bring H 2 down the cost curve. Additionally, the professionalised and regulated environment of aviation is very well suited to handling the new fuel, and establishing standards and safety.”
“I welcome his Government’s July announcement of the commitment of over £100 million for the development of hydrogen and electric aircraft through the Aerospace Technology Institute, and nearly £1 billion over five years to support innovation in the aerospace sector. There is no denying that those are serious, positive moves, but they must be only the start. If we get sustainable aviation fuel right, the benefits for cities such as London will be enormous. Clean flights mean cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses, fewer days lost to sickness, and longer, healthier lives. Getting it right would also mean economic leadership, new green engineering jobs, revitalised manufacturing, and a chance for Britain to lead the global hydrogen economy.”
“The direct combustion of hydrogen in a modified existing-technology engine shows an alternative route to harnessing hydrogen to decarbonise the aviation industry. These projects show the huge potential of this fuel to take aviation into the modern era of low and zero-emission operations. There are three approaches: eSAF, fuel cell to electrical production on the aircraft and direct hydrogen propulsion. They are all viable technologies and approaches that the market, industry and research will understand and develop for the appropriate sectors. For now, those projects are all being held back by infrastructure availability, and I call on the Minister to fix that.”
“That approach contrasts with the one Rolls Royce is taking with its project to modify existing technology engines to run on gaseous hydrogen, instead of requiring a conversion to electrical energy to power an onboard electric motor. Rolls showed the huge potential of that work back in 2022 when it successfully ran a modified AE 2100-A engine, which is a variant of the turboprop powerplant that equips the Saab 2000 regional airliner, which is a long-established and widely used regional turboprop. The next stage of that work is to modify a Pearl 15 business jet engine, which is a twin shaft turbofan that currently powers the Bombardier Global Express, showing that this approach is potentially applicable to turbofans as well as turboprops.”
“Its plans are bigger and depend on more infrastructure; as a result, Airbus recently announced its ZEROe hydrogen-powered aircraft programme would be delayed by a decade because of concerns about the availability of infrastructure to support hydrogen flight. The ZEROe aircraft features an electric-propellor propulsion system powered by hydrogen fuel cells that uses the hydrogen to generate electricity on board through a chemical reaction, similar to the approach taken by ZeroAvia. The only by-product of this reaction is water, and when combined with green hydrogen production, the process is carbon-neutral. The ZEROe approach with propeller propulsion is the likely first-generation hydrogen powerplant type, replacing domestic and regional aircraft, like those ZeroAvia is already developing, for shorter flights.”
“The step after that will be developing an engine for larger 40 to 80-seat aircraft by 2028. The certification will require investment in the CAA to provide the skills and expertise to evaluate and then certify the aircraft as safe. The advantage of ZeroAvia’s approach is the ability for airlines to retrofit the engines into existing fleets. This is not a tale about a technology of the future. ZeroAvia has already performed several world-first breakthrough flight demonstrations of its powertrain technology from its base at Cotswold airport. ZeroAvia is an incredibly exciting new entry to the sector, but existing aviation giant Airbus has also seized the opportunity of hydrogen.”
“Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), is backed by many huge investors, including Airbus, British Airways, and the Amazon Climate Pledge Fund. It is already attracting orders from airlines such as Alaska Airlines and United Airlines. Critically, it has also had investment from the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Scottish National Investment Bank, which shows the immediate viability and attractiveness of investing in this technology. Having raised over $250 million and grown a team of more than 200 employees across Gloucestershire and London, ZeroAvia is already making a significant contribution to the aviation industry. It is currently targeting certifying with the CAA a hydrogen-electric powertrain for planes with up to 20 seats, with the target of it entering service next year.”
“Investment is required in production, as is massive investment in refuelling systems and supply chains, as well as the planning approvals that are required to approve projects necessary for that development. The ATI strategic programme has supported several key projects in the shift to develop hydrogen-electric propulsion systems, including ZeroAvia’s HyFlyer and advanced fuel cells for aviation decarbonisation projects, GKN’s H2GEAR and H2FlyGHT—lots of confusing acronyms and project names—and Project Fresson, led by Cranfield Aerospace Solutions. Some of those projects, including those by ZeroAvia, have resulted in or will soon result in certification applications with the Civil Aviation Authority that will complete in the coming years—the earliest of them by 2026. ZeroAvia, which is based in the constituency of my hon.”
“The ATI estimates that aerospace’s economic contribution to the UK economy could increase from £8.4 billion today to over £37 billion by 2050, driven by new low and zero emission technologies such as hydrogen-powered aircraft. Britain’s aerospace sector is ready, but it lacks confidence that essential infrastructure exists, such as the hydrogen production that those aircraft will require. ADS, the UK trade association for aerospace, defence, security and space, estimates that global aviation could require more than 100 million tonnes of hydrogen by 2050—3 million tonnes of which would be used in the UK. It is essential that we scale up the production of green hydrogen to meet that challenge, and enable the shift in the industry to take place.”
“Thanks to scientific progress and industry innovation, we now have the technology to fly without fossil fuels. Green hydrogen, produced using renewable energy, is a clean fuel that emits no carbon when used. It is one of the most promising solutions for decarbonising aviation, whether by powering aircraft directly or by creating sustainable aviation fuels. That is not a pipe dream; it is already happening. Hydrogen aircraft are being trialled, green fuel production is scaling up and aircraft around the world are beginning to prepare for a hydrogen-powered future. However, the UK risks being left behind unless we match ambition with investment.”
“That is not abstract; it is already costing lives and livelihoods across the country. Aviation contributes to that problem and we cannot pretend that it does not. In 2022 alone, UK domestic and international flights produced nearly 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 7% of the nation’s entire greenhouse gas emissions. If nothing changes, the Climate Change Committee projects that aviation will account for 16% of UK emissions by 2035. We cannot meet our net zero goals without tackling this issue. This debate is particularly well timed following the introduction of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill last week, which addresses the climate emissions of existing technology fuels. There is good news beyond that, however, and aviation can be part of the solution to our fight against climate change.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for securing this debate and for continuing the conversation that we have been having over the last couple of weeks about the future of aviation—something it is always a pleasure to talk about. Nothing is inevitable about the pollution in our skies. Aviation does not have to be the easy poster child for conspicuous consumption of resources and casual carbon emissions. It does not have to be part of the problems we face with a warming planet, melting ice caps and increasingly extreme weather. With the right choices, it can be part of the solution. Britain is already feeling the mounting toll of climate change: flash floods, record heatwaves and freak storms.”