Mr Paul Kohler
MP for Wimbledon · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“(4) For the purposes of seeking to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees, the Taskforce must— (a) work to ensure that the work of different services involved in facilitating the transition out of asylum support of asylum seekers and refugees is coordinated; (b) work to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees granted core…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“According to it, allowing those who have been waiting more than six months for a decision to work would save the Government £4.4 billion a year, increase tax revenue by £800 million and add £1 billion to GDP. Time spent being prevented from working has a scarring effect on refugees’ future likelihood of being in work.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In June, the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee noted “with disappointment that no strategy for integration in England was written following the publication of Indicators for Integration.” The Committee said: “We welcome the commitment to develop an effective cross-government integration strategy but are concerned that the…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I made clear in a previous sitting, I have serious concerns about the use of the independent immigration appeals authority to handle first-tier tribunal cases, in particular because Australia trialled something similar and found that non-judicial tribunal panels often took more time to reach decisions because their members struggled wi…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am, for my many sins, a member of the Home Affairs Committee. Time and again, we see that the Home Office does not have the bandwidth to deal with every issue that it has to confront. I am still bemused by the point made by the hon.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(5) The Secretary of State must, no later than twelve months after the establishment of the Taskforce, and annually thereafter, lay before Parliament a report on— (a) the work of the Taskforce; (b) the evidence considered under subsection (4)(d) on the move-on period, and any recommendations made by the Taskforce; and (c) any changes made…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
780 held · 711 searchable for Mr Paul Kohler. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include— (a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and (b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.’ (A4) After subsection (6) insert— ‘(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.’” This amendment to the Transport Act 2000 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 10, page 6, line 6, at end insert— “(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4). (A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit ‘and’; (A3) In subsection (2)(b), after ‘action’ insert— ‘, and (c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. While I am broadly supportive of much of the Bill, we must not lose sight of the fundamental challenge—the lack of sufficient funding and expertise in local authorities to fully take advantage of the powers that it provides.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(4C) The authority or authorities must publish any assessment and proposals made under subsection (4B) after consulting— (a) persons operating local services in the area or combined area; (b) users of local services; (c) NHS providers; (d) education providers; (e) local employers and businesses; (f) people with disabilities; and (g) any other persons whom the authority or authorities consider it appropriate to consult.” This amendment would insert into the Transport Act 2000 a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of local services when considering changes to the list of socially necessary local services.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 14, page 9, line 23, at end insert— “(4B) When the list of socially necessary local services required by subsection (3)(ba) is reviewed or amended, the relevant authority or authorities must— (a) assess the overall adequacy of the existing network of local services in their area or combined area in enabling passengers to access essential health settings, education, goods and services, economic opportunities, and social activities; (b) identify any gaps in the provision of socially necessary local services across the network and where existing services are insufficient, absent or cause a material adverse effect on passengers' ability to access those goods, services, opportunities, or activities; (c) describe what further action the authority or authorities intend to take to address any identified gaps including, where appropriate, proposals for new or altered services, with timelines for implementation, and consideration of funding or alternative delivery models.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Having consistent data on ridership, frequency and cancellations would greatly improve transparency, inform better decision making, and keep socially necessary services at the forefront of Government planning and funding. Amendment 39, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on behalf of the Green party—”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It sets out how the review process should work, requiring that gaps in network coverage be identified and that changes to improve the network are actively considered. Importantly, it would also ensure that reviews and amendments take place in consultation with relevant stakeholders. That would embed transparency and accountability into the process. Amendment 64 would require a biannual review by the Secretary of State of the level and condition of socially necessary services across the country. Given that local authorities will already be maintaining those lists, it is not an unreasonable burden. Rather, it would create national oversight and parliamentary scrutiny—something currently missing from the system.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 14 is a vital provision in the Bill that seeks to strengthen the provision and protection of routes that are deemed socially necessary. I will begin by addressing the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, before turning to others. Although I fully support the principle behind clause 14, there are several areas where it can and must be strengthened to ensure that it functions as a genuinely effective tool for safeguarding essential bus services. Under the clause, the Transport Act is amended to require that local transport authorities maintain a list of socially necessary routes and review it from time to time. Crucially, there is no detail on how that review should be conducted. That lack of clarity risks rendering the duty vague and unenforceable. Amendment 66 seeks to address that gap.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer), to name a few, I know that there are growing concerns about school and college bus routes being cut, leaving students unable to travel independently to their places of learning. The Government may argue that such services are already included under the definition but, if that is the case, why not make that explicit? Clarifying it in statute would only strengthen the Bill and provide clearer guidance for local authorities.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Liberal Democrats strongly support amendment 39, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. As has been said, it is remarkably similar to, if not the same as, an amendment that we tabled in the House of Lords. It rightly proposes to expand the definition of “socially necessary local service” to include routes that serve healthcare facilities. I recognise the argument that the existing definition already covers them, but we think it is important to explicitly include hospitals, GPs and clinics. Accessing healthcare is a social necessity that should be explicitly recognised in law. The same is true of education. From conversations with my hon.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(4E) A service established under these provisions is a local service operated by a local government bus company as defined by section 22(5).” This amendment would place a duty on a relevant local authority to implement a socially necessary service should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(4C) Where a local authority makes a statement under subsection (4B)(e), the new burdens doctrine applies to the provisions of this section and the Secretary of State must consider providing appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure the service can be delivered. (4D) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on what funds will be available for the purposes of subsection (4C).”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(4B) Where a local authority has established a socially necessary service in the absence of alternative operators, the local authority must publish a report on the establishment and operability of the service within six months, which should include, but not be limited to— (a) the scope and nature of the service; (b) the estimated operating costs of the service and any identified funding gaps; (c) the impact of the service on local accessibility and transport needs; (d) a timeline for the operation of the service; (e) where the local authority is unable to meet the financial burdens of operating the service within six months of establishing that service, a statement specifying the extent of the financial shortfall.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 14, page 10, line 26, at end insert— “(4A) Where a socially necessary route has been identified in accordance with section 138A(15) of the Transport Act 2000, and no alternative operator has implemented the service within a period of six months, the relevant local authority must take reasonable steps to implement a service on the socially necessary route as far as is reasonably practicable.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendments 54 and 74 would establish a real safety net for socially necessary routes. Amendment 54 would place a duty on local authorities to step in to deliver a service when no commercial operator will do so, while placing a reciprocal duty on the Government to provide financial support to enable it. Amendment 74 would complement that by requiring the Secretary of State to create a formal funding mechanism for such services. The mechanism would include clear eligibility criteria, ensuring that local authorities could not designate routes as socially necessary arbitrarily, but must demonstrate clear social need. Together, the amendments would ensure that essential routes do not disappear due to market failure. They offer a practical, balanced solution to a growing problem, and I urge the Committee to support them.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My party and I were pleased when the Chancellor recently announced funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail to improve connectivity. However, we still do not know on what the money will be spent. Any plan to boost the northern powerhouse must surely include a new main line between Manchester and Liverpool—a vital link that would not only drive economic growth across the north-west but strengthen connections between two of our greatest cities. When will we finally see the detail behind the Chancellor’s announcement, and will she meet with me and my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) to discuss proposals for the better linking of Manchester and Liverpool?”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Worcester Park is a station that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and I know well as it is on the boundary of both our constituencies, and I confirm that my constituents face the same issues of overcrowding. SWR acquired 90 high-capacity Arterio trains to address this issue back in 2019, yet six years later only a handful have entered service. The UK taxpayer is currently spending over £5 million every month on leasing the Arterio fleet, and over £0.5 million additionally every month to store the unused trains. Will the Minister confirm how many Arterio trains are now in use, whether the issues delaying roll-out have now been addressed, and whether he thinks that spending millions of pounds every month on unused trains is a good use of taxpayers’ money?”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I have read paragraph 19 of the explanatory notes, but given the physicality of the description in the Bill, what is the legal justification for saying that it also covers electronic tickets? We can assume that it does, but I can see a defence barrister making a lot of the physicality in the description in proposed new section 1A(4) of the 1991 Act. There must be some legal reason why we can say absolutely that that description includes electronic tickets.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the original drafting of proposed new section 1A(3), it was not a defence to knowingly use a ticket that had already been used. However, under the new wording of subsection (3), it is a defence if someone uses a ticket that has already been used, even if they know about it. Is that deliberate or a flaw in the drafting?”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If someone is using a ticket that has already been used, it is an overcrowding issue, so is there a flaw in that change? The previous drafting made sense: if two people had a photocopy of the same ticket, and knowingly attempted to enter using that same ticket, that was not a defence under the original drafting, unless they reasonably believed that the ticket had not already been used. That has been removed in the final version, and I wonder whether that is a mistake in the drafting—I cannot see the logic of that.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This means funding day-to-day services properly, empowering local authorities and putting passengers at the heart of every decision, for which the Liberal Democrats will continue to fight.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Liberal Democrats propose a different path: a nationwide active travel strategy to build new cycling and walking networks that are better integrated with existing transport. This cost-effective, ecofriendly approach would connect homes, schools, high streets and transport hubs. These estimates show a Department and a Government who lack ambition. While increasing capital spending and investing for the future are positive, cutting day-to-day spending is a poor decision from a Government who say economic growth is their highest priority. We need a transport system that works not just for the next decade, but for the next bus, the next train, the next school run and the next hospital visit.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Years of neglect following Tory deregulation have destroyed much of our national bus network, isolating communities and holding back growth. Clearly, the Chancellor’s hike of the fare cap from £2 to £3 should be reversed, as it is causing real hardship for some of the poorest in society, yet the estimates reveal continued cuts to bus subsidies, which is precisely the wrong approach when communities desperately need reliable, affordable bus services. The Liberal Democrats believe that active travel infrastructure must accompany public transport reform, but the Government’s approach is disappointing. Although £246 million is currently allocated to Active Travel England, funding is set to be cut by more than £90 million next year, undermining Labour’s earlier promises of unprecedented investment.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Not only does the expenditure represent sunk costs, with no return on investment; it casts doubt on the Department’s ability to deliver the major infrastructure projects that are so vital for national connectivity and economic growth. The Liberal Democrats propose simplifying ticketing, improving accessibility and boosting connectivity, and also increasing usage and income by freezing fares. We also advocate a 10-year rail electrification plan—investing in zero carbon by ensuring that all new lines are fully electrified. Buses, the nation’s most popular form of transport, get little support from the estimates. The franchising reforms in the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill are welcome, but they will not restore regular, affordable services without funding and expertise. We need more than just three people in the bus centre of excellence.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“An £81 million rise in central administration costs, largely to cover the higher employer national insurance contributions that the Government introduced, raises questions about whether resources are being prioritised towards administrative overheads, rather than directly supporting frontline transport improvements. Despite pledges to address climate change, the budget lacks detail on funding for green infrastructure, public transport decarbonisation and active travel, leaving the DFT open to accusations of setting green ambitions without a clear financial or operational pathway—greenwashing, effectively. The £50 million in costs tied to the closure of phase 2 of the HS2 programme further reflects issues with long-term strategic planning.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Local leaders are best placed to deliver for their areas, and increased autonomy for transport in city regions is positive, even if not all the new money is in fact new. However, areas outside combined authorities must not be overlooked. Of the negatives, the most concerning is the £150 million cut to day-to-day spending this year and over the spending review period, which will affect subsidies for trains and buses. The reductions threaten already fragile services and the efforts to promote walking and cycling, and raise serious doubts about the Department’s ability to achieve its stated priorities. There is a clear mismatch between the Government’s ambitious transport goals and their budget priorities.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The 4.4% rise in capital spending is welcome, especially the boost for Transport for London and High Speed 2, which shows much-needed recognition of the transport network’s capital needs. The continued support for East West Rail and the trans-Pennine route upgrade is also welcome, as they are vital to connecting communities and driving growth—exactly the kind of strategic investment we need. Sadly, although the Conservative Government claimed to back motorists, they did the opposite, and fewer than half our roads are now in good condition. The new road funding settlement is good news therefore, but it clearly falls short of what is needed. The support for devolution is also encouraging.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As we all know, strong connectivity is vital to economic growth and social prosperity. It is not just about convenience; it is key to boosting productivity, attracting regional investment and raising living standards. Central to that is making public transport more available, affordable and accessible. The transport crisis in this country is clear. Since 2015 the number of local bus journeys has dropped by more than 1 billion—a quarter of all trips—with many routes cut and fares up by more than 50% since 2013. Rail use remains below pre-pandemic levels, while Government rail subsidies have surged to over £22 billion, 65% higher than they were before the pandemic, despite repeated above-inflation fare increases. So what is the plan? The estimates offer us some hope, but the picture is mixed. Let me begin with the positive aspects.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for his compliments. Does he accept that Active Travel England will get £100 million less next year, and does he think that is a sensible way to move forward?”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Subsection (2) would not be mandatory; it simply suggests the things that a local authority might consider. Although the Government’s ambitions are wonderful and to be commended, we want local authorities to start saying to people, “Yes, buses are important, and we have a role in providing them.” That is why we are pushing the Government on that.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The Lib Dems support the Bill and applaud the Government’s ambitions. This is an excellent move forward, and we support the purpose set out in clause 1. The stated aim to “improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services” in the UK is vital. However, buses have for too long been a poor relation in public transport, which is why we are pushing the Government to give local authorities a general duty to promote the use of bus services. The bus is the most popular form of public transport, but it has long been neglected and, to some extent, looked down on. New clause 22 would ensure that local authorities have a duty to encourage the use of buses and promote their benefits and services, but it is only a general duty.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for North Norfolk will speak to, but in urban areas we have real issues with bus routes that do not keep to local authority boundaries, but cross them. There are problems of co-ordination when bus routes cross boundaries, and an absence of buses because of those problems. Having a number of off-the-shelf ways to help authorities would surely be a good thing. I will leave it to my hon. Friend to take on that matter.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have seen that already with rail nationalisation, where a Transport for London model, which the industry and many Labour Members supported at one point, would have been a better approach than concession contracts. New clauses 14 and 18 are a useful brake on letting ideology, rather than pragmatism, take control. They are not impediments; they are things that surely should be done and are good practice. We will support new clauses 14 and 18. On new clause 30, we want to make it easier for local transport authorities that do not have the expertise. Having a number of off-the-shelf approaches to franchising is surely a good thing. There are specific issues in rural areas and villages, which my hon.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The concern raised by many stakeholders about this Bill is not about its contents. We all agree with its contents, but the money and expertise are lacking. Local councils do not have either. As I said on Second Reading, although this Bill “hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it does not ensure that there is fuel in the tank.” —[ Official Report , 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 97.] We have great sympathy with Conservative new clauses 14 and 18. It is important that we ask local authorities to list the objectives and evidence. It is also be important to go through the costs. Those constraints and disciplines are crucial and will avoid ideological decisions.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Secondly, the Secretary of State has said that the ministerial taskforce set up to provide oversight on HS2 had inconsistent attendance from the then Transport Secretary and Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Does the Secretary of State agree that those right hon. Members should apologise for those particularly damning lapses? Thirdly, we share the Secretary of State’s confidence in Mark Wild and Mike Brown, but can she say when she expects to be able to give the House an accurate assessment of the scheme’s full costs and of when HS2 will finally be up and running?”
House of Commons18 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The shocking allegations of fraud by a subcontractor are emblematic of the Tories’ lack of oversight and interest in properly safeguarding the public interest and public money, as we saw with the scandal of personal protective equipment procurement during covid. We must now make sure that any money lost to fraud is clawed back as soon as possible. May I ask the Secretary of State three things? First, can she guarantee that, if any fraud has taken place, any money lost will be returned to the Government and her Department as soon as possible, and that the police will be provided with the necessary resources to investigate the matter fully?”
House of Commons18 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. What we have heard today is clearly a damning indictment of Conservative mismanagement. Connecting our largest cities with high-speed rail was meant to help boost economic growth and spread opportunity. The original idea—a high-speed rail network connecting London to Manchester and Leeds—was clearly the right one, but what we have ended up with is years of delay and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being poured down the drain, with no end in sight. The litany of errors that the Secretary of State has outlined is truly shocking and shows that the Conservatives were comatose at the wheel. A lack of oversight, trust and planning has left us with a high-speed railway drastically reduced in scale and inflated in price.”
House of Commons18 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I came to the reluctant decision that the state of palliative care in this country and the safeguards against coercion in all its forms were not sufficient to vote in favour of the Bill. Despite the changes in Committee, my mind has not changed. I will again be voting against the Bill. However, let me be equally clear that amendments 103 and 104, in my name and to which I will now speak, are not wrecking amendments, but critical to ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny if the Bill becomes law.”
House of Commons13 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me begin by laying my cards on the table. I am, of course, a liberal and have always supported the right of individuals to choose freely when they want to end their life. I have no religious or philosophical objection to assisted dying, and when the debate on the Bill began, I assumed I would vote in favour of it. However, as the debate in this Chamber on Second Reading progressed, and in particular as a result of the compelling speeches by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), and in particular from the Mother of the House, the right hon.”
House of Commons13 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In Victoria, the first Australian state to legalise assisted dying, there are only 20 pages of regulations and much more has been included in the Act, which is necessarily longer than the Bill before us. That is a good thing, as it means more parliamentary scrutiny. I wholly understand why it was not possible for the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) to draft a Bill as detailed as the Australian Act before Second Reading, but I had hoped that with the help of Government resources, those gaps would have been filled in Committee and on Report. Sadly, that is not the case. [ Interruption. ] I had much more to speak about, but heeding your cough, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say clearly that I will vote against the Bill, but even if Members disagree with me, they should please vote for my amendments.”
House of Commons13 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While it might be reassuring that a code of practice must be issued to take into account how depression can impair a person’s decision making, as the Royal College of Psychiatrists recently reminded us, that does not change the fact that impaired judgment does not mean that someone lacks capacity. Thirdly, leaving all those matters to be considered by guidance and regulations places them outside the democratic control of MPs. With limited exceptions, we will not get a vote on those regulations, and will have no input, directly or indirectly, in formulating them. The case for the defence might be that reliance on such guidance and regulations is inevitable with a Bill of this complexity, but the experience of other common law jurisdictions suggests that that is not the case.”
House of Commons13 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will for-profit providers be allowed? All those questions go unanswered by the Bill. I had hoped that they would be answered in Committee, but they were not, and instead we got even more reliance on delegated powers. First, that means that MPs cannot make a judgment about assisted dying and how it will work in practice. On training, for example, MPs might assume that the training provided will be a robust two-week course on assessing coercive control, but there is no such requirement in the Bill. Indeed, the impact assessment suggests that it would be a short course. Secondly, regulations cannot override statute and are ultimately bound by it.”
House of Commons13 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This not only strikes at the rule of law…but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.” I am afraid the Bill is an example of such excessive reliance. That is a major problem because in large part the safeguards are left to be decided by regulations. What level of qualification and training will doctors need to have? How will mental capacity be assessed? Who can be a proxy? What happens if the self-administration of drugs goes wrong and a person suffers complications but does not die? When pressed on the key safeguards and key issues, supporters of the Bill say that they are problems that can be approved later. The same goes for how the Bill will actually be delivered. Will it be delivered by the NHS, and if so, how? Will private providers be commissioned, and if so, how, by who and on what terms?”
House of Commons13 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Giving people a choice when they look on the internet and see how awful their death might be because of the shocking state of palliative care is not a free choice. This is an extraordinary Bill. It has 55 clauses and 38 regulation-making powers, of which five are Henry VIII powers—in other words, powers to modify primary legislation. As Ruth Fox of the non-partisan Hansard Society, which is absolutely neutral on assisted dying, made clear, there are lots of powers in the Bill conferred on Ministers. Why is that a problem? Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney General, in his Bingham lecture last year, puts the point as follows: “Henry VIII clauses…upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive.”
House of Commons13 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By the Government’s own estimates, SAF could cut emissions by 6.3 million tonnes of CO 2 equivalent by 2040. That is not insignificant, but given the projected growth in passenger numbers, it would represent only a 0.8% reduction in overall aviation emissions compared with today. While the Lib Dems support the Bill, we continue to urge the Government to take more ambitious action to decarbonise the aviation industry. With plans for airport expansion still on the table, the Government must clearly articulate how net zero aviation will be achieved by 2050.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given the inherently international nature of the aviation sector, closer regulatory alignment with the EU and other key partners is essential to fostering growth in the industry and ensuring that there are sufficient levels of SAF production internationally to support the transition. The Government must therefore work more closely with the EU and others to ensure that our frameworks dovetail. Finally, while we welcome this Bill, it is important to acknowledge that SAF alone will not be enough to decarbonise aviation, as the Chair of the Transport Committee made clear. Although SAF can significantly reduce the carbon intensity of air travel, flights using SAF will not be carbon neutral, so many of the necessary emission reductions to reach net zero will need to come from other areas.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In 2022 the Conservatives promised to have five commercial SAF plants up and running by 2025, but, as so often, they failed to deliver. I will therefore be pushing in Committee for the Bill to increase the level of ongoing scrutiny. It is also crucial for the UK to work collaboratively with international partners on net-zero aviation technologies. Currently, the criteria for both what qualifies as SAF and what levels of different technologies should be used differ between the UK and the EU, with each jurisdiction prioritising different fuel types at different times.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Bill sets out the broad principles for the revenue mechanism, but leaves much of the detail to secondary legislation and ministerial discretion. That is, to a degree, understandable—the early stage of SAF technology and the uncertainty in market development mean that flexibility is crucial and necessary—but the Government must ensure that Parliament has an adequate opportunity to scrutinise the development of the mechanism, and the SAF sector more broadly. Given the importance of SAF to achieving net zero in aviation, it is vital that the House is updated regularly on progress in the industry, and on whether any adjustments to the mechanism are necessary. That is especially important in the light of previous Government promises to kick-start the domestic SAF industry—promises that have yet to materialise.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Providing SAF producers with a guaranteed level of revenue will be key to unlocking investment in the sector—which, I think, answers some of the questions posed by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). It will help to stimulate private capital at this early stage, and will support the UK’s ambition to become a global leader in SAF development and production. The growth of the industry also has the potential to generate jobs and economic activity across the country. However, while my party supports the Bill, there remain important questions, regarding in particular the scrutiny of the mechanism, international alignment, and the wider strategy for aviation decarbonisation.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for her speech, and congratulate the Aviation Minister on the Bill. The challenge facing the aviation sector—as with our entire economy—is decarbonisation. Reaching net zero by 2050 is essential, and given the scale of the scientific and technical challenge, it is clear that decarbonising aviation will not be easy. Sustainable aviation fuels have an important role to play in this effort. We consequently welcome the establishment of a SAF revenue certainty mechanism, which has long been called for by many in the aviation industry and which, as we have heard, is vital to ensuring that the SAF mandate is both feasible and achievable for airlines.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗