Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

Luke Taylor Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I hope to continue the excitement of that result in the Chamber.

As an engineer, former aviation consultant and now chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, I know that hon. Members will have become accustomed to me calling for stronger growth in the aviation space, and to my belief that technology and innovation can enable us to do that while achieving our obligations to reach net zero and stop the climate crisis.

Aviation is the bedrock of our trade agreements. It enables high-value cargo to move along supply chains in a way that no other form of transport can. It makes it feasible for businesses to operate across borders and make connections with other businesses that drive economic growth forward. It has meant that the last three generations of Brits have been able to take advantage of affordable foreign holidays, with massive benefits for them, their mental health and their ability to expand their horizons and make enriching memories in unfamiliar settings. It has been so transformational for Governments, businesses and individuals that it can be safely hailed as one of the most influential technologies in history.

But aviation has come at a cost. Consumer and commercial aviation has, without a doubt, contributed to the climate crisis we face. Estimates suggest that annually aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO₂ emissions. However, it has contributed around 4% to global warming to date.

As the MP for a constituency halfway between Heathrow and Gatwick, and given my former life in the aviation industry, I know that the politics of airports is fraught with complications. The impact on communities, if not handled properly, can be deeply challenging. It is my hope that the Government will listen and engage with the points I make about how we upgrade and improve civil aviation in this country for consumers, communities and the planet, and that they will have understood that events like those we saw yesterday serve only to underline how crucial this mission is, and how, following the third major failure of our airspace management in the past three years, it is imperative that this Bill is amended to include measures to stop that happening again. NATS is quite clearly not fit for purpose. We cannot suffer a major air traffic outage once a year. Following the outage yesterday, I am told by industry contacts that, again, communications with airlines were poor. I gently suggest to the Minister that whoever briefed the media that the disruption was akin to

“a day with bad weather”

should be found another position far away from the media team rather sharply.

In the Lords, amendment 65—submitted by Lord Young—would have required NATS to hold responsibility for compensation for disruption caused by its failure, rather than airlines that were not at fault for these delays. The Government declined to accept the amendment, and Lord Hendy responded in a letter to Lord Young in July that he was satisfied that, following the 2023 outage,

“the Government was able to place considerable pressure on”

NATS

“and appointed the person who led the review into the outage. This helped ensure that NATS took the necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of those particular circumstances.”

For the benefit of Hansard, I raise my eyebrow and glance at the Minister knowingly. I invite him to address this issue directly in his response and seriously consider the merits of that amendment—a change supported by the International Air Transport Association and airlines.

That specific challenge aside, the Bill needs to address three broader challenges, and I hope to work with the Government to ensure that it does. The first challenge is the generational risk of decarbonising aviation, which will require short, medium and long-term solutions as we work with researchers and companies to develop the breakthrough fuels that could reshape the industry. That is how we enable sustainable growth to drive our economy. The second challenge is the more procedural, but equally important, task of updating and upgrading our aerospace infrastructure to keep it competitive, while keeping communities impacted by these changes informed, engaged and fundamentally in control over what happens to them. Here we must secure our infrastructure at the same time as empowering communities. The third challenge is rebalancing the power mismatch between airlines and passengers, giving power to people and not the big airlines, so that the passenger experience can be as positive as possible, and not continue to allow airlines on some occasions to scam passengers like cheap fairground hucksters.

We need serious measures that will allow the airline industry to decarbonise. That will require the same collaborative work across the public and private sectors that informed the passage of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026, on which I was grateful for the chance to work with the Government in passing. Such enormous industrial transitions take a very long time, and moving existing fleets and fuel infrastructure to green alternatives while they are still in use is outrageously difficult. Contrary to what some would like us to believe, however, it is not impossible. The interchangeability of sustainable aviation fuels and fossil-based aviation fuels, mixed and fed into the same pipelines and engines, makes this a transition that is unusually straightforward compared with other decarbonisation challenges.

However, the sheer scale of the challenge and the existing infrastructure is the real difficulty. That, as well as the laws of physics and Breguet’s range equations, which I have mentioned in the Chamber before, mean that by sheer necessity the industry may be among the last to transition away from fossil fuels fully. We should not be afraid of that—it is the reality of achieving the growth we need—but we cannot ground aerospace or regulate it into submission, because to do so would have a catastrophic impact on our economy.

We hear from neo-Luddites that we should effectively do that anyway—that we must constrain our horizons, put up with constraints and self-enforced recession, and tell families and businesses that they must put up with penalties and restrictions that their peers and competitors around the world do not put up with. The intention of protecting our world from catastrophic climate change is absolutely right, but these solutions are utterly wrong. Aviation is a Pandora’s box technology—once invented and tasted, it cannot be put back into the box. Like the internet or artificial intelligence, the only valid pessimistic question ought to be about how we transform it to regulate the externalities and make sure it continues to serve people, communities and the planet.

The positive question concerns how we grasp the opportunities it offers to keep pushing progress forward. That means backing decarbonisation technology, which is the only way to achieve the future we need. There are great examples of this being done in practice: I spoke about Operation Blue Skies as merely a concept in the SAF Bill debate almost a year ago, but it is now funded and ready to be trialled this winter. That is concrete proof of the progress being made. However, there are things that we are failing to do as a state to remove roadblocks to this progress and there is a need for real leadership from the Government to continue to drive these opportunities forward.

Yesterday, I chaired a roundtable discussion about sustainable aviation fuel to allow MPs to hear from the industry about the progress being made and what roadblocks remain. We heard how the pipeline of SAF production is not progressing at the rate needed to achieve the SAF mandate targets over the next few years, and that further Government action is needed to ensure that we do not plateau and then fall behind the target of 10% SAF by 2030 and of 22% by 2040.

At the Farnborough international airshow earlier this summer, I was fortunate to witness the first flying demonstration by a fully electric aircraft, and the exhibition halls showed the huge progress on hydrogen and electric aviation that will be the future of travel. Last week, the Hydrogen in Aviation Alliance released its report, “Hydrogen-powered aviation: a pathway to delivery and growth”, which set out a clear set of steps towards harnessing that exciting new technology. Particularly interesting was news of trials led by the Cryogenic Hydrogen Optimised Systems for Aviation—CHOSAN—consortium to be based at Bristol airport, which hopes for the first hydrogen-powered flight from a UK commercial airport by 2028. That is hugely ambitious and gives hope that solutions are available, but it also reminds us that the Government need to play their part in speeding up development and roll-out even more.

Whether aviation decarbonisation ends up being achieved by SAF, hydrogen, electricity, methane or some other pathway not yet discovered, it is a huge opportunity for us to grasp in order to continue our great British global leadership in aviation technology. The Bill does not bring forward specific measures on these decarbonisation goals, other than through improvements in efficiencies delivered by airspace modernisation. I see that as a huge missed opportunity, and I will look for chances to bring forward such measures in Committee.

Turning to the second task on infrastructure, I greatly welcome the elements of the Bill that will help to deliver the airspace modernisation that will improve the efficiency of the UK’s airspace, reduce nuisance noise pollution around airports and facilitate the decarbonisation I have just spoken about. Far from being change for change’s sake, airspace modernisation is a vital step forward in upgrading our essential infrastructure, which has not been maintained and developed to keep up with changing and growing demands, and is at risk of periodic and then more consistent failure, as we all witnessed yesterday. Airspace modernisation should be done as part of a wider project of renewal across our transport and otherwise critical infrastructure. The lack of modernisation is visible in the chronic and consistent mismanagement of our roads and bridges, in certain aspects of public services and even in the political infrastructure that sits beneath everything else in this country. That is why, to unlock safe and sustainable growth and drag our infrastructure not just into the 2020s, but into a state of readiness for the future, airspace modernisation is utterly essential.

However, my support for this Bill is not without reservations. In particular, I am disappointed that, in its current form, it does not guarantee communities a meaningful say over the impact of these changes on them. Progress and improvements in route efficiency will inevitably have negative impacts on many, with new flight paths and concentrations of disturbance taking shape over communities previously not impacted by noise. Those impacts must be considered carefully, and the communities impacted must have a genuine and meaningful say in the changes that will be delivered.

As I have said before, my approach is a desire to get to yes on delivering these changes, but doing so requires buy-in from the communities that will live with the decisions for decades, so my response to this Bill has to be yes, if: yes, if we build meaningful community involvement that actually changes options; yes, if we can ensure that the scheme is able to benefit from public scrutiny; and yes, if it can be done in a way that is sustainable and not likely to be unpicked years later because it did not achieve some level of consensus. While the moving parts in aviation are aluminium, steel and carbon, these are ultimately human systems. It cannot be that changes are made that deliver what might look good on a spreadsheet or on the maps that I used to draw in the aviation industry; this must be about how the human situation is impacted by those changes.

On Monday, I attended a meeting of the APPG on airport communities. We heard how the airport night noise effects study has shown the huge impact of aviation noise on families living near airports. While aircraft types have become considerably quieter over the years, the more we learn of the health and psychological impacts of noise disruption, the more it is clear that the science is consistent and the impact is real. As such, we must demand that programmes to mitigate those impacts are made available to all those affected. It is also true that as airline traffic approaches capacity and demand continues to grow, airlines are likely to upgauge their aircraft fleets, which typically leads to higher noise signatures from larger, heavier aircraft. We should also remember that the very constraints we put on air traffic are creating an increase in those disruptions.

The parts of this Bill that will make airspace modernisation easy to deliver must not be allowed to cut scrutiny of the impact of that modernisation on residents or limit their voices over the options considered and how final flight routes are designed. I am particularly concerned about the impact on communities in my neck of the woods in south-west London, at Heathrow and further afield at Gatwick, which have already been sounding the alarm about the impact of night flights, particularly on their wellbeing. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) have worked on this issue for many years on behalf of their constituents, and this Bill needs to do more to protect the interest of their residents. I expect to hear shortly from my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on a similar issue.

The Civil Aviation Authority and The BMJ have both demonstrated that living under night flights not just harms mental health, but will inevitably damage a person’s productivity the next day. In extreme cases, it can increase the risk of stroke. If it is done properly, airspace modernisation can improve many of these issues, but, where it cannot, we must insist on mitigations through soundproofing programmes or respite periods. Airspace modernisation has the potential to shift flight paths to less densely populated areas and lower the noise impact on take-off and landing with more efficient, steeper approach and departure paths that balance emissions with noise reduction, but there is no guarantee that it will do any of those things if those living in the communities affected are denied a seat at the table, either through badly designed consultations or top-down diktat.

Let me turn to my third and final challenge—I am sure Members will be glad to hear that. It is important to remember that the first two challenges will affect the planet and communities near airports, but the third challenge—passenger rights—is the one that will hit passengers most directly. In the Lords, the Liberal Democrats tabled amendment 36 to implement a passengers’ charter for air travel, with various targets for minimum service levels that an airline can deliver. Lords amendments 10 and 11 would have prohibited airlines from separating passengers on the same booking to force them to pay for assigned seating, or from forcing other passengers to sit next to an unaccompanied minor. Lords amendments 2 and 20 would have stopped the UK from implementing lower standards and diverging away from existing international standards. All of those are good things, and I hope to convince the Government of their wisdom in Committee.

However, my favourite amendment, which I hope to push for and convince the Government of the merits of in Committee, is Lords amendment 13, which would have required airlines to standardise the maximum dimensions for permitted cabin baggage across all air carriers in alignment with recognised industry standards. Who here has a Ryanair bag, 55 cm by 40 cm by 20 cm; a Wizz Air bag, 55 cm by 40 cm by 23 cm; an EasyJet and British Airways bag, 56 cm by 45 cm by 25 cm; and an Aer Lingus bag, 55 cm by 40 cm by 24 cm? Each one is subtly different in size, and each one is liable to set someone back a hefty penalty if the check-in agent does not like the look of them. No, I did not think so; we do not have that number of bags—or we do not have all four.

It is absolute madness. This is 2026; we have universal phone chargers and universal electric car chargers, and we have had standardised shipping containers for nearly half a century. There are also universally sized overhead lockers on aircraft, so Lord Hendy was not correct when he asserted:

“Aircraft have different overhead and under-seat storage capacities. Setting a standard size would necessitate using the smallest aircraft capacity, resulting in many passengers needing to use a smaller case or bag.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. GC71.]

That is incorrect and frankly insulting to the intelligence of the passenger who has just been stung for £75 by an over-zealous Ryanair boarding agent due to having an oversized bag, because they picked up the wrong one that morning, and that 5 cm difference cannot possibly fit into the overhead bin of a Boeing 737 but could slip smoothly into that of an A320. Passengers need protection from predatory practices; we need the BSS—the British standard suitcase. That is the well-regulated market that the Liberal Democrats believe in, and I hope I am able to make the Government see the benefit of that during the Bill Committee.

In summary, the Bill really is a huge opportunity to take meaningful action to improve our airspace infrastructure to reduce emissions, to improve safety and reduce noise and to improve passenger experience and make flying less expensive and stressful. Those are good aims, but they can only be achieved with careful and clear leadership that listens to the voices of industry, communities and those of us who believe that they must be delivered in the context of a wider rethink about how we maintain and upgrade our systems in this country. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill, and I congratulate him on making a strong, if incomplete, start. I look forward to helping him fix the Bill in Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

As we now all reflect on the size of our baggage, I call Amanda Hack.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

First, I want to mention the events of yesterday. I will usually get letters from constituents all over the country about such experiences, because Heathrow is located in my constituency and they therefore think I am responsible for it—I usually send apologetic replies back. Behind the suffering that people went through will be a large number of staff who were working incredibly hard at all levels of the organisation to put it right. This happens on every occasion.

Nevertheless, NATS management needs to be held to account. The Secretary of State has said that she will expect a report within six months, so it would be helpful to have statements during that period to reassure people about exactly what did happen, as well as covering the actions that need to be taken.

[Luke Taylor]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that particular reference should be given to the previous failures and to the 37 actions, I believe, that should have been completed to resolve the previous incident, as well as explaining quite how this was allowed to occur again? As he says, it is critical that we get to the bottom of what happened, but also that we are able to hold it to account.

[John McDonnell]

I think that goes to the heart of the debate that we are having, which is about levels of accountability within our structures themselves. NATS is accountable to the CAA, but who is the CAA accountable to?

I have raised with the Secretary of State proposed new section 61G of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, on the priorities and objectives of the Secretary of State in relation to aviation, which sets out that they must issue a document that is a directive to the CAA. The reason I asked about the proposed new clause is that, given the way it is drafted, I thought we were eventually going to move towards a more expansive document that would set out in detail some of the issues, particularly on the environment, for my interest, but also service delivery and so on. In fact, the document is currently simply a letter, a couple of pages long, that will be sent on a regular basis, usually annually, and laid before Parliament.

I thought that this legislation would be useful in giving us something more substantial; something that would be consulted on in more detail; and something that would set out a more detailed direction to the CAA as to how it should implement its responsibilities and role, as a result of which the CAA would then become more accountable to the Secretary of State and therefore to this House. The point is that when things go wrong, actions are agreed, but we never really get the substance of the follow-up on those actions. That is the problem.

I will just raise another example that people might remember taking place at Heathrow, which is when the substation went up in flames, and we then discovered that the fall-back operations were not working effectively either. There is a real vulnerability for the future. I think we need a bit more of an authoritative role for this House, in terms of how the Secretary of State can influence the CAA and make it more accountable. That is the main point I wanted to make.

I do not think that people realise the massive power that the CAA has and the implications that has for the lives and health of literally millions of people when it determines flight paths and standards of performance. The legislation needs further debate on other aspects as well, but I do not think we have got much further in establishing an effective structure for airspace decision making. There is very little independent monitoring in the decision making, and it becomes impossible to challenge, as the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, because local communities do not have the resources for judicial review—they are just on their own.

There does not seem to be the basic accountability mechanism that we would expect of other bodies performing similar public duties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her opening remarks and for the measures in this Bill, which are broadly very welcome for passengers and for many in airport communities such as mine. To share the Secretary of State’s comments, my thoughts are also with those individuals and families who face significant disruption this week through the failure of NATS. It shows just how vital air travel is to people right across this country for business and for leisure, and the impact when it goes wrong. Although it is not directly related to the Bill, there has been lots of discussion in this debate about the incident and about the lessons that we can and should learn.

At Heathrow, the major airport in my borough, we have now unfortunately got somewhat used to quite significant incidents. There was recently a grid power outage, which caused significant disruption, and there have been a number of other incidents. We clearly need to look at the resilience of our air travel system and at planning for such incidents, which are increasingly common and can cause significant and harmful disruption to businesses and individuals. I hope that there will be a thorough consideration of the issue, as the Secretary of State said there would be. The sector could learn lessons more broadly than from this instance and better resilience planning could be put into place.

The Bill is welcome news for my constituents and the travellers who come through my home borough of Hillingdon. The borough has not just one airport but two: we are home to Heathrow and RAF Northolt, which has a significant and increasing civilian operation involving private flights that come under civil aviation. We are not shy of or ignorant of issues arising from civil aviation—flights, disruption and balancing some of the trade-offs and challenges that come with air travel.

My constituency neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is no longer in his place, has already talked about some of the concerns about potential Heathrow expansion and the third runway; I am sure that the House will rightly turn its attention to those very soon. Those of us who believe in a better but not necessarily bigger Heathrow need to see measures to address the current challenges that Heathrow presents, regardless of expansion. That is why the Bill is particularly welcome.

There will be much better consumer protections when things go wrong, as they sometimes inevitably will. The Bill also takes action to tackle some of the wild west behaviours and differences between the approaches of airlines and contractors; that has been mentioned when it comes to hand luggage, but there are also different, hard-to-navigate approaches when it comes to compensation and delay payments. Those who have experienced disruption will often remember having to hunt down air staff at 10 or 11 at night when the desk is closed. They have tried to find anyone who works for the airline concerned to find out what is going on and what compensation they may be able to get—only to get a £5 paper voucher for refreshments, which will buy about half a sandwich in an airport concession.

I support comments from Members about looking at best practice and upping and standardising the quality of provision, as well as learning from other sectors such as rail; the automatic “delay repay” system has been mentioned. For my sins, I have recently travelled on Avanti and have had to use that quite frequently. It is a helpful tool, and there is a quick compensation turnaround. Notably, the compensation is a payment for the cash that the customer paid for the travel that they did not get. Unfortunately, far too often the disruption payments from airlines are an invitation to travel on the airline again. A voucher to travel again on easyJet when someone has not been able to travel the first time seems perverse.

[Luke Taylor]

To add grist to the mill of all our travel experiences, I had a case in which a customer chose to pay for a seat allocation so that they could sit with their children. They got on the flight and were then moved, and had to claim compensation on the extra service they had paid for—otherwise they would not have got a refund. Does the hon. Member agree that these sorts of things need to be automated and quickened up to improve passenger experience and customer protection?

[Danny Beales]

I wholeheartedly agree, and this Bill is a fantastic opportunity to address some of the issues that have lingered for too long in the sector. Boosting enforcement powers at the Civil Aviation Authority would enable faster enforcement when those rights are not applied. That is also welcome.

Members have rightly mentioned the need for a much tighter definition of “extraordinary events”, and the need to ensure that it is properly applied. It cannot be a catch-all opt-out for airlines, allowing them to get around the requirements. I strongly welcome the removal of the cap on baggage, specialist equipment and wheelchairs. In the Health and Social Care Committee, and in other debates, we talk a lot about the challenge of getting specialist adaptive equipment. It can take a long time to get bespoke equipment. It is incredibly damaging and destructive if it is lost or damaged when a person travels, and they are not able to reclaim the full cost, so I strongly welcome that provision. I encourage the Minister to ensure that when the cap is removed and the provision is applied, there are no unintended consequences—that airlines do not become unwilling to allow such equipment to be stowed and boarded, and do not refuse to fly individuals because of the insurance risk around their equipment. I hope that we will ensure that there are no unintended consequences of applying the right policy.

I strongly support the provisions around modernising our airspace. We have to modernise outdated routes, now that we have modern flights, and now that technology is emerging that has a much lesser noise impact. There are options and flexibilities that remove the significant impact on heavily trafficked flight paths. How we do this is just as important as if we do it; it must be done with proper assessment and consultation of residents. It cannot be right to have just a few heavily trafficked routes, leading to the piling up and circling of flights and an unnecessary additional burden on communities.

I support the comments made about the value of the Bill looking at abusive travellers and their impact on staff, both at the airport and cabin-side. Air workers face unacceptable amounts of abuse in all forms, physical and verbal, and it is increasing. The stats from a recent Unite survey of just 300 workers in Scottish airports showed that 90% had experienced verbal abuse on a regular basis, 75% had experienced intimidation and aggression, and almost a third had experienced some form of physical assault. We are becoming a bit numb to the abuse and regular intimidation that public sector workers and those in customer-facing roles experience; it happens to hospital, rail and shop workers. We have to take action; we have done, for shop workers. I hope that we can explore the issue and use clause 13, which gives a power to create offences to properly deal with airline and airport abuse. Crucially—Unite the union is right about this—this has to apply not just to abuse in the cabin; it has to apply to the whole journey, from entering the airport to sitting on the plane. Any abuse and intimidation has to be dealt with properly. We need a comprehensive system that ensures that when a person is banned from one airline, that carries across the whole airport system; the ban cannot put the staff at other providers at risk.

Finally, I turn to drop-off charges, which have been much discussed. We had a significantly busy Westminster Hall debate on this, which the Minister attended and responded to. This is an issue of great concern to my constituents. Charges have gone up significantly at Heathrow and at the other airports we have heard of today. Frustratingly for people locally, airports do not disclose what the revenue is used for. It is not clear whether it goes towards improving the situation, or is invested in community transport so that people can avoid having to drive to the airport. There are no direct public transport routes to Heathrow for staff and airport visitors from the north or Ruislip parts of my borough. It is incredibly difficult, particularly for evening and night workers, to get there on public transport.

I hope that the provisions added to the Bill will increase the transparency of information about drop-off charges, ensuring that they are adequately advertised, there are easy ways to pay them, and they are fairly implemented, and will ensure that the revenue they generate genuinely goes towards improving community transport. As has been said, the charges mean that people do not drive to the airport, but instead drive to the area around the drop-off zone. Local councils are made to pick up the enforcement costs relating to that parking, and to the illegal commercial car parks opened without permission. Through the review, I hope that we can properly address those issues, which are of significant concern to many of my constituents and my communities. Overall, I strongly welcome the provisions of the Bill, and I hope that it makes swift progress through this place.

Railways Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Monica Harding]

I rise in support of new clause 1, on the passengers’ charter, new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and my own new clause 60, which addresses reliability, accessibility and refurbishment.

All seven of my railway stations in Esher and Walton are under the stewardship of South Western Railway, making our constituency one of the first to experience the transition to public ownership, and there are significant reliability challenges. The latest performance figures show that, in March, 3% of all services were cancelled and only 65% of services arrived on time, meaning more than one in three trains fail to arrive when passengers expected them to.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I have statistics for Worcester Park station, which is also served by South Western Railway, and in the very last period before nationalisation—period 2 for 2025-26—punctuality was 89.3%, which is still not good enough, and cancellations was 1%. In all the periods since then, performance has been worse. Under nationalisation, Worcester Park has seen a worse service in every single period. Does my hon. Friend agree that our residents, particularly those of Worcester Park, do not care if a train turns up wrapped in a Union flag, but about whether that train is on time and not cancelled?

[Monica Harding]

They 100% do care and that is why we should support new clause 1.

It would also help if constituents could access the railway in the first place. Investment in making our stations accessible for all need to be at the very heart of the programme of rail reform. Hersham and Hinchley Wood stations are completely without step-free access, while Walton, Claygate, Esher and Thames Ditton only have partial step-free access. That is why I tabled new clause 60, requiring Great British Railways to undertake and publish an assessment of the accessibility barriers at Hersham and Hinchley Wood stations. I am also pleased to support new clause 2, which does the same, requiring the Secretary of State to publish an accessibility strategy for the railway network.

That brings me to Hersham station, because accessibility failures there sit alongside something much more fundamental, which new clause 3 would address. Hersham supports around 700,000 passengers every year in one of the busiest rail corridors in the country, in a constituency that contributes more to the Exchequer than any other constituency outside London. Thousands of people pass through the station every week to run businesses, create jobs and drive economic growth. The state of that station is an affront to every single one of them. It is an eyesore: ramshackle and neglected, mould climbs the fence lines, the paintwork is peeling and the station sits under exposed corrugated iron roofing. More seriously, both platforms were built in the 1960s using materials that were only ever intended to be temporary. More than half a century later, they are still there. Groups of schoolchildren step off the train and put their feet through the platform. Constituents have repeatedly raised safety concerns. The stairs visibly move beneath their feet. These passengers are not asking for luxury; they are asking for a station that is safe.

There is nothing in the Bill that will give my residents in Hersham a station that they can be proud of. I therefore urge the Minister to look seriously at new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would establish a tomorrow’s railway fund, enabling local authorities to bid for funding for new stations, infrastructure and feasibility studies. This is exactly the kind of mechanism that stations and wealth creators in Hersham need.

All my constituents are asking for are trains that run on time, stations they can actually get into and infrastructure that is safe to use. Performance, accessibility and condition are not separate issues. They are three sides of the same failure and the Bill must address all three. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments and show that Great British Railways will finally deliver a railway worthy of the people who depend on it every day.

Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 General Committees

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I think it is helpful to look at the consultation responses from airlines and airports when changes were announced. Only two out of 38 airlines opposed the changes, whereas airports were unanimously opposed to the measures. Airlines argued that, without a hand-back mechanism, they would not be able to adjust their schedules early enough to provide passengers with meaningful notice, even where known risks to operations existed. Airlines also considered the 10% limit on hand-backs too low and pushed to increase that to 20%-plus; generally speaking, we support the restriction to 10%, to reduce the potential impact on consumers.

Airport respondents opposed the proposal; they were not against alleviation in principle but against the hand-back mechanism specifically. They argued that the existing justified non-utilisation of slots provisions are sufficient to enable cancellations where operational constraints, including fuel shortages, arise. For instance, JNUS has already come into effect, providing slot alleviation to operators because of airport and airspace closures from the disruption in the middle east.

It is worth noting that, given that there is no fuel shortage now and none is expected according to Government data and airline bosses, this approach risks appearing to be unjustified, disproportionate and not entirely required, given that the measures in place are already helping with those issues. There is a risk that, instead of ensuring reliable services as stated, it could undermine consumer confidence and growth and investment opportunities.

The Liberal Democrats recognise that flexibility during this tumultuous period is important; as we have seen, events can move very quickly in the middle east. We want to protect the long-term financial sustainability of the airline sector. We do not want airlines using slots for empty or near-empty ghost flights, where demand is insufficient, in order to maintain the historical rights to slots, but these changes would result in flight cancellations with little notice, with huge disruption to consumers.

The proposal to allow hand-backs with as little as 14 days’ notice is contrary to the stated aim of preventing disruptive late cancellations, and it is unnecessary given that JNUS can be used at this late stage if a genuine fuel shortage occurs. In a cost of living crisis, with flight prices already through the roof, customers will be forced to spend more money on replacement flights at the last minute or lose money on hotels or onward travel.

It is also the case that 14 days’ notice is too short a period for airports and other users to make effective use of the vacated slots, as airports typically need six weeks’ notice to reallocate slots commercially. This means that we would likely have unused slots, which reduces income to airports and reduces investment in passenger and freight infrastructure.

Slot alleviation on its own cannot be considered the solution to fuel resilience issues; other action is needed. The Government must outline what other steps they will take to ensure the continued, resilient supply and availability of jet fuel in the UK. That includes going further and faster on the adoption and scaling up of sustainable aviation fuel projects, so that the UK is able to secure supplies of SAF and both ensure the lack of disruption to flights and enable further decarbonisation of aviation.

Will the Government commit to formally monitoring hand-backs under the flexibility offered by this legislation in order to ensure that they are the result of genuine fuel shortages, are undertaken in a timely manner and are not being abused? I also echo the concerns of the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, about the impact on consumers. I will be voting against the draft regulations.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, for their remarks. I will deal with each point they raised in turn.

First, on the question about timing asked by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, I confirm that the slot alleviation measures will be extended to winter 2026. I find his link to broader questions on the refining sector admirably creative, but I am not sure that they have a direct bearing on the measures that we are considering. Our domestic refineries are still able to produce kerosene and jet fuel to a solid and viable extent. I remind him that we are not passing these measures directly in response to a shortage of jet fuel, but to pre-empt any future shortages that may arise, even though we believe that the supply is currently as it should be.

I also remind the hon. Member that we implemented a similar pre-emptive framework during the covid-19 pandemic to deal with similar disruption. This is a measured approach to be able to manage any potential fluctuations in supply as they occur.

The hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Sutton and Cheam are right to point to the concerns raised by airports through the consultation and to consumer protections for the travelling public. I will address both of those points together. We very much recognise airports’ concerns about the potential impacts. That is why these measures are strictly temporary, limited in scope and affect only a small proportion of slots—up to 10%.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed to the fact that a lot of airlines thought that the figure should be higher. The Government took a different view to make sure that the impact on the airports sector is contained.

Allowing these regulations to reallocate slots that are handed back ensures that airport capacity is not wasted. That provides flexibility for airlines while ensuring that we have efficient use of airport infrastructure. We believe that 10% strikes the right balance.

On passenger protections, airlines are required to provide passengers with at least 14 days’ notice of any flight cancellations, but that is not the intention of this policy. It is designed so that airlines have a longer lead-in time to be able to see where potential disruption might lie, and to be able to reallocate those slots efficiently to protect the travelling public and ultimately give them more security and better forewarning about disruption, where it may occur.

Where UK law applies, if a flight is cancelled by the airline, passengers are entitled to a choice between a full refund or being re-routed under comparable transport conditions to their final destination at no extra cost.

The shadow Minister asked why winter, and why the measures do not extend just to the summer. There is an important point about using the retained EU law functions that we have now to ensure that we have a long-term approach to managing disruption across the rest of the year. As he pointed out, measures in the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill will provide us with greater flexibility on slot reform, which we can use going forward.

On the Lib Dem spokesperson’s points on JNUS—I have never said JNUS out loud before—the justified non-utilisation of slots is triggered when a fuel shortage is materially occurring. The regulations give us a forward look that allows us to build in contingencies well in advance, and not just when a fuel shortage reaches its bite point. That is why a longer-term approach is necessary, but he is right to hold my feet to the fire.

[Luke Taylor]

There is an interesting dynamic between the impact of a fuel crisis, which is likely to have quite a short lead time, and these regulations, which give almost a six-month warning. Does the Minister recognise the need for oversight of how the rules are used to ensure that this happens in response to a fuel crisis and not for business reasons, or to expand the flexibility given by the existing JNUS rules?

[Keir Mather]

The Lib Dem spokesperson makes a valid point. The data shows that a lot of the cancellations we have seen, which so far have not been above average for UK aviation, have arisen to a large extent from people re-routing away from the middle east. We would expect these measures to be used only when disruption occurs directly in relation to fuel, but he is right to say that the Government need a proactive approach to monitoring hand-backs and how they are used. We will of course do that through consultation with industry stakeholders, such as airlines and AirportsUK. We will certainly keep a close watch on the implementation of the measures and make sure that that is done in the interests of the travelling public.

The regulations represent a practical and proportionate response to a period of uncertainty for the aviation sector. They protect passengers by enabling greater certainty and earlier communication. They will support airlines in maintaining viable and realistic schedules and will help to ensure that scarce airport capacity is used efficiently and responsibly. Above all, they demonstrate a forward-looking approach, acting early to prevent disruption rather than responding reactively. I hope that the Committee has found my answers informative and that it will join me in supporting this instrument.

Question put.

Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate.

Transport links are essential to our economy, tourism, trade and everyday life, but all too often they have been neglected. Up and down the country, people in businesses have been plagued by an inefficient, unreliable and unaffordable public transport system, which was completely neglected by the former Conservative Government. Now, as with many other areas of our creaking infrastructure, the public find themselves wondering when the change promised by the Labour Government will finally arrive, as if it were another heavily delayed train.

As we have heard at length today, too many rural communities remain effectively cut off from public transport. I grew up in Market Rasen in Lincolnshire, and I distinctly remember the frustration of simply trying to get to Lincoln—or beyond, to Newark or Nottingham—given the unpredictable and unreliable single-carriage trains that filled the air with thick, black diesel smoke.

Those challenges impacted the job opportunities of the people I grew up with and left our local economy—though beautiful and traditional in its own way—hanging off the edge of the rest of the east of England like a loose thread. It is startling that now, more years later than I care to admit, very little has changed. I am going to channel the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and join his calls for improved services to Market Rasen, including a direct link to King’s Cross, which may well improve my home town’s connection to the rest of humanity.

We have already heard how suburban communities such as Smethwick and Solihull, Loughborough and Long Eaton have suffered for years with poor train and bus services. In fact, it could be said that suburban towns do not get the attention that they deserve in the wider debate about this issue. As someone who represents a suburban town on the outer bounds of London, I reassure Members present that the problems discussed today are not completely alien to those faced by commuters in Sutton. Having lived in rural Lincolnshire, lived and worked in Lichfield, Ilkeston and Nottingham, and travelled to Broughton in north Wales for years on the train and bus services, I have personally suffered the impacts of that lack of connectivity.

Improving people’s lives, however, is not just about grand plans for infrastructure—even though as an engineer and recovering transport planner, I do wish that all problems could be solved by it—it is also about delivery and real funding for those projects, coupled with good leadership and real results. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s announcement last week that they are backing the long-standing Lib Dem calls to finally deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail—a clear Lib Dem win if ever I saw one. The plan, following the completion of Northern Powerhouse Rail, to build a new rail link through the midlands from Birmingham to Manchester is also welcome.

[Dave Robertson]

It is always great to see the Liberal Democrats finding a south-east MP to come and talk about transport in the midlands and north Wales. The hon. Member mentioned the well-overdue news that the Government will be following through on the rail improvement projects and building north to south, rather than south to north—as they always should have done. I wonder if he would like to reflect on the fact that the areas that returned massive Labour majorities are now seeing the investment from a Labour Government, so is he absolutely certain that he wants to claim that as a Liberal Democrat win?

[Luke Taylor]

When we see the investment going in, the tracks being laid and the services turning up to stations, I think we will agree that that is a win for any Government. For too long, we have seen empty promises that have not been funded and have not arrived, so perhaps we should all pause our congratulations and backslapping until those projects finally materialise.

With just over £1 billion of funding allocated for those projects so far, however, we had hoped for something more concrete. Indeed, beyond the headline that up to £45 billion can be spent, the mere £1.1 billion commitment to spend another five years making a plan to make a plan to consult on a consultation is cold comfort to those whose dreams of a truly joined-up economy rest on the delivery of this project—those are the dreams of not just businesses and councils, but ordinary people and community groups. The Government have not yet done enough to convince us that, following a decade of broken promises and distant dreams for transport in the north, we are actually on the cusp of real change.

For communities that have been waiting for rail upgrades for years—like a young boy waiting for the train to Lincoln on the platform at Market Rasen station—there will be another long wait before we see spades in the ground. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to go further and faster, like the trains that we so badly need, to improve transport links in the midlands and north Wales.

The economy of our entire country will benefit from reversing years of overlooked investment in transport systems. The statistics make that clear, with my home region of the east midlands receiving the lowest transport spending per head in 2023-24 at just £368 per person—a quarter of that in London and half of the average for England. Wales received just £566 per head, compared with an average of £693 in England and £763 in Scotland. Passengers and businesses across the midlands and north Wales deserve better, and the Liberal Democrats will continue to hold the Government’s feet to the fire in delivering improvements for them.

To reiterate, we do not pretend that the challenges that the Government inherited are easily fixable. The British railways were left in a terrible state by the previous Conservative Government, but nearly two years on from the general election, many Brits remain fed up with the state of the British railways—with a network still plagued with delays, high ticket prices and overcrowding.

The Government would do well to remember that most passengers just want the strong delivery and good leadership that I mentioned, regardless of who owns the railways. People want better, more reliable and more affordable services—full stop. If nationalisation fails to make the impact that it promised, as the early warning signs indicate may be the outcome of the Government’s intervention, nothing will have changed.

In the spirit of constructive opposition, I invite the Minister to consider how the Government might align their plans more closely with the Liberal Democrat plans for our railways. Namely, I invite the Minister to meet my Liberal Democrat colleagues to discuss introducing a passengers’ charter like that laid before the House yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). It would go a long way towards offering passenger protections on reliability, accessibility, affordability, amenities such as wi-fi and toilets, and seat guarantees. It could be folded into the ongoing development of the Railways Bill. Similarly, will the Minister outline how the Government plan to significantly extend the electrification of Britain’s rail network without committing, as we have done, to a 10-year plan for more electric trains, greater investment in batteries, and ensuring that all new lines are electrified as standard? Such measures could make a huge difference to the carbon impact of our train network, including by creating new capacity for freight to be carried by rail rather than road, while delivering real results for passengers at the same time.

Finally, I invite the Minister to outline why the Government are not working with local authorities, not just in the midlands and north Wales but across the nation, to unleash the pent-up capability of transport-led economic growth in our towns and cities. The repeatedly delayed Leeds tram would be a great start, as would—if you will indulge me, Ms Furniss—extending the Transport for London tram to Sutton. However, I imagine that the Minister will be able to discuss some of these matters with the Mayor of Greater Manchester face to face much sooner than he had anticipated when he woke up this morning.

Draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 General Committees

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I offer broad support for the draft regulations. It is welcome that the CAA has lengthened the transition period in response to the consultation—the consultation seems to have been fairly well responded to. This is an example of the positive impact that hobbyists and private users can make on Government regulation. I encourage the Government to maintain that approach.

I echo the concerns about convergence or divergence with European regulations, but I sound a note of caution: there should not be divergence for divergence’s sake. Let us look at where there are advantages, compatibility or competitiveness with what is likely to be a larger market for products close by, and make sure that we approach that in a reasonable manner.

Can the Minister give some detail on how the CAA will engage with operating companies, particularly software manufacturers, to ensure that users are aware of the regulations? That is often done via apps and subscriptions. We must make sure that compliance is built in, especially with the geofencing altitude regulations and the night light operating rules. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations and wish him the best of luck in boosting our competitiveness and the quality of the products we produce in the United Kingdom.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

There were probably three questions in one there. I say to my hon. Friend that I am not prepared to stand in the way of the public’s aspiration to fly. We are not looking at demand management at the moment; our approach to aviation decarbonisation is based on the analysis suggesting that the sector can make a significant contribution to our economy-wide net zero target by 2050 by focusing on new fuels and new technologies.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

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?

[Heidi Alexander]

I am clear that the project will need to be privately financed. That includes both the core project and the associated infrastructure improvements. It will be for the promoter submitting a planning application to set out in that application how it is consistent with the reviewed ANPS. However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks I made earlier; I am clear that we must ensure that the M4 and the M25 do not turn into a car park, because that will not result in the successful operation of the airport.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Aviation is central to our economy and our way of life, whether it is delivering well over 300,000 jobs here in the UK, contributing over £22 billion to our economy, driving inbound tourism, or connecting communities, businesses and families the world over. I am proud of our world-leading aviation sector in Derby and many other places across the UK, and while aviation is an integral part of our economy, it is also one of the most challenging to decarbonise. Despite the scale of the challenge, though, we must keep pushing forward, because—as I have said before, and as I will say again now—without net zero in aviation, there is no net zero, full stop.

To ensure that future generations are able to access the opportunities that air travel can provide, we need to make sure that flying is greener. This Bill does exactly that. It will unlock the potential of UK SAF by delivering the confidence and stability that SAF producers need to continue to turbocharge growth as they drive forward green innovation. I welcome the Bill as a clear statement of intent that this country is absolutely serious about decarbonising the future and future-proofing our world-leading aviation sector. It is the right thing to do, and we must do it.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

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.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

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.

[Mike Kane]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. Let me start by addressing the point made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, about the overview and ambition of this legislation. We are the first legislature in the world to attempt to create this revenue certainty mechanism. The SAF mandate was a key commitment in our election manifesto last July, and the eyes of the world, as some of our witnesses said the other day, are on us doing this work, because people are following our lead. I therefore want to bake in the competitive advantage of being ahead of the game in this area, and being a world leader in this area too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

The clause will enable the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to the counterparty to ensure that it can always meet its liabilities under the revenue certainty contracts. The intention is that the counterparty will be funded through the levy payments from suppliers of aviation fuel in the UK. The power is a back-up to assure SAF producers and investors that the counterparty will always be able to meet its obligations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Black bin waste

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament, guidance on the opportunities available for local authorities in England to support the production of Sustainable Aviation Fuel through the use of black bin waste.

(2) Within six months of the publication of guidance under subsection (1) the Secretary of State may, by regulation, require local authorities in England to prioritise the creation of sustainable fuel in the disposal of their black bin waste unless the local authority deems it to be significantly financially disadvantageous to do so.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) must define the meaning of ‘significantly financially disadvantageous’ for the purposes of this section.

(4) Regulations made under subsection (2) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Luke Taylor.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Taylor]

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.

[Mike Kane]

I think the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has a point, in that the public will be interested in how this is made. Advanced-waste SAF, including SAF made from non-recyclable municipal solid waste, is a key part of the SAF industry. We have backed and invested in this kind of SAF in our grant funding programme, the advanced fuels fund, as I mentioned earlier, and we are backing it again in this Bill, providing the revenue certainty that advanced waste-based SAF producers need to attract investment and scale up fast.

The hon. Member’s new clause, however, is not what the SAF producers need, and would place more burdens on our local authorities. There is nothing preventing local authorities from using their municipal solid waste for SAF production if they believe that it provides the best value for money and environmental outcomes. We heard in evidence the other day, when waste actually has a value to it, is it waste any more?

However, municipal waste often needs to be pre-treated and processed before it is used in SAF production. This often means that SAF producers look to buy their waste from processors, rather than from local authorities. We do not believe that access to municipal solid waste is currently a significant barrier for UK SAF production, and it is likely that discussions on the availability of municipal solid waste would happen once a project is close to taking a financial investment decision. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

[Luke Taylor]

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.

[Mr Kohler]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within six months of the Act’s passing, reviewing how we can better secure the supply of bioethanol for use in sustainable aviation fuel production.

The success of the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel ambitions will rely not only on bold targets and optimistic projections, but on the reliable availability of the resources needed for manufacturing. Bioethanol will be a resource that can be part of the manufacturing process for SAF, and help support a low-carbon industry in the UK, yet while the Government continue to laud their commitment to green aviation, they have stood by while domestic bioethanol production is at risk from Donald Trump’s bully boy tactics.

Since the signing of the UK-US trade deal, the owners of two UK bioethanol plants based in Hull and Teesside have threatened to close the sites as the trade agreement fundamentally undermines their business position. This Government have given US ethanol producers a 1.4 billion litre tariff-free quota—equivalent to the UK’s entire annual demand for the product—and completely undercut the industry, making the UK vulnerable to the whims of, to put it at its mildest, the mercurial Trump Administration.

The new clause would require the Government to assess the impact of plant closures on SAF production potential, set out options to mitigate supply risks and, crucially, recommend the policy steps needed to promote a stable domestic supply of bioethanol. We cannot afford to leave this to chance, or to the good will of a US President who, as we all know, simply cannot be trusted. If the Government are serious about scaling up SAF production, they must ensure that the raw materials are available. That means a proper strategy to support and stabilise the UK’s bioethanol sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I understand the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making with new clause 4, but I would argue that it is unnecessary; the whole point of the Bill is to decarbonise aviation. As the Minister said himself, and as I hope the Committee will accept, the Bill was conceived and finds its origins under the last Government, and it was then carried through by this Government, so it is something that we can rightly be proud of on both sides of the House. As we are leading the world on this issue, I am not sure that new clause 4 is necessary.

However, new clause 5 is more interesting, because it goes to the very crux of the debate we had earlier on the various technologies that can produce sustainable aviation fuel in the United Kingdom. It goes without saying that, while all forms of sustainable aviation fuel—as we know it at the moment—are greener than their fossil fuel equivalent, there is significant variation in the greenhouse gas and carbon emissions between using blends or 100% sustainable aviation fuel in an aircraft. The merits of new clause 5 go to the absolute centre of the debate on which of those technologies, or which of those great innovations, can deliver the closest to net zero over the coming years and decades, if not net zero itself.

If new clause 5 were baked into the Bill, and ultimately the Act, it would be interesting to see how it would enable us judge among those different technologies. I have talked in the House many times about the importance of whole-system analysis, which is an analysis not just of the effect while the jet engines are turning and the planes are in the sky, but of the whole impact on greenhouse gas and carbon emissions of manufacturing the fuel and what is done with the waste product afterwards, particularly carbon. New clause 5 would go to the heart of discovering that.

One of the things that we have seen in evidence, and that we have talked before about in the Chamber, is the effect when certain fuels are derived, in part, from atmospheric carbon capture—the carbon emitted post combustion, which comes out of the tailpipe of the aircraft, is the same amount of carbon that is recaptured from the atmosphere to make the next lot of fuel. New clause 5 has the merit of enabling us to command the Government to review that, which is why His Majesty’s Official Opposition have sympathy with it.

[Luke Taylor]

I rise briefly to press this question to the Minister: if the Government oppose the new clauses, how are they are going to incorporate their intent? I think they probably agree with the intent but are probably just resistant to their being outlined as they are. I ask the Minister to go into as much detail as he can on whether that will happen through the jet zero taskforce or something else.

[Mike Kane]

I always enjoy listening to the rasping oration of the hon. Member for Wimbledon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

A latter day Hilaire Belloc, in my humble opinion. However, on this occasion, the hon. Member for Wimbledon will no doubt know that I disagree with him.

Committee members will be aware that SAF is considered to be essential in achieving net zero for aviation medium and long-haul flights, which account for about 80% of CO₂ emissions from aviation. The Government update Parliament and the public regularly on the progress towards net zero targets across the economy, including by laying in Parliament an annual statement of emissions and annual publications of official greenhouse gas emissions statistics. They include granular detail on emissions from all economic sectors, including domestic and international aviation. Furthermore, the Climate Change Committee reports to Parliament each year on progress in reducing emissions, including for transport, and there is a statutory duty on the Government to respond to the points that it raises.

To address the points raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, we continue to publish statistics on the volume of SAF supplied each year in the UK and under the SAF mandate. Together, these measures provide a clear picture of progress towards decarbonising aviation, so I would ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw his new clause.

[Luke Taylor]

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?

[Mike Kane]

I do not have the answer in front of me, but I commit to providing the hon. Gentleman with an answer in due course. I thought the point he was making was about whether we are being open and transparent across all sectors in the UK in showing how we are decarbonising the aviation sector. [Interruption.] I do now have the answer. Who knew? The miracle of mobile telephony—it will save writing my signature to him with the electronic pen. The SAF mandate and statistics include details of feedstocks and the origin of the SAF. I hope that answers his question, but if he wants more information—we are all keen on this—I would ask him to please keep in touch.

New clause 5, entitled “Increasing greenhouse gas saving potential of sustainable aviation fuel”, was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. The SAF mandate is the UK’s key policy to decarbonise jet fuel. It does that by securing demand for SAF, by obligating the supply of an increasing amount of SAF in the overall UK aviation fuel mix. The SAF mandate rewards SAF in proportion to the greenhouse gas savings its achieves. That will encourage SAF developers to improve continuously on their greenhouse gas savings. To ensure that the SAF mandate reflects the latest technological and commercial developments, there will be continuous monitoring of trends and the impacts of the mandate. Formal reviews will be conducted and published at least every five years, with a formal review in 2030. The formal reviews will already include certain elements of the new clause, namely the minimum greenhouse gas savings threshold and the minimum targets for supply of SAF. Following the review, there will be an opportunity to update the legislation as needed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

That was a creative way of asking about railways in a question about roads. This Government are committed to improving all forms of transport, so that people have a real choice about the best mode to use for their journey. We are keen for people to have the choice of sustainable transport modes, including rail, walking and cycling, as well as driving and travelling on buses. As the hon. Member will see, the Government are investing huge amounts to support our rail industry, just as we are doing to support the state of our roads.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

10. How much funding she plans to provide to increase the frequency of trains from stations in Sutton and Cheam constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

Rail services in Sutton and Cheam are supported by requirements on train operators to plan services and timetables to meet current and future passenger demand, ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. Govia Thameslink Railway and South Western Railway are required to work collaboratively with the Department for Transport to develop future plans, and our Department holds them accountable for delivering for passengers.

[Luke Taylor]

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?

[Simon Lightwood]

Services returning to public ownership is a watershed moment for our railways and the beginning of our efforts to build Great British Railways, a new publicly owned organisation that runs our trains. We want passengers to see improvements to their services now and, starting with SWR, each operator will have to meet rigorous bespoke performance standards on things such as punctuality, cancellations and passenger experience, so that we can begin to build a world-class public service.

HS2 Reset

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend has painted a graphic picture. I understand that when large infrastructure works are taking place those who live closest to them will often experience disruption in their daily lives, and I want to put on record my thanks to the residents of Kingsbury, Coleshill and Water Orton for their patience. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that we need, once and for all, to put an end to this cycle of overspends, delays and waste, and get on and build a railway that is fit for the 21st century.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

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?

[Heidi Alexander]

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity not only to re-provide the existing Euston station—which, I am sure, will frustrate many Members and their constituents at times—but to provide the new HS2 station there and to unlock land around it. That will enable new homes to be delivered, but is also a massive commercial opportunity for regeneration in the heart of London. It is a very exciting opportunity—one that we will be saying more about in the coming weeks.