Railways Bill

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Olly Glover

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

As we said on Second Reading and in Committee, the Bill has the right goals: sorting out the convoluted and byzantine structure of our rail industry, and better aligning infrastructure with train operation. But the question before us is whether the Bill, as currently drafted, will achieve those very valid aims.

The Minister gave the impression in Committee that the Bill was beyond any possible reproach or improvement, on the basis that he rejected all Opposition amendments, but we have learned this afternoon that it is possible to improve it, of course, because the Government have tabled their own amendments. If I may begin in the spirit of generosity, I welcome Government amendments 106, 107 and 108, since, as I understand them, they seemingly clarify that GBR will not have powers to seek to take over privately owned infrastructure, such as freight. That will provide some reassurance to the sector, which is welcome.

However, the Bill remains flawed in many ways, so the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments in the spirit of wishing to remove some of those flaws. I will group our amendments by theme. New clauses 1 and 46 and amendment 1 are intended to provide much better value for the customer and focus on the customer’s journey experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I commend my hon. Friend for her industry in the number of amendments she has tabled to the Bill. I hope the Government will listen and consider new clause 37, as they did with her new clause 36 regarding veterans.

New clauses 7 and 8 would make more explicit commitments for GBR to have greater environmental and carbon emissions reduction obligations than those currently drafted. Our amendments as a whole would increase GBR’s potential to avoid making the mistakes of the past. They would encourage it to take bold new steps on electrification and deliver truly joined-up journeys and integrated transport and timetables. They would encourage it to have a real, ambitious rail devolution agenda to bring decision making far closer to communities than is currently the case with Whitehall’s domination.

Our amendments would also avoid the total mess of projects led by the Department for Transport, such as the ongoing situation of having no trains between Oxford and Milton Keynes on East West Rail, despite the railway being commissioned 18 months ago. We have HS2—it goes without saying what a mess that is, and that has not been an endeavour led by the private sector. We also have the inter-city express programme for GWR and LNER, which was wildly expensive.

Let me move towards my conclusion. The key test is this: do the Railways Bill and the proposed creation of GBR make my key constituency asks more or less likely to happen? Simpler and better value fares on GWR, particularly during peak times; an end to five-car, overcrowded inter-city operations; a new station at Grove; full electrification between Didcot and Oxford, bringing Oxford into equality with Cambridge, which benefited from such electrification in 1986; an hourly service for Culham; accessibility improvements to Cholsey; and East West Rail actually happening, as I mentioned—only with our amendments do I feel that those things are likely to be within reach.

Although the Government are right about the need to better align track and train and to tackle the current dysfunctional industry structure, the Bill has too many flaws. Do not take that from me—the Transport Committee reached a similar conclusion, with most of the recommendations of its inquiry being rejected by the Government. Absent the Government embracing at least some of the Lib Dem amendments that I have spoken to, we risk creating a GBR that is mired in bureaucracy and overseen by a Department for Transport that is distracted by dubious GBR train colour schemes and somewhat gimmicky social media videos, rather than adopting good practices from other countries and truly transforming our railway. Absent the Government embracing some of our amendments or the House voting on them, the Bill is not fit to go forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call John McDonnell.

High Speed 2 Reset

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Olly Glover

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her candour on the scale of the HS2 disaster and for the specificity of the range of dates she provided. The Liberal Democrats certainly agree with her intent: we need to make the most of this shambles, and it would be better to do something with what has been built rather than scrap it and hope that doing so resets the past. It is also good news that the Secretary of State has outlined a commitment to proven technology, rather than the innovations of the future—warp drive and whatever else was being talked about before. In particular, the use of the ETCS for signalling is welcome.

We in this country know how to build high-speed lines, because we did it between London St Pancras and the channel tunnel at a reasonable cost. Of course, our French and Spanish allies also know how to do it. The high-speed line from Tours to Bordeaux in France took 15 years, including all the planning and construction. The Secretary of State highlighted Crossrail’s expertise on the expert panel, which is welcome, but is she sure that that expertise is the same as is needed in the more specialised case of high-speed rail construction? Is she confident that her expert panel has the specific high-speed rail construction and commissioning skills that we need, from either the UK or abroad, to turn the situation around?

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Olly Glover

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing a debate on this important topic, and the Backbench Business Committee for choosing it.

We have heard from many hon. Members the important reasons the DVLA needs to improve. I do not have time to mention all the excellent contributions, but I highlight that of the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), who certainly need not have apologised for not using notes. In fact, the passion and authenticity of his speech show the rest of us that having fewer notes can often lead to much better contributions—alas, I have not managed to do that this afternoon.

We have heard lots of reasons why a well-functioning DVLA really matters, including safety culture, which is so important for everybody on our roads. Only if the DVLA works, and if people have faith in it, will we be able to encourage everybody to do the right thing in relation to medical conditions that any of us could develop and which could affect our ability to drive safely. Faith in public institutions, and in the accountability of institutions with which we have an obligation to comply, is important. It is all the more important in the light of the 70 years of societal change—encouraged by Government policy—that have made the car an essential and almost inevitable form of transport for most in our country.

The Government have rightly set out an ambitious road safety strategy that will impose additional duties and expectations on the DLVA, so we will need a better DVLA if that strategy is to succeed. Like other Members, I have had many constituents get in touch with me about issues that affect their ability to access jobs and contribute to the economy, and the personal independence their cars give them. I have constituents who have had very long, unexplained waits for licence renewal. That is often the real frustration: the accountability and the communication from the DVLA just are not there in many cases. Another constituent had a circular and extremely confusing communication merry-go-round between himself, the DVLA and medical personnel. He turned to me and my excellent casework team for help with how to emerge from that incredibly frustrating communication merry-go-round, because he did not know how to get out of it, despite his best efforts to engage with the process.

We are in the midst of a vehicle technological revolution. Driverless taxis are being piloted in London, and electric vehicles are now commonplace. As these changes are felt on our roads, we need to have confidence in the regulator responsible for managing them. We need a dynamic organisation ready to adapt to the challenges that these changes will bring. Unfortunately, the DVLA has not given us confidence that it will be up to the task, and that is not just based on constituents’ experience; the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and a November 2024 Cabinet Office review have all found it wanting.

The well-documented delays in medical driving licences show a system struggling to cope with demand. The 2023 Public Accounts Committee report found that over 3 million people had experienced long delays, with some losing employment and income as a result. Improvements have been made, with the average time to process medical licence cases being 44 days in 2024-25, down from 54 days the year before, but that is clearly still far too long. The DVLA is only facing more and more demands for its services, with an ageing population and the Government’s plan to introduce mandatory eye tests for over-70s. Without structural reform, this problem is not likely to improve any time soon.

Equally, the DVLA’s capacity to administer an increasingly complex and rapidly changing vehicle excise duty regime is a concern. The current VED system is already complex and opaque, given that cars, heavy goods vehicles and motorbikes are all calculated according to different metrics. Shortly after the transition in April 2025, when electric vehicles began paying VED, the DVLA acknowledged issues with V5C vehicle logbooks displaying incorrect tax information. That understandably raised concerns about the robustness of the agency’s data and systems.

At the 2025 Budget, the Government announced electric vehicle excise duty—eVED—a new tax payable alongside the existing VED from April 2028; there are far too many acronyms here, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that electric vehicle registrations accounted for a record 19.6% market share in 2024, this will put further administrative pressure on a DVLA that is already making mistakes and struggling to cope with demand.

Finally, as driverless cars become more commonplace in the UK, the DVLA will play a central role in licensing, registration and data management for autonomous vehicles—a function for which the agency’s current legislative mandate and systems were not designed. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) highlighted some of the existing problems with the administration of licence plates.

All these changes will place greater pressure on the agency, and confidence is low that it will be able to handle it, so the Government need to go faster in their reform of the DVLA. The 2024 report was a welcome start in identifying the structural problems. The Government now need to get on with the unglamorous but essential job of genuine and meaningful system reform, to ensure we have a regulator that is up to the job it faces. Although it is outside the scope of the debate, reform of the DVLA must go hand in hand with further reform of the DVSA to address the persistent backlog in practical driving tests. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Olly Glover

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover]

This has been an informative debate on all the new clauses. From a procedural point of view, we are happy not to push new clause 1 to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Mr Glover, is it your pleasure that new clause 1 be withdrawn?

[Olly Glover]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Air travel providers’ use of sustainable aviation fuel: reporting requirements

(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a requirement for air travel providers to report annually on their use of sustainable aviation fuel.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must specify—

(a) that the annual reports include figures for sustainable aviation fuel usage which can be easily understood, including expressed as—

(i) an absolute volume, and

(ii) proportion of all aviation fuel used; and

(b) that the annual reports are accessible to members of the public including by being made available on their websites.

(3) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the negative procedure.”—(Olly Glover.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.