Railways Bill

Olly Glover Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank those who have put so much work into the Bill, which has had a long gestation, with its roots in the multiple timetable change meltdowns across the network in May 2018. They and the Government are right to recognise that our railways need change. That should be our starting point.

I will start with the reasons why we need that change. Unfortunately, the British Railways Act 1994 framework introduced by the Conservative Government of that era has certainly been full of problems, and previous Conservative Governments have presided over above-inflation fare increases, overcrowded trains and frankly incomprehensible and totally baffling contract extensions awarded to failing train operators such as CrossCountry and Avanti West Coast. I think we can all agree in this House that the current structure and system is not putting passengers or freight users first, but we should also recognise that meddling and interference from central Government has increased since the pandemic and is at the heart of some of our problems—more of which anon.

Let us start with what is good about the Bill. It is certainly an honest and serious attempt to simplify the current convoluted industry structure and processes. It is quite right to focus on the need for accessibility improvements, and it is welcome that it introduces the idea of a long-term rail strategy, although the usefulness of that will depend on how “long-term” is defined. The creation of a passenger standards authority to build on the work of Transport Focus is welcome to ensure that the passenger really is put first.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

In constituencies such as North Shropshire, where access to the railway is very poor indeed, we have initiatives for step-free access at Whitchurch station and to connect Oswestry, which is the second largest town in Shropshire but has no rail connection, to the line at Gobowen. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill really needs to take up those types of opportunities? Otherwise, many people will fail to recognise the benefits of hopefully improving the rail system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that some of the more sparsely populated parts of our country have been neglected in their rail offer. It is important that the spending recognises that and does not just follow large towns or cities or inter-city routes.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Surely improving our railways should include the ambition of making our public transport cleaner and greener. In Bath, dirty diesel trains are still running through the city. Surely one of our first steps should be an ambitious electrification plan, reversing or addressing the years of failure of the previous Conservative Government.

[Olly Glover]

I shall have to ask my office to initiate an investigation into the leak of my speech—I will go on to say why we do indeed need a rolling electrification programme, which is something that has hitherto been missing under Governments of all colours.

Nevertheless, we Liberal Democrats have some concerns about the Bill in its current form. First of all, though, we certainly welcome the Government’s recent embrace of a seven-year Lib Dem call for a freeze on rail fares. It is very welcome, but it would be entirely wrong to suggest—to be fair, the Secretary of State has not yet done so—that GBR is needed for such things. This is all about influence and persuasion with the Treasury and making sure we make coherent choices about fares and the cost of motoring, so that we encourage the transport choices we wish to see.

The legislation as drafted will not in and of itself bring better value for money for customers in the form of affordability, reliability and improved access to the network. It is not just me who thinks that; the Secretary of State herself stated in May that she could not promise lower fares under renationalisation. One of my biggest concerns is that GBR currently sounds like a railways version of NHS England—something that the Government themselves have decided to abolish—rather than an organisation given real autonomy, following a clear vision and long-term plan for the industry, that is likely to create customer focus and commercial flair, which is what our railways really need. What they do not need is even more state control and micromanagement, which, to date, has not produced good outcomes. The capacity duty for GBR laid out in the Bill is another big concern here; in just three short paragraphs, it sets out a very broad and draconian basis for rejecting applications to access the network that are not GBR.

Let me give some examples of how state control and micromanagement has hurt us to date. It was the Department for Transport, not any failing train operator, that specified the inter-city trains currently in service with LNER and GWR, which, as I am sure the Secretary of State will know from her own travels, have been replete with problems and concerns about suboptimal internal comfort and design. Indeed, the current significant rolling stock shortages—a result of problems that GWR is facing with those trains—were confounded by a DFT decision to withdraw high-speed train rolling stock from the west country after the pandemic without a replacement, which has led to frequent overcrowding on trains serving my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, partly because five-car inter-city trains designed for journeys such as London to Bristol and London to Penzance are currently operating stopping services in Devon and Cornwall.

It was a Department for Transport decision to appoint Chiltern Railways to operate East West Rail phase 1 between Oxford and Milton Keynes. The new railway has been ready for more than a year and we still have no passenger services running on that line. We have had 20 years of Department for Transport-specified timetables, with relatively little improvement to connections between trains and non-London journey times. When I used to work at Southern, the timetable specification document given to us by the Department for Transport had 200 pages of detail as to exactly what should be followed.

There is a real lack of clarity on how open access passenger and freight will be effectively regulated and protected in the new structure. That is especially important for freight, which the Government have decided not to nationalise. There is no requirement in the Bill to set a target for passenger growth, which may suggest a lack of ambition. The Bill is very vague on the criteria for calculating things such as network access charges. The Bill gives GBR the power to apply discounted or elevated track charges, but it is totally unclear as to what criteria will be applied in deciding the charges. It is also unclear how the ORR will be able to police and enforce that effectively, given its reduced powers. The Bill seems to imply that appeals against GBR access decisions will require judicial review-level criteria, making them very inaccessible to most parties that may wish to make those challenges.

We hope that some of those concerns will be addressed through further scrutiny on the Bill Committee—in the miraculous event that the Bill passes later today. We hope that, with an open-minded approach from the Government, we will be able to set a specific time definition for “long-term rail strategy”. The Liberal Democrats believe that it should be 30 years rather than a short period of 10 years or 15 years. We hope to see a clearer definition and some bounds put in for the many references to the Secretary of State’s powers to override, and we want to see greater ambition for both freight and passenger growth.

We need more recognition of the importance of competition and open access for both freight and long-distance passengers. Rail freight remains in the private sector and therefore needs protections, given the Government’s clear preference for state ownership and operation. Open access has driven up ridership and customer satisfaction on the east coast main line but is now at risk. The real question for the Government is whether something as innovative as Hull Trains, which has transformed the inter-city passenger offer between Hull and London, would even be possible under GBR?

We desperately need competition on the west coast main line, given Avanti West Coast’s outrageous fares and performance. There is no guarantee that when Avanti returns to the public sector those fares will come down. There are many positive examples of private sector tendering and operation—particularly the Spanish high-speed network, the original LGV Sud-Est in France, which is the busiest high-speed line in Europe, and French and German operating contracts procured by regional governments. Although the Passenger Standards Authority is welcome, we need an even stronger and louder passenger voice on it.

What would the Lib Dems do instead or additionally? [Laughter.] Well, I am going to address that in case anybody wanted to accuse us of being negative without articulating our positive vision. We need to make sure that as well as making the structural changes it intends to, the Bill, and whatever follows, addresses the real problems on our network.

Successive Governments have failed to set out a clear, long-term vision and set of objectives for the railway that cover passenger and freight growth, customer satisfaction and punctuality. They have failed to accompany that with a long-term funding settlement and infrastructure plan, which should include incentives and rewards for contractors and suppliers for hitting quality, time and cost objectives when it comes to enhancements to the network. They should be based on a vision for a regional or national timetable designed around convenient and reliable connections between trains at well-designed major interchange stations, as is the case in Switzerland.

The Bill should limit future fare increases to no more than the rate of inflation, which would deal with the arbitrary approach that has been taken up until now. We need value for money and quality guarantees for passengers given the high fares we have. In particular, the Bill does not guarantee that my Oxfordshire constituency will get the improvements that we really want to see, such as electrification between Didcot and Oxford. The equivalent part of railway to Cambridge was electrified in 1986 under that hardly well-known pro-rail Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. We need a clear, long-term rolling programme for rolling stock. We need accessibility improvements at stations, including Cholsey, and new stations such as one to serve Grove and Wantage. I am desperate to see that for my constituents.

[Peter Swallow]

I am listening carefully to all the hon. Gentleman’s recommendations. Many of them sound wonderful, but I suspect that they come with something of a price tag. I hope he will get on to the part of his speech where he sets out how the Liberal Democrats would fund those investments.

[Olly Glover]

The hon. Gentleman might find that the Bill is also rather lacking in detail on how future rail improvements will be funded. However, he is right in the sense that we need to get costs down. That is why a rolling programme of electrification, new stations, rolling stock and so on would get costs down. It is not just me who thinks so; Andrew Haines, the former chief executive of Network Rail, said in testimony to the Transport Committee that the evidence is “incontrovertible” that a rolling programme of electrification would reduce costs.

I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) that we need a greater voice not just for combined authorities but for local authorities. Only with those changes will we see a railway that is innovative, ambitious and aligned with the needs of our economy, passengers and freight end users. For now, the Bill, despite its good intentions, needs further work before it can move forward. Therefore, with some sadness, Liberal Democrat Members cannot support it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

For decades, rail fares have been subject to above-inflation increases, and many people feel that prices such as £7,780 for an annual season ticket from Didcot to the London travelcard area do not represent good value for money and hinder the railways’ potential to reduce congestion and contribute to economic growth. Does the Secretary of State support the idea of a rail fares freeze? If she does, what representations has she made to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget?

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to divulge conversations that I have had in advance of the Budget. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I am not going to do that. I am acutely aware of the importance that the travelling public place on affordability, and of course I want to find a way to help those who rely on our railways, given the cost of living pressures that people are experiencing. I have spoken before, though, about the scale of the public subsidy that we are currently putting into the railways, and we have to get the right balance between supporting rail users and being fair to the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The new railway between Oxford, Bicester and Milton Keynes has been open for more than a year, successfully running freight and charter trains, but passenger trains have yet to start. When will passenger services begin, and what does the Secretary of State feel are the lessons for her Department as to what has gone wrong?

[Heidi Alexander]

There were significant delays under the previous Government—14 months between their intention to move to procurement in March 2023 and any action on it, which was not until the general election last year. Within a couple of months of my being in post, we appointed Chiltern Railways as the operator. There are ongoing discussions locally, and I hope that services are up and running as soon as possible in the new year.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulation 2025

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I put on the record very briefly the Liberal Democrats’ support for the proposed updating and expansion of maritime regulations.

Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards

Olly Glover Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I join other hon. Members in commending the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for bringing this very important topic to Westminster Hall and, indeed, for his impressive efforts in getting media coverage before the debate had even occurred—I might ask him later for his tips on that, if he might be so generous, because hitherto I have not had quite such success, but it is very good to see. He is quite right to talk about the fear of driving at night that this issue instils and offers some good tips for mitigating the effects.

My hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) talked about the economic impact of reduced night driving and the problem of automated light dimming—I shall return to that subject, because I have some very strong views about it. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) joined other hon. Members in talking about the rural context and how important night-time driving is for people who live in rural areas and for the rural economy. It was once again great to hear the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) bring his professional optometrist’s experience to the debate and quite rightly highlight the impact of the issue on elderly people’s mobility, as well as the safety aspects of those who continue driving even though their eyesight may be compromised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) gave us an excellent summary of his very strong and robust campaigning on this issue, which this debate will hopefully accelerate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was very articulate about the need to strengthen MOT requirements and the fact that the data under-represents the problem at hand, a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord).

Following a petition with more than 14,000 signatures, the previous Government committed to commissioning research into headlight glare, a project that was taken up by the current Labour Government, with the results eagerly expected. While LED headlights improve driver visibility and energy efficiency, they can cause discomfort or temporary blindness to oncoming drivers. An RAC survey in December 2024 found that 95% of drivers believe some headlights are too bright, with 53% reporting being temporarily blinded and 25% avoiding night driving altogether because of glare.

Research shows that glare particularly affects people with cataracts or other vision issues. Headlight alignment and condition are checked during the MOT test, yet overly bright lights can still pass if technically compliant. There are concerns about poorly aligned or aftermarket LED conversions sold online; police reports list dazzling headlights as a factor in around 200 to 300 collisions annually in Great Britain. However, as hon. Members have suggested, that is almost certainly an underestimate.

The UK raised the issue at the UN Economic Commission for Europe, which agreed to tighten rules on headlamp alignment and to make automatic levelling systems mandatory by 2027. Ongoing Government-funded research by the Transport Research Laboratory will include real-world glare assessments across different road types.

This issue is close to my heart, because my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has many rural components, and my main method of transport around the constituency is a bicycle. I assure the hon. Member for Crawley that I certainly do not use a flashing light outside street-lit areas, nor am I one of those covered in dark clothing who is invisible. However, despite wearing high-vis clothing with retroreflective strips and having panniers with retroreflective elements, a front light, a rear light and loads of reflectors, I encounter a growing problem of car drivers taking too long to dip their headlights. Often it is so bad, particularly on roads that do not have a white line, that I just have to stop until the offending vehicle has gone—perhaps after some creative hand gestures in front of my light, as a last-minute attempt to make sure that they see me.

Some people dip their headlights and others do not, so it seems unlikely that it is to do with my visibility. I therefore wonder whether the automation that some hon. Members have mentioned is the factor; possibly some drivers rely on that, whereas others are observant, keeping a close eye and dipping as soon as they can. I can say from my experience as a cyclist that this is a real safety issue: if somebody is behind me when I have to stop suddenly, they will not be expecting to have to stop too.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Department for Transport’s decision to commission an independent review into headlight glare and we urge the Government to develop an updated road strategy including vehicle design, including lighting, within its scope. I know that that is something they are working on. We are deeply concerned about increasing reports of overly bright or poorly aligned LED headlights causing discomfort, temporary blindness and heightened safety risks for other road users, including drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. For all those reasons, this debate is very welcome and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to it.

Connected and Automated Vehicles

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for bringing up this very important topic, which as a species we have been grappling with for a couple of decades, so that we can talk about how to deal with it in the UK. It was interesting to hear of her experience of using Wayve in London and her finding it miraculous. She made an interesting point about the potential for autonomous vehicles to act as a form of demand-responsive transport—a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton). They may be interested in the discussions of demand-responsive transport in the recent Transport Committee inquiry report called “Buses connecting communities”, the response to which we eagerly anticipate from the Government.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked of his great enthusiasm for diesel fumes and gear sticks. Hon. Members will be surprised to learn that he has not already encountered the transporter room in “Star Trek”, as it appears to many of us that he has already been subject to an accident using said technology; that would explain his ability to appear in multiple places in Parliament at once.

The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) correctly highlighted the need to get regulation and monitoring right—more on that shortly. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) once again showed her knowledge and passion for all forms of buses in the widest sense of the term. She highlighted some existing examples of driverless transport, including the docklands light railway, although all DLR trains have a member of staff on board precisely to address the issue that she rightly highlighted: needing to ensure that people still have a strong sense of personal safety and security in such vehicles.

The hon. Lady was also quite right to highlight the challenges of vegetation and white lines management. White lines are a major issue for today, let alone for autonomous vehicles—it is a major issue even for those of us who use the very primitive form of transport known as a bicycle. The presence of a white line makes cycling on unlit roads enormously easier compared with roads without white lines—we seem to have a completely arbitrary mix of the two. That has relevance for tomorrow’s debate on headlight dazzle, because drivers can lock their eyes on white lines when they are suffering from that. I make that point only to show that sometimes historical solutions are applicable to new problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) also talked about the importance of white lines, and quite rightly suggested that the challenges of introducing autonomous and connected vehicles are going to be rather different for rural roads than for urban roads. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) took us through the history of transport and what we consider normal. He rightly made the point that it is important for local authorities and all of us to have knowledge of these things. I am a complete luddite about artificial intelligence, and that is certainly one of the challenge of our jobs: we are expected to know everything about everything, whereas really the key challenge is to know enough about the key topics.

The Liberal Democrats were pleased to support the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Automated vehicles represent the next step towards safer and more sustainable transport.

In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, I was pleased to see Milton Park trialling an autonomous bus—not just within the park estate, which is a reasonably contained business-park environment, but covering the couple of miles between Milton Park and Didcot Parkway railway station. The United Kingdom has a strong tech sector and a real opportunity to lead the development of self-driving vehicle technology, which is an opportunity to attract the investment and innovation that we all know our country needs.

Autonomous vehicles have the potential to play a major role in improving road safety, given that the majority of traffic accidents are caused by human error. They also have the potential to help move us towards net zero by reducing the need for individual car ownership and promoting the more efficient use of vehicles. However, public confidence is essential for the success of automated transport.

As one who worked in rail before coming to this place, it is a mystery to me that there is relatively little driverless and automated technology in the sector, despite it being a self-contained, heavily regulated environment that in theory ought to be the more promising place to try it. It is true that Paris has automated some metro lines, but in a job I did before coming to this place, UK rail experts—believe it or not—were dispatched to Canada to help work on a new automated metro system in Montréal, known as the Réseau express métropolitain, which was entirely driverless. It all seemed to work perfectly in trials, but at peak times, during large-scale operations and at times of major computer failure, the whole system, lacking staff, completely collapsed. We were sent there to suggest how they could come up with ways of managing such major disruption better. That is one of my points of scepticism.

I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich is right that Wayve cars operating in London have anticipated all the normal difficulties, such as pedestrians, cyclists, whether or not they go through red lights and so on, but we do not know whether, if every car were autonomous, they would be quite so resilient. We can only find out by doing more trials and research, looking at that data and exploring it with great care. Safety for all road users, especially cyclists and pedestrians, must continue to be a top priority.

Early international trials, such as those in San Francisco, show encouraging signs of safety improvements, but any single serious incident could damage public trust. As is so often the case with these things, one very bad thing will negate nine very good things. It is the same with customer service in a restaurant or a hotel. Clear communication about the purpose and limits of trials is vital, and the interaction between human control and automation must be carefully managed.

Issues seen in overseas trials, such as autonomous vehicles blocking emergency vehicles or stopping in cycle lanes, must be addressed to ensure public confidence in UK deployments. A strong and transparent safety network is needed to govern how automated vehicles are tested and introduced on public roads. Automated vehicles should meet or exceed the safety standards of careful and competent human drivers.

The shift provides an opportunity to not just maintain but significantly improve the overall safety and accessibility of road networks. The success of AVs will depend on adequate infrastructure. Poor road conditions, including pot holes, could affect vehicle performance and public safety. Therefore, minimum road-quality standards and sufficient resources for local authorities will be essential to support their introduction.

As hon. Members have already said, accessibility must remain at the heart of automation. Older and disabled people often rely on drivers for assistance, including in terms of boarding the vehicle. That is one area where we need to think carefully before designating this as the solution to some of the accessibility challenges. Automated taxis or public transport must continue to provide appropriate support for vulnerable users. Ensuring inclusivity will be key to public acceptance.

The real challenge is that, once autonomous vehicles become owned on a large scale in the same way that cars are now, what sounds like a great opportunity will also come with some risks. Presumably, they would not initially be cheap, just as electric vehicles are not cheap now. Something that has the potential to erode public transport ridership could also erode public transport viability, which is likely to still be essential for those who would not necessarily be able to afford to own such a vehicle. The cost aspect needs to be carefully considered.

Data protection and privacy are also critical concerns. We need to consider how processing large amounts of data, including potentially sensitive personal information, will be handled, and the strong safeguards needed to prevent the misuse or monetisation of personal data. Insurance arrangements must also be clear and fair, and cyclists and pedestrians involved in incidents must have access to fair and timely compensation, particularly as many of those will not hold personal insurance.

In conclusion, although there is a huge opportunity for automated vehicles to make travel safer, more efficient and more accessible, we need to adequately consider the risks. Some of those have been well covered in this debate, but others may not have been—for example, the potential for job losses, the need to manage cyber-security carefully and the potential health impacts. I do not mean health impacts from the vehicles themselves, but we are already struggling to encourage walking and cycling in this country; were these developments to further erode those activities, our current issues with obesity and other health inequalities might worsen.

The UK can lead in this field if it embraces innovation responsibly and brings the public with it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how we can do just that.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Olly Glover Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which made the Government’s intent of supporting the proposed third runway at Heathrow very clear. It was good to hear her recognise the complexity of all that will be needed to deliver it, including major diversionary works on two of the country’s busiest motorways. We Liberal Democrats continue to support the right infrastructure in the right place, which is why we have always supported schemes such as East West Rail and Northern Powerhouse Rail. However, we need the right infrastructure to tackle the right problems, and there are many unanswered questions about the Heathrow third runway.

The New Economics Foundation has been very clear in its analysis that the environmental impact of airport expansion will erode a lot of our carbon emission reduction plans, and many studies have questioned the economic case for Heathrow expansion. I would be interested to hear from the Secretary of State about the dangers of relying solely on the private sector to fund large schemes, as happened in the case of the channel tunnel, which remains an enormously underused asset, partly because of the costs that resulted from the decision to fund it only through the private sector.

It is welcome that the Secretary of State has made her support for Heathrow expansion subject to four tests, but I detect perhaps a slight hint of cognitive dissonance, and a contradiction in the Government setting out timelines for delivering something that they say is subject to four tests. The Secretary of State said that she would hear the independent advice of the Climate Change Committee. If the CCC decides that the preferred option for the Heathrow third runway is incompatible with our carbon emissions and our net zero targets, will she drop her support for the third runway?

[Heidi Alexander]

I start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. He referred to New Economics Foundation research. I should be clear with him that the Government are absolutely committed to reaching net zero for the whole economy by 2050, and that we will meet our climate change obligations as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. We have also been clear repeatedly that any airport expansion proposals will need to demonstrate that they will contribute to economic growth and can be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitment. We will engage with the CCC in the ANPS review.

Heathrow is only one part of the process; the expansion of Heathrow, Luton, Gatwick and Bristol airports was factored into carbon budget 7, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government will publish our updated delivery plan for carbon budgets 4 to 6 in the coming weeks. We should not see economic growth and our climate change commitments as being inconsistent with each another. I believe we can go further, faster, on cleaner fuels and technological developments, but people want to fly, and I do not think that this Government should get on the wrong side of public aspiration.

Draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. In principle, we in the Liberal Democrats welcome this change, which from a technical perspective is logical and makes sense. It is also welcome that the Government chose to undertake a consultation even though they were not compelled to do so. That is always welcome, as long as the consultation is timely and does not drag on for years, which in this case, happily, it has not.

I do, however, very much agree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. Our support needs to be caveated with the fact that all Members will have had a great deal of casework from constituents, driven insane at times by car parking operators and providers that lack transparency, are unaccountable, and can sometimes be unreasonable. The focus in this delegated legislation on making sure that signage is fit for purpose is welcome, but I would also welcome some remarks from the Minister on what else the Government are doing to make sure that the regulatory framework is such that private car parking providers are fit for purpose, are accountable, and provide a forum for appeal where they have got things wrong.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Olly Glover Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—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.”

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.

New clause 3—Increasing greenhouse gas saving potential of sustainable aviation fuel—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament a report which sets out a strategy for increasing the greenhouse gas emission saving resulting from the promotion of sustainable aviation fuel production in the United Kingdom.

(2) The report required under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to—

(a) proposals for incentivising the research and development of sustainable aviation fuels that maximise greenhouse gas emission savings;

(b) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, the minimum required greenhouse gas emission reduction in order for a sustainable aviation fuel to be issued a SAF certificate;

(c) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, minimum ratios for renewable content in blended sustainable aviation fuels, for the purpose of more quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(3) Twelve months after the publication of the report required under subsection (1) and within every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a further report which—

(a) sets out progress against the strategy; and

(b) makes any necessary adjustments to the strategy as a result of developments in the sustainable aviation fuel industry.

(4) In this section, “SAF certificate” has the meaning given in article 2 of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024.”

New clause 4—Reporting of Sustainable Aviation Fuel targets—

“(1) The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024 is amended as set out in this section.

(2) In paragraph (3), after sub-paragraph (5) insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State may vary the table in paragraph (7) in order to increase the obligation in any given year.”

(3) In sub-paragraph 33(2)(c) leave out “, and”

(4) After sub-paragraph 33(2)(d), insert “and

(e) consider whether the SAF obligation set out in the table in sub-paragraph 3(7) of this Order should be increased for any given year, and if so, set out steps the Secretary of State will take to effect such an increase.”

(5) After paragraph 33(2) insert—

“(2A) A copy of a report published under this article must—

(a) be laid before Parliament; and

(b) be sent to the relevant select committee of each House of Parliament.

(2B) In sub-paragraph 33(2A)(b), “the relevant select committee” is—

(a) in the House of Commons, the Transport Committee, provided that—

(i) if the name of that Committee is changed, reference is instead taken to mean the new name, and

(ii) if the functions of that Committee with respect to Sustainable Aviation Fuel become functions of a different committee of the House of Commons, reference is instead taken to the committee by whom the functions are then exercisable;

(b) in the House of Lords, any such Committee as the Chairman of Committees may appoint.””

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.”

New clause 6—Economic Impact of the Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the Act.

(2) This report must include, but shall not be limited to—

(a) the impact on the UK’s aviation fuel industry;

(b) the impact on the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel supply including the impact on all small, medium and large producers and potential importers of sustainable aviation fuel;

(c) the impact on international and domestic tourism in the UK; and

(d) the impact on passenger air fares.

(3) The report required by subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within one year of this Act being passed.”

New clause 7—Targets for power-to-liquid aviation fuel usage—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the power-to-liquid aviation fuel targets as set out in section (3) of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024.

(2) The review carried out under subsection (1) must only consider—

(a) the effectiveness of the existing power-to-liquid aviation fuel target and;

(b) whether the target should be increased.

(3) In carrying out the review under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) producers of power-to-liquid aviation fuel;

(b) airlines;

(c) experts in sustainable aviation fuel production; and

(d) any other persons the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(4) A report setting out the findings of the review must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

Government amendment 1.

Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) The terms under subsection (4)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”

Government amendments 2 to 5.

Amendment 11, in clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out from “pay” to end of line 22 and insert

“to the designated counterparty in each month a standardised levy on their relevant disposals of aviation fuel products in the preceding month that must be publicised on invoices expressed in pence per standard litre.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to set a standardised levy rate payable by all suppliers of aviation fuel, that must be publicised by suppliers of aviation fuel on invoices to their customers.

Government amendment 6.

Amendment 8, in clause 12, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty to report on—

(a) the impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the proceeding 12 month period;

(b) a projection of the expected impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the following five year period.

(4) A report under paragraph (a) must be made within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under paragraph 3(a) before Parliament.”

This amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact that the revenue certainty mechanism has on passenger air fares.

Amendment 9, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty, where a venue certainty contract would result in a new production facility, to prioritise entering into any such contracts with producers that will use UK owned technologies in that facility.”

This amendment would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts.

Amendment 12, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make a direction under subsection (1) which requires the designated counter party to prioritise entering at least one revenue certainty contract with a producer of Power to Liquid sustainable aviation fuel if doing so will allow for at least one plant to reach Final Investment Decision by 31 December 2026.”

Government amendment 7.

[Olly Glover]

Global demand for aviation continues to grow; it is projected to be two or three times bigger by 2050. In 2024, there was a record rate of increase in carbon emissions, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, and there was a new daily record for global aviation emissions in July 2025. Nearly half of all the carbon emissions to date from aviation have occurred since 2000.

Sustainable aviation fuel has been talked up for years as the solution, yet there has been a poor track record of unambitious targets not being matched by delivery. For example, in 2010, Boeing announced the target that 1% of aviation fuel globally should come from SAF by 2015, and in 2019, the International Air Transport Association set out hopes of reaching 2% by 2025, but today, globally, the figure is just 0.3%. The UK’s published figure this year of 1.29% is better, but it nevertheless shows how far we have to go.

The Conservative Government promised back in 2022 to have five commercial UK SAF plants operational by 2025, but there is still only one. It is therefore right of the Government to have introduced legislation to attempt to make sure that the latest set of SAF targets move from fantasy to realistic, credible and deliverable plans, although these will ultimately need to transition us towards the development of truly zero-carbon flight technology. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for their contribution to the Bill Committee, and I hope that Members from across the House will consider the Liberal Democrat amendments.

New clauses 1, 2 and 3 all increase the chances of the intention behind the Bill being realised. New clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to assess and report on the potential for disused oil refineries and similar industrial sites to be used for the production of sustainable aviation fuel. New clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to assess the measures being taken to encourage the supply of materials for production of sustainable aviation fuel, and has a focus on bioethanol plants. That is especially important in the context of the expected closure of the Vivergo bioethanol plant near Hull, following the Government’s decision not to provide it with financial support.

New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the development of a strategy for analysing and maximising the potential of sustainable aviation fuels to contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

I also speak in support of two new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), both of which would improve the Bill by providing greater rigour and scrutiny of progress towards sustainable aviation fuel targets. New clause 4 would give the Secretary of State the power to increase SAF production obligations where necessary, and to ensure that reports on progress are laid before Parliament and relevant Select Committees. New clause 5 would introduce requirements for air travel providers to report on their use of sustainable aviation fuel, and to provide annual reports to the public via their websites. Collectively, new clauses 1 to 5 would strengthen the Bill and increase its credibility when it comes to SAF production and reporting on progress.

The Government’s SAF mandate requires just 22% of aviation fuel to be sustainable by 2040. That compares poorly with the European Union’s target of 32% by 2040. It is hard to square an objective of net zero aviation by 2050 with just 22% of fuel being sustainable a decade earlier, unless we put in place measures alongside SAF to cut emissions and make climate-friendly flight a reality. We urge the Government to clarify their plans for achieving their targets, particularly as hope for SAF progress is being used to state that Heathrow and Gatwick expansion are compatible with our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

As my hon. Friend says, sustainable aviation fuels are being used by the Government to justify major airport expansions. One such expansion would be at Gatwick, adjacent to my constituency. A target of 10% SAF by 2030 is optimistic in the extreme, as the Climate Change Committee said. If the Government’s own advisers do not believe in this target, why should we?

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about what the Climate Change Committee has said. That is why I hope the Government will consider these Liberal Democrat amendments, which are intended to strengthen the Bill, so that its provisions become reality this time, and contrast with the many missed targets in the past on sustainable aviation fuel.

Making aviation genuinely sustainable will require the Government to go beyond securing investment in SAF, and to ensure that in the longer term, the SAF measures complement, rather than detract from, investment in zero-carbon flight technology. I hope that the House will support our amendments, so that our country makes a bigger and more rapid contribution to decarbonising aviation.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)]

This year, Petroineos—that is, Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos and PetroChina from the Chinese state—closed the Grangemouth oil refinery. Closure was not about some passionate quest for net zero. Closure happened because private capital and a foreign Government owned vital energy infrastructure, and because corporate profits are more important than community good to the billionaire Jim Ratcliffes of this world. There were 435 jobs lost at the refinery, and hundreds more lost in the shared services that are housed on site; 2,822 jobs were lost in the wider supply chain. That is mass de-industrialisation.

But closure is not just about job losses. The exodus of talented, skilled workers is awful, but closure also means that the site is no longer a positive destination for many local young people leaving school. We have seen an end to a generational employer in my community. The economic consequences are also absolutely enormous for local Grangemouth businesses, which relied on the custom of refinery workers and their families. Once again, I want to give credit to all the small local businesses that have kept town centres going in recent years. The pressure of running a small business when austerity and the cost of living crisis have hammered people’s disposable incomes can be all-consuming and incredibly stressful. I should know; I tried it for some years.

The economic turmoil of stopping refining is also a national issue, because the refinery was worth more than £400 million per annum to the Scottish economy. Politicians often talk about black holes. Well, that is a sizeable, industrial-shaped black hole to fill. I do not doubt that the Government understand the magnitude of how important it is to re-industrialise communities like mine in Grangemouth. The other day, I read my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who has done so much work to bring this Bill to the House, describing in Hansard the situation that he grew up in on the east side of Manchester, which lost its chemical and mining industries. He said:

“We are still getting over that in my great city.”––[Official Report, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Public Bill Committee, 17 July 2025; c. 108.]

He undoubtedly understands the social consequences of industry finishing up. No community can afford this continued spiral of industrial decline.

To go back to my original point, we have for decades been an economy controlled by private capital, multinational corporations and foreign Governments whose policy has been to make things elsewhere, and to sell here. Have the last four decades not shown that the country’s complete reliance on private capital means profits over people? We must adopt a new industrial strategy that meets the needs of working people and their communities by securing at least some form of public ownership of the new industries that we will need—that is a mainstream political view.

The Government must learn lessons to stop history repeating itself, and to prevent workers and communities having every last ounce of work extracted from them before they are discarded on a corporate whim. For the Government to create and benefit economically from the necessary green industrial revolution, which we need for our economy and for the planet, some form of Government ownership of future industries is necessary. Surely, that view should be at the heart of any Labour Government.

If the Government want to put their faith in private capital to mould Britain’s new industrial future, I urge them to think again. They need to be more active in the process of creating Grangemouth’s industrial future. They need to seize the initiative and invest in workers, communities industry and Scottish manufacturing. Producing sustainable aviation fuel is an enormous objective—one that we have committed to—and sites like Grangemouth are ideally placed for it. The infrastructure needs some degree of conversion and upgrade, of course, but it is there. The workforce and expertise are there. My local community needs to be re-industrialised. The Labour Government have ambitious SAF targets to meet, but, more importantly, they also have obligations to communities in our forgotten industrial heartlands.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

To begin, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to the synthetic road fuel provided to me for a constituency surgery tour last year. That is not strictly relevant to sustainable aviation fuel, but I want to be entirely transparent about it, as I have been throughout this Bill’s passage.

May I also welcome the new Minister to his place? He has a big pair of shoes to fill, and I equally want to commend the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—we did not always see entirely eye to eye—for the effort and attention he put in to getting this Bill through the House and to his other duties in the House.

I begin with new clause 6, which requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the Act once it is in force. This amendment goes to the nub of what is important. Does the Bill enable growth or stifle it? Does it support our world-class aviation industry or go against it? More importantly, does it enable our constituents to do what they have always done and fly, be that on holiday, on business or to visit family and friends overseas, or does it hinder them in doing that; and does it hinder our businesses in bringing goods in and out of the country by air?

New clause 6 forces the Secretary of State to confront the realities of the Bill on multiple fronts. It covers the impact on the UK’s aviation fuel industry and the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel supply, and the impact on small, medium and large producers and potential importers of sustainable aviation fuel.

--- 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.

International Rail Services: Ashford

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. She is an excellent campaigner on behalf of her constituents. I know this issue is important to them and she feels passionately about it. In her excellent speech, she ably demonstrated that the benefits of returning international rail to Ashford International would be shared far beyond my constituency.

Nearly £80 million of taxpayers’ money was spent transforming Ashford International to accommodate international services. As well as developing services to accommodate international travellers, the infrastructure of the station was upgraded, and that included the addition of two new platforms. When international services started calling at Ashford for the first time in January 1996, Ashford became one of the UK’s first true international stations. From there, passengers could travel directly to cities in continental Europe, including Paris, Brussels and Lille. For nearly a quarter of a century, Ashford International saw dozens of daily Eurostar services, making it a vital link for residents and businesses in Kent, Sussex and the wider south-east to get to mainland Europe. Ashford was developed as an international hub and its connectivity was a key factor in attracting businesses.

Substantial investment came to the town and the surrounding area precisely because we had international services, making it easily accessible from mainland Europe. It was also highly convenient for residents, with the regular service from Ashford meaning they could get on a train in the morning, have lunch in Paris and be back home in time for bed.

In early 2020, during the covid pandemic, Eurostar suspended services to Ashford. Since then, people making the same journey have had to travel into London, which not only adds between two and three hours each way to their journey time, but costs considerably more. That decision was taken when travel restrictions were in place and Eurostar faced financial pressures, but more than five years on, those services have not returned. Part of the responsibility for that lies with the decision by the then Conservative and Lib Dem coalition to sell the UK Government’s 40% stake and preference share in Eurostar. That decision, which was driven by austerity, was short-sighted in the extreme and has been hugely detrimental to my constituency and the wider region.

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

Given what the hon. Gentleman says about the decision to sell off the stake in Eurostar, does he feel that his own party—now very much in government—should reverse it and directly invest in international rail services?

[Sojan Joseph]

I absolutely agree with that, and that is what we are working on. The Prime Minister and the Transport Secretary support the return of international travel to Ashford. We will continue the work, and I hope that this debate will help the Government to support that decision.

For more than five years, the previous Government’s decision has meant that Eurostar’s monopoly on running international services has prevented any movement on restarting services from Ashford. We now have four potential bidders looking to break that monopoly, giving fresh hope that services could return to Ashford. That is why the decision that the Office of Rail and Road will soon make on whether any of those bidders will be able to access the international depot at Temple Mills in east London is so important.

When it comes to a decision, the ORR has a number of duties to consider, including acting to protect railway service users’ interests, acting to promote the use and development of the railway network, and acting to promote competition for the benefit of those who travel on the railway. I am aware that in their letter to the ORR, the Government indicated that they believe that allowing competition will benefit the users of international rail services. I therefore ask the Minister if the Government will give a clear indication that they favour operators that will offer new services on the line, including to and from Ashford International. Will the Department for Transport ensure that the ORR considers the potential for economic growth, and that one of the central criteria is how proposals would serve the economic interests of Kent, Sussex and the wider south-east?

A clear signal that Ashford International will once again welcome international travellers would give a huge economic boost to my constituency and region. It would be warmly welcomed by local businesses, which recognise the opportunity that international services would bring. International services calling once again at Ashford would be key to driving economic growth locally. More businesses would likely locate to the area because they could easily do business with France, Belgium and elsewhere in continental Europe. As they did before, international services would help to attract businesses from mainland Europe that are looking to expand into the UK.

International services stopping at Ashford is much more than a transport issue; it is essential to maximising our region’s economic potential. The absence of services at Ashford has significantly undermined our region’s capacity to attract investment, skilled professionals and tourists. The Rail Minister, my noble friend Lord Hendy, has been in Ashford twice in recent months to visit the station, and I welcome his support for our campaign to see international services return. The Prime Minister, the Transport Secretary and local councils and businesses want those services to return. There is also overwhelming public support.

Four new operators are looking to launch services between the UK and mainland Europe. They include FS Italiane, which confirmed at the weekend that if its bid is successful, it will invest £1 billion in the UK economy—including an innovation hub in Ashford—and will have services calling at the station. We need to seize this excellent opportunity and ensure that Ashford International becomes an international station once again.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate. She, along with nearly everybody in the room, rightly made clear the pride they take in Kent and East Sussex. She rightly highlighted the channel tunnel as an incredible civil engineering achievement—it has been deemed one of the great engineering wonders of the world—and she cited her childhood memories of the formerly direct trains to Disneyland.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) provided some useful detail—which, I must admit, I was not aware of—on Eurostar’s debt refinancing and the progress it has made there. That is very important context, and may be a useful argument for questioning some of Eurostar’s current decisions.

The hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) rightly pointed out that it was previously possible to make day trips to Paris from both Kent and London; it is still possible from London, but from Kent it is much harder. It is interesting to hear that he would support direct Government intervention in international rail, which is something that I hope the Minister will elaborate on further.

The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) rightly said that Kent is so close and yet so far from continental Europe. She reminded us, helpfully, that while the south east of England is prosperous on average, it has great pockets of deprivation.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made an attempt, perhaps, to rival the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in terms of interpreting the meaning of Kent. More seriously, he was right to point out that there is enormous potential for directly connecting other parts of the United Kingdom to France and beyond.

Indeed, there were proposals to do exactly that in the 1990s and regional Eurostar trains were even built. Factors such as the rise of budget airlines and the ongoing challenge of needing to have border infrastructure at every station that such trains call at are some of the reasons why that did not happen. However, the hon. Member is right to say that the idea is still pertinent. Perhaps, had HS2 continued towards the north-west and the north-east, it might have been easier.

The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) rightly reminded us that Ebbsfleet has also been affected by this, with the lack of service at Ebbsfleet International. He reminded us that one of the ideas behind the channel tunnel rail link, HS1 or, as it is now called, London St Pancras Highspeed—who knows what it will be called next?—was not just to reduce journey times between London and Paris and Brussels and reduce congestion on the existing Kent network, but to provide significant economic benefits to the south-east, which are now compromised by the ongoing failure to call there.

The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) was right to highlight the unrealised potential of the channel tunnel and the fact that freight is also being neglected in terms of the original design intentions for the tunnel. The introduction of direct passenger rail services between the UK and France and Belgium, and now the Netherlands too, has brought many benefits. It has made rail dominant in those markets for modal share compared with air, reduced carbon emissions as a result, and brought the three capitals of London, Paris and Brussels closer together. It is a convenient option for many people.

[Helena Dollimore]

I thank the hon. Member for making the case for international rail. Does he therefore agree with me that it is a great shame that the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition Government sold this country’s 40% stake in Eurostar in 2015, during their time in Government? As a result of that sale, we lost our seat at the table when Eurostar makes decisions about where it will stop. Looking back—I know it was a Government that he was not part of—does he also accept that his party made a mistake and will he apologise to our constituents for selling our country’s shares in Eurostar?

[Olly Glover]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That was a time of very straitened Government finances, which is something the current Government, of her own party, also have to grapple with, and make unexpected and regrettable decisions—for example, significant national insurance contribution increases for employers.

Both Ebbsfleet International and Ashford International brought benefits to Kent for many years, until 2020. The service was stopped by Eurostar for a range of reasons. Some are to do with Eurostar’s financial difficulties, as has been discussed, but there was also a lack of UK Conservative Government support for Eurostar, which was a choice, as well as Brexit. Both those things were major contributing factors.

It is a matter of regret that, five years on, Eurostar still does not serve Kent. This is unhelpful for tourism and cultural links for Kent, and is a waste of the considerable station infrastructure on the London to the channel high-speed line, which was provided for that specific purpose. More than 81,000 people have signed a petition calling for restoration of the Kent station calls, and a report by the Good Growth Foundation, which has been cited by many hon. Members today, estimates that up to £534 million of benefits per year would result from the restoration of those station calls.

This issue is not just about Ashford, as we have already discussed today. For the vast majority of people in Kent and indeed in East Sussex, it is easier to travel to Ebbsfleet or Ashford to change trains than it is to trek all the way into London, which often requires paying expensive peak fares, as some Members have already mentioned.

Indeed, disquiet about this issue is widespread in the county of Kent. For many decades, we have been familiar with the phenomenon of “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”. My friend, who lives in Tunbridge Wells and who pretty much exclusively travels to Europe by train, is very much a modern-day manifestation of that phenomenon, because of this issue.

As well as applying further pressure on Eurostar, I hope that the Minister will explore other ideas to realise the potential of the London Saint Pancras high-speed route to boost Kent’s economy. Those ideas could include a regular passenger train service not just to Lille, Brussels or Paris, but serving Calais-Fréthun, which would realise the potential of more closely linking the economies of Kent and northern France.

In France, the high-speed line to Paris transformed Lille’s economy. Ashford and Kent are yet to benefit in the same way, not least because of some of the border challenges that exist and Eurostar’s decisions not to stop in Kent. However, this transformation can still happen. The Minister can help to restore an international rail service to Ashford by resolving the conundrum around depot capacity for international operators. Although we expect a ruling from the Office of Rail and Road towards the end of this month about who will be granted access to the Temple Mills depot in Stratford, modest state support or investment in a new and larger rolling stock depot somewhere else along the line, and there are plenty of brownfield sites along the line, would help to facilitate private sector investment and competition to Eurostar, which Eurostar’s decision not to service Ebbsfleet and Ashford shows is needed.

I appreciate that the Minister may be somewhat disinclined to listen to me on the case for direct state investment. Perhaps, however, he will listen to the hon. Member for Ashford, which would also reflect the Government’s wider enthusiasm for state ownership of and investment in railways.

The issue that we have been debating this morning is part of a wider story of under-utilisation of the channel tunnel and the accompanying high-speed line. The Liberal Democrats believe that more international rail services would have wider benefits, potentially including a reduction in the number of short-haul flights from Heathrow, which might even reduce the need for a third runway at Heathrow. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Pavement Parking

Olly Glover Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this important debate, which builds on some themes that were discussed in a Westminster Hall debate a few months ago on the subject of walking and cycling safely to school. I hope hon. Members will forgive me for not referencing all their contributions, given how many spoke, in the interests of speaking concisely so that we have plenty of time to hear from the Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell was right to highlight the patchwork of inconsistent rules across the country. She and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) recognised that we need some flexibility in places where current street layouts are not compatible with the number and size of cars. If there is to be change, it is right that local authorities play a key role, and there needs to be dialogue to come up with the right solutions for those locations.

It was great to hear from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) about the benefits of the recent Scottish pavement parking ban. Many hon. Members talked of the major impact on people who use mobility aids, who are blocked on the pavement and unable to walk into the road—which is unsafe anyway—because dropped kerbs are blocked by parked cars.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) rightly highlighted that this issue is not just about pavements; it is also about cycle paths. I know that she, like me, is very keen on cycling, and will also have experienced many times the impact of supposed cycle lanes actually being car parking spaces. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) was right to highlight that the solutions to this issue need to take account of the differences in rural areas. We must recognise the different character of places in our country.

As hon. Members have said, cars parked on the pavement can stop people from being able to walk or wheel down the street. If we have to enter the road, that is a risk to our safety. Change requires legislation, and the English devolution Bill should be amended to provide powers that enable pavement parking to be tackled. As the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) referred to, with her frustration very clear, we are now approaching the five-year anniversary of the closure of the Government consultation on pavement parking in England.

The Local Government Association has been calling for similar powers to those that exist in London for a long time. Local government should be given those powers, and we should recognise that councils and the people elected to serve on them know their areas best. More than 80% of local authorities have reported that pavement parking is a widespread problem in their area, but it is very important that we do not view this as a pedestrians or cyclists versus cars issue, because even that well-known anti-car organisation, the RAC, found that four in five drivers want the Government to take action. There are, however, differing views on how it should be done, with 42% of motorists supportive of an outright ban and 41% wanting to see councils given powers to ban the practice on specific roads.

In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, there are many examples of similar challenges. Oxfordshire county council is proposing a school street in the area of south Didcot, in recognition of pavement parking issues in places such as Ridgeway Road, the Croft and Mereland Road. It was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) about the success of the school streets scheme in his constituency. We have Enterprise car and van rental, which, alas, still sometimes uses pavements as a repository for its vehicles between rentals.

On Didcot Great Western Park, there are persistent problems with people parking on pavements, despite the prevalence of car parking spaces available. An example of a place where there needs to be nuance and dialogue is Charlton Road in Wantage, where the design of the road is such that pavement parking is customary. It is important to recognise that some places will need it. As many hon. Members have said, tackling it will be very important for encouraging more people to walk and cycle, including to and from school.

Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to make it easier for local authorities to use the traffic regulation order process, and to simplify that process so they can take action more quickly and robustly, and at lower cost. Clearly, more work is needed from the Government on that.

It is also incumbent on us to use the roads with consideration for others, so it is regrettable that there is a need for legislation, rather than people just thinking hard about where they park their car. That also applies to people walking who are too busy on their phones and just step into the road and nearly get hit by a cyclist—and of course, there are many examples of cyclists not cycling considerately. We should all think of other people when we are using our roads and our streets, and need for the Government to support that is perhaps just a regrettable output of the fact that we are not doing it ourselves.

From what I have heard from the Minister in a number of contexts, I genuinely believe that she would like to make progress on this issue. That is why I hope that she will give us an update today on what meaningful response will be given to the consultation, with specific timescales, so that our local authorities receive much-needed clarity about what is going to happen. We urge the Government to publish that outstanding summary of responses to the consultation, with a clear plan for how we are going to take the issue forward. I will end my remarks there, so that there is plenty of time for the Minister to respond.