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.

West Coast Main Line

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I commend the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) for securing the debate and for his wide-ranging introductory speech.

The hon. Member told us that 70 million passengers a year and 40% of freight use the west coast main line, highlighting its criticality to our railway and transport system. He also highlighted the critical role that HS2 was planned to play in relieving the west coast main line, and he was correct to point out that the main purpose of HS2 was—and to some extent, still is—to relieve pressure on the west coast main line to enable us to make better use of it for local, regional and freight traffic. I will come back to that shortly. He was also right to highlight the need for remodelling at Crewe, because having flat junctions to the north and south of the station is a major bottleneck on the west coast main line.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) used the debate, as many hon. Members have and as I will continue to do, as a cheaper alternative to therapy, having suffered at the hands of Avanti West Coast. He was right to highlight issues with Stockport station and with staff welfare. He was also correct to make the point that many of the challenges faced by Avanti in delivering a good service are not purely down to Avanti; it is a partnership with Network Rail. That is why the Government’s hopes and plans for bringing infrastructure and train operation closer together with Great British Railways are the right ones. When that eventually happens for inter-city operators, we hope it will lead to some improvement.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) gave a very reasonable list of what she would like to see on her Avanti West Coast journeys: specifically, a seat, functioning air conditioning and catering on an inter-city train. She was right to highlight the need for reliability and capacity if we are to attract more people on to inter-city and other kinds of trains.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) was right to highlight Blackpool’s history as a railway centre. He probably knows far better than I do that what used to be the main line into Blackpool was converted into a high-capacity road route into the centre of town. That is perhaps a symbol of some of the choices we have made as a country over the last few decades to favour road over rail—choices that, I think it is fair to say, we sometimes find ourselves regretting.

The hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) was quite right to highlight many issues with HS2, including the phase 2 route, and the criticality of that proposed route for enabling capacity improvements in the north-west. For those with an interest in the topic, the Transport Committee recently quizzed the new boss of HS2, Mark Wild, and the Rail Minister from the other place in great detail about the HS2 phase 2 route and some of the issues we have been exploring today. One critical point that the Rail Minister revealed at that session was that, when the previous Conservative Government decided to scrap HS2 phase 2 up to Manchester, leaders of the existing rail industry were informed only the previous day. They were not given any time to even come up with an outline of an alternative plan for how west coast main line capacity would be improved in the future, or how the west coast main line would be able to accommodate all the trains coming off near Stafford, rather than continuing on HS2. There is much to learn from that Select Committee session.

The west coast main line is a railway that is close to my heart. I worked in rail, in many different roles, before coming to this place. In fact, my first job working in Network Rail was putting in place the December 2008 timetable, which, following an expensive and disruptive upgrade programme, led to significant journey time improvements and more frequent trains. However, we learned from that process that upgrading an existing railway only gets us so many benefits; it is not too long before that that capacity gets absorbed. That is why, even after that £13 billion programme, the case for HS2 had to be made.

There is a long history of upgrades to the west coast main line. In recent times, it was electrified as far as Liverpool and Manchester in the 1960s and up to Glasgow in the 1970s and, more recently, tilting trains were introduced. We have seen progress, but we need a radical step change now. It is critical to many communities, as hon. Members have said. Because of inter-city traffic, so many commuter trains rely on it in the west midlands, the London and home counties area, and in the north-west, and it is critical for freight. A critical thing—including for some of my hon. Friends in this House—is the Caledonian Sleeper between London and Scotland, which is a popular and useful alternative to flying, and very time-efficient, as people can travel overnight on it.

I also worked on the west coast main line in other capacities, managing signal boxes between Crewe and Runcorn, many of which are now gone as part of modernisation. On far too many night shifts on call, I ended up at the Warrington signalling centre, dealing with one disaster or another, and I have managed train drivers on the west coast main line. That railway is close to my heart; we must respect the history of it and invest in it for the future.

Hon. Members have articulately explained the current challenges on the route in terms of performance, capacity—including limited capacity for freight growth—and poor journey times to non-London destinations. In terms of solutions, it is clear that a high-speed line is still needed in one form or another. HS2 in its current limited form just moves the problem to the north of Birmingham; it will worsen it along constrained sections near Stafford and north of Crewe—which are two-track sections—and exacerbate the existing key problem of the west coast main line, which is a combination of traffic running at speeds of 75 mph, 100 mph, 110 mph and 125 mph. Particularly on two-track sections, that is difficult to deal with.

The Government have reiterated their commitment to signalling upgrades and other forms of upgrades north of Crewe over the next 15 years. That is welcome, but those upgrades are needed based on today’s traffic, and will potentially be made worse because of the HS2 situation.

A real missed opportunity for increasing capacity on the west coast main line is the fact that few of our freight trains are hauled by electric locomotives. Data modelling of acceleration proves conclusively that electrically hauled freight trains accelerate far faster than diesel trains, and can be accommodated far more easily amidst faster inter-city traffic. I hope the Government will consider what can be done to encourage freight operators to use electric traction in the future.

As hon. Members have noted, open access applications have been rejected. The Government—certainly in their communications with the Office of Rail and Road—have been rather ambivalent and ambiguous about their views on open access, but the lack of it means that we urgently need a solution to Avanti’s high fares, even advance purchase ones. There is a lack of choice on key sections of the route. Certainly between London and Birmingham and even London and Liverpool, there is the option of using slower but much cheaper London Northwestern Railway or West Midlands Railway services, but between London and Manchester and London and Warrington, Wigan and Preston, there is no realistic alternative. As I know from friends in the north-west, that sometimes leads them to drive, even to and from London.

As I said, the west coast main line has been upgraded many times. Upgrading a heavily used railway has been likened to performing open-heart surgery on a patient without anaesthetic: it is always disruptive and expensive, and the benefits are not long-lasting. That was particularly the case during the 10-year west coast route modernisation between 1999 and 2008. Nobody said this during this debate, which is pleasing, but there are those who say we do not need high-speed rail because we can just upgrade our existing lines. Sadly, it is not as simple as that, because it is very difficult to upgrade those lines; it causes chaos and provides limited benefits.

More widely, Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should have convenient, affordable options to get around. A safe, reliable transport system is vital for our economic prosperity in all parts of the country. Improving transport is essential to combat climate change and air pollution, and to provide access for jobs. It is the critical cultural change we need in this country. Public transport is not a nuisance; it is a critical enabler of social inclusion and economic progress.

Some hon. Members highlighted the Conservatives’ poor record on public transport, which is true, but the UK’s attitude is a long-standing problem. High-speed rail got under way in France in the late 1970s, and in Germany in the late 1980s. Today even Morocco has more high-speed rail than the UK. Those are choices we have made; we have been making the wrong choices for a long time. Yes, we do need to sort out the mess of HS2 but it is still needed and we must get back to it.

More widely, we need to freeze rail fares and simplify ticketing to ensure that regular users are paying fair and affordable prices and to entice more people to rail. We have big hopes that Great British Railways will do that. We need more electrification and a public body that joins up the industry from track to train, putting regular passengers first and bringing in wholesale reform of a broken fare system. Doing all those things would provide the opportunity to increase the number of passenger journeys and bolster freight, so that our railways can play an even more critical role in delivering an effective economy and tackling climate change.

Department for Transport

Olly Glover Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I praise and thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for her wide-ranging opening speech to this important debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving time for it.

There is much to welcome in the spending review announcements for transport, particularly the capital investment in many parts of the country, but it is going to be important to hold the course and be consistent in the support for such schemes. For example, proposals for a West Yorkshire tram have been in and out so many times that people living in that region have understandably lost count. Hopefully, this time it really will happen.

Beneath the positive headlines about capital spending, and hidden a little in the footnotes, is a 5% cut to operational expenditure during the spending review period. Looking at the detail, there are some somewhat optimistic assumptions that form the basis of how that will be borne. For example, in section 1.7 of the DFT memorandum for the main estimate 2025-2026, it is clear that the assumption as to how some of those savings will be made is through ongoing recovery of passenger revenues since the pandemic, as well as planned cost efficiencies from rail reform. It states,

“Should revenue growth be lower or implementation of rail reform be slower than anticipated then that could result in spending pressures.”

Although Great British Railways certainly has the potential to improve things, I think all concerned would accept that on its own, it will not solve all our problems.

Given that our transport system is not going anywhere —we are not going to see closures of railways or large cuts—I think it is time that we collectively stop viewing it as a burden and spend intelligently to make the most of the assets and the costs that come with them. By spending a little bit more or approaching things a little radically, we can make far more of those sunk costs that go into our transport system and will continue regardless.

It is important to recognise the suggestions at the moment that funding for the existing network may well be constrained by the expensive disaster that the implementation of HS2 has become. We do need high-speed rail in this country, but the costs are simply unbelievable. However, I suggest to the Government that it would be as wrong to punish the conventional network for HS2’s failings as it would be to deprive local roads of investment because of an over-budget motorway project.

Here are a few friendly suggestions to the Minister and his colleagues for how that 5% operating expense gap could be plugged by growing revenue. When it comes to taking the railway to the next level, there are some things that cost very little, if anything, that could be done. I personally find on-train ticket checks to be inconsistent. Where guards are present, they really should be present on the train, ensuring that we maximise revenue gathering from ticket sales. Full electrification of our busiest and fastest inter-city and freight routes would lead to higher train reliability, better acceleration and therefore more capacity, making the most of what we already have. It is not just me who thinks that a rolling programme of electrification would reduce costs; chief executive of Network Rail Andrew Haines recently said in front of the Transport Committee that it is “incontrovertible” that it would do so.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the electrification of railway lines boosts capacity and enables them to ship more freight across our great nation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend is quite correct. Having previously worked on this subject in my past life, modelling of acceleration shows that electrically hauled freight is transformative compared with diesel, and it enables more to be hauled, making the most of the limited capacity that we have.

Let me give an example from my constituency. The electrification of the 10 miles between Didcot and Oxford would reduce operating complexity and costs by reducing the long periods when trains sit idle at Didcot because of the split between London to Didcot, which is electrified, and Didcot to Oxford, which is not. It would also enable the sort of fast and frequent suburban service that is needed to serve a proposed major housing development and an artificial intelligence growth zone site at Culham. Full electrification of East West Rail would cost very little, as the project is based on new and heavily upgraded railways, yet massively increase its potential.

Rail freight promotion would reduce the need for costly upgrades to roads such as the A34. Even National Highways acknowledged that to me in a meeting the other day. The A34 through my constituency has heavy freight traffic from Southampton’s ports, including container haulage heading to the midlands and the north. There are capacity constraints that prevent more of that freight being taken on the railway between Southampton, Reading and Birmingham.

As a recent excellent report by the Transport Committee on accessibility highlighted, accessibility improvements make our railways far more attractive. Last night, it was my pleasure to attend a meeting in Cholsey, where people are campaigning hard for accessibility improvements at their station. Such improvements have been made down the line at Pangbourne, Goring and Streatley. New stations on existing lines, such as at Grove and Wantage—an area of major population growth in my constituency—would make more of the infrastructure that we already have.

Do the Government plan to think radically, or will they be stuck in a rut, doing more of the same? Government support for more depot capacity at Temple Mills in Stratford is all that is needed to get more people using international rail services. The private sector will do the rest. That would free up landing slots at the ever-busier Heathrow airport, potentially avoiding the need for a costly and disruptive third runway. I call on the Government to provide sustained and generous funding for Active Travel England, so that it can continue its strong work of ensuring that local authorities provide not tokenistic cycle paths that go nowhere, but the highest quality infrastructure to get us all walking and cycling. Innovation in retail systems to make it clearer where and when the cheapest fares are to be had has the potential to increase revenue yields.

As we found on a recent visit to the port of Dover, there is great electrification potential for the Dover-to-Calais route, which is one of the shortest and busiest shipping corridors in the world. French ports are ready for rapid charging of battery ships, but we were told that Dover needs power supply and grid capacity upgrades. No plans are in place for those, which means that we are missing an opportunity to achieve a global first: fully decarbonised freight.

[Noah Law]

The hon. Member is making a detailed and impassioned speech about the possibilities for transport investment throughout the country. Does he recognise the value of electrification of the Cornish main line? The benefit would be in the region of 10 times the cost, and there would be potential for a grid upgrade of the kind he mentioned.

[Olly Glover]

I agree that full electrification is the best solution for the Devon and Cornwall main line, and we can use battery trains on the branch lines once that has been done. I would welcome a longer conversation with the hon. Member, because I understand that the current thinking is for discontinuous electrification with batteries, which is not the right solution for that critical artery across Devon and Cornwall, given that there are dual carriageways, but the railway has had very little investment in the past 40 years.

Integrated transport is key to growing confidence in and therefore use of public transport. It improves interfaces between modes, as well as easing pressure on our creaking road network. The forthcoming Government integrated transport strategy is welcome, but it must address disintegrated timetables for the railways, buses and other forms of transport, baffling and expensive fare structures, unwelcoming bus stations, and the lack of walking and cycling routes. Integrated transport is how Switzerland achieves the highest rate of public transport use in Europe.

The key question for our transport system, which is so critical to our economy, our environment and social inclusion, is whether we want more of the same, or whether we want to create a transport system that really enables access to jobs, social mobility and economic change. Current plans suggest a little too much of the same, rather than a real change of course.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Olly Glover Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is great to see this Bill come to the Commons. I applaud its desire to improve the quality and availability of bus services. Buses are at the core of our public transport system and are often wrongly neglected in favour of what some—although definitely not me—would describe as sexier and more alluring methods of transport, such as trams and trains.

As we have heard, there is much that is good in the Bill—particularly the empowerment of local authorities to operate their own services and the provisions to implement services for socially necessary routes—but it could do more to address the needs of rural areas, including through VAT exemptions for small public transport vehicles to encourage demand-responsive and community transport schemes. It could do more to help local authorities to transition to net zero vehicles. As has been said, we should look again at restoring the £3 bus fare cap to a £2 cap.

In Oxfordshire, the county council feels that its bus partnerships with operators are delivering improvements, particularly when it comes to Oxford Bus Company and Thames Travel, which serve my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage. Franchising has the potential to bring further improvements, although it is good that the Government have acknowledged that we do not necessarily need a one-size-fits-all approach. Franchising will be viable only if local authorities are given long-term funding certainty and support to acquire the expertise and capacity in their passenger transport teams.

We Liberal Democrats consider access to primary healthcare facilities to be socially necessary routes. In my constituency, the decision was made in the past few years to change the route of a bus going through the village of Harwell and into Didcot town centre. The change meant that people who live in Harwell can no longer catch one bus to the GP surgery in Didcot, despite it being only 2 miles away. That is the sort of thing we need to consider.

Much about the current bus provision in my constituency is good. The integrated rail and bus terminal at Didcot Parkway enables a convenient interchange. There are decent bus frequencies and journey times during the daytime between Didcot and Wantage, Grove, Oxford and Wallingford, and between Wallingford and Oxford. There are good examples of partnership working between the major employment centres at Harwell campus and Milton Park and the Oxford Bus Company and Thames Travel. For example, Milton Park’s £20-a-year bus pass offer for people who work there is leading to measurable achievements in encouraging modal shift. There is generally decent daytime village provision.

But there is also much that needs to improve. Many villages have no evening or Sunday service, particularly Stanford in the Vale, which has seen significant housing growth. The buses that serve Culham campus, which the Government have proposed as an AI growth zone, are meagre, with no evening or Sunday service. In the evening, service frequencies drop on all routes, meaning that the integration between train and bus at Didcot works less well. Reliability can also be patchy, particularly on routes that involve Oxford, although that is mostly due to road congestion.

I am delighted to be a member of the Transport Committee. In April, we visited Ireland to understand the reasons for a significant increase in rural bus patronage, which increased fivefold between 2022 and 2024. That was achieved through increased public funding and by engaging communities—particularly the local equivalents of town and parish councils—in the design of routes. The core principle is, as a bare minimum, to have the restoration of morning, early afternoon and early evening services—there are also late evening services in many instances to address the issue that was mentioned earlier in respect of pubs—to create a viable alternative to driving.

Ireland has set itself extremely ambitious targets to grow its public transport youth share, from 8% today to 19% in 2030. That would nearly match Swiss levels, which are the highest in Europe. To achieve that, Ireland is investing large amounts in high quality continuous bus corridor infrastructure in urban areas, particularly in Dublin, and there are longer-term plans for significant journey time reductions for inter-city train routes to improve integration between bus and rail. As well as all that, people told us that they are concerned about the social, environmental and economic objectives that they are trying to hit, rather than looking simply at the cost in isolation.

There are good examples in the UK of the Ireland approach. I was on holiday in North Yorkshire in April, and North Yorkshire council had taken over a route abandoned by a private operator, using its own minibuses—route 11 between Clitheroe and Settle. It offers a two-hourly service, and connects well with hourly train services between Clitheroe and Manchester.

Integration is critical to making public transport more accessible and attractive, as Switzerland has shown. For those reasons, the Government’s integrated transport strategy is eagerly awaited, and will be an essential component in achieving better use of our public transport system, to the benefit of the economy, the environment, and reducing social exclusion. Although the Bill goes a long way towards improving bus services, there are a lot of things that the Liberal Democrats would like the Government to go further on, so that we can achieve our ambition for our transport system and ensure that it fulfils our social, economic and environmental needs.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered road safety and supporting active travel to school.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am pleased to introduce this topic, not least in my role as Lib Dem vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking.

Walking and cycling statistics published by the Department for Transport in 2023 show that children have been walking and cycling to school less and less, albeit that the latest data gives hope of a recovery. Figures from the UK national travel survey indicate that the number of children aged five to 15 who walk or cycle to school declined from 67% in 1975-76 to just 47% in 2023. Department for Transport figures suggest that only 3% of children cycle to school, while in London the school run contributes to one in four cars on urban roads at peak times, even in such a densely populated area.

However, half of children tell us that they want to cycle more. Many children already walk and wheel for part of their journey, but a third want to walk and wheel even more, and they need to feel safe in order to do so. During this debate, at least three people in the UK will be killed or seriously injured on our roads. For us as a society, that shocking level of road violence has become normalised, and we must do better.

Beyond the tragedy of injuries and fatalities, why does that matter? First, we all want cleaner air, more accessible streets and healthier children and adults. We also want to empower our children and adults and to create the choice to walk and cycle to school. Although some parents and children need to drive to school, we need to recognise that many would like to walk and cycle but are currently deprived of that choice and freedom.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I was recently privileged to be one of the first cyclists to use the newly opened section of the Curry Rivel Active Travel Group’s car-free path—a transport-free route along the A378, which is a really busy road. It benefits pupils at many of the local primary schools and the local academy. With half of local pupils ineligible for free secondary school transport, the path provides a safe space. Does my hon. Friend agree that investing in active travel routes is key to supporting safe and sustainable school journeys, particularly in rural areas?

[Olly Glover]

The example my hon. Friend gives from her constituency shows what dedicated infrastructure can achieve in getting more people walking and cycling.

What needs to change, and how? First, as my hon. Friend just said, infrastructure and street design are incredibly important. We know from countries with high rates of walking and cycling that safe and pleasant streets are essential. The majority of accidents in the UK involving those who are cycling occur at junctions, making those areas critical points for targeted interventions. Research consistently identifies the failure to look properly as the leading cause of road injuries among those who are cycling and other road users.

I would love to see infrastructure of the quality in Assen, Groningen, Utrecht or Rotterdam—or any other Dutch town or city, for that matter—everywhere in the UK, but there are things we can do in the meantime. In London, there is an example just down the road from this place, where Westminster’s pioneering of side street zebra crossings—zebra crossing markings without the cost of having flashing lights—is a great example of a simple, low-cost intervention. The evidence shows that those crossings are already saving lives and increasing people’s confidence in walking and cycling.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

Greater Manchester is prioritising road safety by implementing 100 school streets by 2028. Those are areas around schools that limit traffic during drop-off and pick-up times, which will make walking, wheeling and cycling to school safer for young people. Does the hon. Member agree that funding school streets will create safer, more reliable and more child-friendly environments around schools?

[Olly Glover]

That is a very good example of how spending money well can lead to a big difference.

I have already mentioned the Netherlands, but my hon. Friends on the Lib Dem Benches would be disappointed were I not to bore them to tears by wanging on about the Netherlands at greater length. If I might plug an opportunity for hon. Members to see for themselves the marvels that have been achieved there on active travel, the APPG for cycling and walking plans a trip to the Netherlands in September.

In my constituency, there are many schools where lots of pupils and parents would like to walk and cycle but cannot because of infrastructure or other barriers. The Europa school in Culham is located on a major A road, and for years the parents and the school have campaigned for a crossing to connect the school with the nearby village of Culham across that A road. They have finally got a commitment that that will happen in the next year, but still the so-called cycle path that runs near the school is nothing of the sort: it is a pavement that someone has decided people can cycle on. It is not wide enough, and there have been collisions because of that. Far more needs to be done.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Last September in my constituency, a new school, Oakley, opened without even a direct footpath to the site, and certainly no cycleway. Sadly, within four weeks, there was a serious accident involving a child who had to be airlifted some 60 miles. Does the hon. Member agree that schools should not be allowed to open until such provision is put in place?

[Olly Glover]

The hon. Member gives a really strong example of how, when we plan new developments and new areas, there is no excuse for not getting the infrastructure right from the off.

Milton, a village where I recently lived, is split in two by the A34 and the enormous Milton interchange roundabout. The St Blaise school on the south side of the parish is effectively cut off from the older side of the village. Even though parish council meetings are only a mile away, people drive to them because although there have been plans for a footbridge over the A34 for ages, the money has, inexplicably, somehow run out. Villagers and parishioners are therefore not able to make the most of the opportunity to cycle or walk that very short distance.

This issue is not just about infrastructure; it is also about training and confidence to go walking and cycling. The Bikeability training programme, which rolls out cycle training across our schools, reduces risk, increases confidence and encourages long-term health and environmental benefits. It is the largest road safety programme in the world, and it is owned and funded by the Government. Local authorities with higher amounts of Bikeability level 2 training show significantly lower numbers of cyclists killed or seriously injured.

It would be interesting were Bikeability to be included in the national curriculum, just as swimming is; we can imagine how many essential, life-saving, lifelong skills would be formed. However, long-term, secure funding for Bikeability training for children and adults is essential to give providers stability and to enable sustainable planning for delivery. Indeed, 10 or 20 years ago many local authorities did provide free or very low-cost adult cycle training, but sadly many of those programmes have been cut back.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the Bikeability Trust? In Oxford West and Abingdon, 61% of year 6 students take level 2 training, but 76% is considered an achievable target for 2025-26. Does he agree that without the Bikeability Trust, none of that would be possible?

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend gives an excellent example of the benefits of Bikeability. Since 2007, Bikeability cycle training has been delivered to over 5 million children in England. In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, 61% of year 6 pupils were booked on a Bikeability level 2 course in 2023-24; we aim for three quarters by 2026. In Oxfordshire, uniquely, Bikeability training is delivered by the fire service, for some very interesting historical reasons.

Following Bikeability training, the proportion of children reporting an intention to cycle one to three times per week for school travel increases, from 5% pre training to 24% post training. However, historical delays in funding and an annual funding model have meant that there has been no increase in Bikeability instructor numbers. That needs to change because there is an ongoing need to train more than 300 instructors a year to maintain numbers lost through retirement.

Another theme is culture and leadership. Pavement parking—

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way with almost perfect timing. Bikeability is not the only non-infrastructure approach. Every school in my constituency benefits from a 20 mph scheme that covers most of Edinburgh and—I think he is about to touch on this—a pavement parking ban. Those non-infrastructure approaches can be delivered cheaply and quickly. Does he agree that we need more of those in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

Yes, tackling pavement parking is essential, because three quarters of children support stopping cars parking on the pavement, as do 58% of parents and guardians.

Councils in Wales and in most of England have limited pavement parking powers, relying on cumbersome street-by-street traffic regulation orders. In contrast, London councils have had powers to enforce against pavement parking since the 1970s, and Scotland gained them last year. Councils know their areas best, and the Liberal Democrats are calling for traffic regulation orders to be made easier for local authorities to process, so that they can take action on pavement parking more swiftly and at lower cost.

The upcoming road safety strategy is an urgent opportunity to save lives by tackling issues such as pavement parking. It must include measures to initiate a comprehensive road danger review; improve awareness of and adherence to the highway code; improve the safety of home-to-school travel; and deliver the integration of national strategy and funding with local policy.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The hon. Member is giving an interesting speech and making important points, but distances in some rural areas mean that walking, and often cycling, are not feasible. Does he agree that any review needs a particular focus on rural roads and should perhaps support reducing speeds outside schools? In constituencies such as mine, there is not yet a policy of having 20 mph. Perhaps he can give some examples of rural roads in the Netherlands.

[Olly Glover]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. This is not one size fits all, and we need to recognise the different characters and characteristics of our areas. However, in the Netherlands there would always be this thing called a cycle path next to rural roads, so there is that segregation and people have confidence. That is the key difference. Even in places in the UK with lots of land, that is not something we generally see. It is important that, as elected representatives of our communities, we lead by example where we can and walk and cycle where possible.

In conclusion, we can empower young people to walk, wheel or cycle to school by providing them with the confidence to do that through schemes such as Bikeability and by putting in place measures to keep them safe, such as those around pavement parking and around infrastructure and street design improvements. I thank the Minister for already having kindly agreed to see Bikeability training in action in my constituency, and I look forward to hearing more about the Government’s plans for this topic, including what they plan to do to make it normal, rather than an eccentric exception, to walk or cycle to school.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at about 7.5 pm. The debate is heavily oversubscribed, so I am putting an informal time limit of two minutes on all speeches. Even with that I might not get everybody in, but let us see how it goes. I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

It is an important issue. We are considering the costs and benefits of all options, and it is very good particularly for regional airports. We are working with the EU to identify areas where we can strengthen co-operation for mutual benefit, but it is still too early to discuss that specific area in detail. I hope to come back to the House at a later time with a more considered view.

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

3. What steps she is taking to help improve road safety for vulnerable road users.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I assure the hon. Member that this Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness. We are committed to reducing the number of those killed and seriously injured on our roads. My Department is developing our road safety strategy, and will set out further details in due course.

[Olly Glover]

I join others in welcoming the Secretary of State to her place. Bikeability is the world’s largest road safety programme. Recent data from the Bikeability Trust showed that in areas with higher levels of training for children, the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads decreased. Does the Minister agree that Bikeability training is an essential life skill that everyone should have access to, and will she commit to joining me on a visit to a local Oxfordshire school to see the scheme in action?

[Lilian Greenwood]

A total of 1.6 million people have participated in Active Travel England’s training programmes, including a record half a million children receiving cycle training last year. I am a keen cyclist and, having been knocked off my bike in the last couple of years, I understand how important it is to feel confident about cycling safely. I would be happy to join the hon. Member to see some of that work in action.