Oral Answers to Questions

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Young people in Oxford, Bicester, Winslow, Bletchley and Milton Keynes are sitting their exams, but they continue to not be able to use a train to get to school or for leisure, despite this phase of East West Rail opening 18 months ago. I have a little exam question for the Minister. What timescale will the Government commit to for the start of regular passenger services: Andy Burnham returning to the House of Commons, a change of Prime Minister, the formal creation of Great British Railways, or the next general election?

[Keir Mather]

I understand that Chiltern Railways is leading negotiations on this important issue, but the hon. Gentleman is right to be impatient about the need to get people where they need to go in his constituency. The Government are committed to trying to deliver at pace in collaboration with stakeholders, and I will ensure that he is kept abreast of any developments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The current cycling and walking investment strategy includes a target for 55% of trips to be walked, wheeled or cycled by 2035. Is the Secretary of State confident that there is a realistic plan with sufficient funding to achieve that target?

[Heidi Alexander]

Unlike the previous Government, who took £200 million out of the active travel budget, this Government are putting £600 million into improving walking and cycling and ensuring safer routes to school and safer crossings more generally. We are making sure that we invest in safe infrastructure to enable more people to walk and cycle more often. It is a priority for the Government to get this right. Walking and cycling will save people money, since they will not have to fork out at petrol stations, and it is better for the country’s long-term health and the environment. What’s not to like?

Railways Bill

Olly Glover Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

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

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

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

In North East Hampshire, thousands of London-bound commuters rely on trains as an extension of their office, especially when that train is delayed. Despite that, the UK’s onboard wi-fi speed was ranked 16th out of 18 major European and Asian countries. Does my hon. Friend agree that without a statutory passengers’ charter, passengers who spend thousands of pounds a year on season tickets have no reasonable way to hold the railways to account when basic standards, such as reliable wi-fi, are simply not met?

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we need new clause 1 to provide a railway passengers’ charter fit for the 21st century. With rail fares as high as they are, things like functioning wi-fi or phone signal, enough space for luggage, functioning toilets or even a seat should no longer be seen as indulgent luxuries. I note that the Government have recently announced some serious intentions to improve wi-fi and phone signal, and I wish them all the best with that endeavour.

The new clauses and amendments I mentioned could deliver significant improvements to passenger safety and security at stations and on trains, and they would require higher standards for those, if adopted.

[Helen Maguire]

On passenger experience, will my hon. Friend extend my thanks to the Minister and Lord Hendy—I have made them aware of my intention to mention this today—for taking forward new clause 36 via operational arrangements, which will permit a bereaved family member of the armed forces to a fare exemption on Remembrance Sunday?

[Olly Glover]

I am happy to thank the Minister here and Lord Hendy for engaging with my hon. Friend’s amendment to better enable members of our armed forces, veterans and their families to travel to services on Remembrance Sunday.

New clauses 6 and 2 and amendments 2 and 3 would require GBR to deliver meaningful fares reform and innovation, such as tap-in and tap-out contactless payment, as is currently available in the entirety of the Netherlands, and other forms of convenient digital payment, as well as our rail miles scheme, which would extend the concept of air miles and promote domestic tourism by making journeys on our railways as valuable a commodity as air miles are today.

New clause 9 would reduce the ability of the Department for Transport and the Treasury to meddle in the affairs of GBR, because interference and micromanagement by those organisations has caused a lot of the issues afflicting our railways today. To that end, amendments 7 and 6 would align track and train budgets, putting right what I feel is a detailed and structural flaw in the Bill. The Bill’s current intention to have infrastructure subject to five-year funding cycles, but funding for passenger services and train operation subject to spending review timescales, undermines the ability to achieve a “whole railway” way of thinking, planning and funding.

Amendments 8 and 9 are intended to deliver stronger accountability and transparency for GBR in relation to capacity allocation and network access fees, powers and decisions, particularly given that freight will remain in the private sector and as an open access endeavour.

Amendment 5 and new clause 3 counter the Bill’s poverty of ambition for the railways’ potential to further tackle road congestion, improve access to work and productivity, and cut carbon emissions, as shown by the Government’s repeated and, frankly, bizarre and incomprehensible refusal to include a requirement for a passenger growth target in the Bill. This is an area on which Liberal Democrats, Greens and Conservatives all tabled similar amendments in Committee—how often does that happen? Not very often, in my experience. Myriad stakeholder organisations have made the same point, as indeed has the Transport Committee.

Perhaps the noble Lord Hendy’s recent comments to the Transport Committee partially give the game away. When I asked him about summer service cuts to Avanti West Coast services, he said:

“It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to reduce train services in the short term when there is less demand for them.”

On one level that is an understandable view, but where there is lower demand for train services, we need to look at the reasons for that, and perhaps Avanti West Coast’s outrageous fares and poor track record are part of that, or it may be less attractive because of the lack of open access on the west coast main line compared with the east coast.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Melton Constable in my constituency has a proud railway heritage—the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway steam train adorns its village sign. New clause 5 would make provision for the exploration of the reinstatement of the orbital railway. Does my hon. Friend agree that being connected to the rail network could bring immense benefits to towns such as Holt? Government support for such a scheme being explored would be very welcome.

[Olly Glover]

The county of Norfolk suffered particularly from the Beeching cuts of the 1960s, so that needs to be looked at. That is a good example of the potential for rail to improve rural connectivity.

I would not mind so much that the Government are so keen to reduce train service where there is less demand if they or the rail industry appeared to have a comparable appetite for increasing services when there is very clearly high demand, as there was recently on the 10.30 from Reading to Penzance. Who could have anticipated that at the start of a bank holiday weekend, during half term, with extremely warm weather forecast, there would be high demand? That train was, to use a technical term, “rammed.” That is why we need a passenger growth target, to ensure that we are not just amending the timetable for a bit of penny-pinching, but to match customer demand. We must ensure that people who take the train to the west country do so again because they have a good experience.

[Helen Maguire]

Post covid, the number of trains from Epsom and Ewell was halved. My new clause 37 would ensure that there is community consultation on the frequency of train services. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sensible thing to do would be to consult the community?

[Olly Glover]

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being able to speak so early in this debate. I wish to focus on Government amendment 92, amendment 166 on devolution, which stands in my name, and the Transport Committee amendments on disability access. At the outset, I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for her leadership on this issue.

Public ownership as a means to the end of improving passenger services has always implicitly been at the heart of this Bill, and Government amendment 92 makes that intent explicit. I warmly welcome its presence on the amendment paper. I hope the House will forgive a few words on the origins of this amendment. As the Minister said, a drafting issue was identified. In essence, although the requirement for public ownership was contained in other legislation, it was contingent on the circumstances of transition and on definitions set out in secondary legislation.

I am sure that Members across the House will agree that, whatever their views on the merits of particular ownership models, such an important decision as public ownership or privatisation of the railways should be taken only by the majority consent of the whole House, and that is exactly what the amendment will achieve, safeguarding Great British Railways from the spectre of privatisation through the back door. I thank the Minister, the Minister of State the noble Lord Hendy and the Bill team for their constructive engagement on this issue.

I am optimistic about the Bill’s devolution provisions and I hope that under them Birmingham and the west midlands can enjoy some of the improvements that passengers in London and Liverpool already benefit from. Great things were done in the past through the old section 20 agreements under the Transport Act 1968, not least the creation of the cross-city line which runs through my constituency, but such agreements proved impossible under the fragmented post-privatisation railway. I hope section 5 proves to be a worthy successor to Barbara Castle’s section 20.

In the west midlands, we have a particular issue. We have a well-established devolved body, the West Midlands Railway Executive, which covers counties beyond the combined authority’s boundaries, such as Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Staffordshire. Clause 5, as it stands, specifies that devolution agreements will cover services in the area of a combined authority. It is important that such devolution agreements reflect the natural railway geographies of those areas, so I hope that reassurance can be given from the Government Front Bench.

Several amendments would take forward the Select Committee’s recommendations on disability access. We can judge our transport services on the ability of all passengers to use them and the Bill contains some welcome provisions. Clause 18 states that GBR must “in particular” advance the interests of disabled people. I believe this is the first time any such commitment requirement has been set out in railway legislation. GBR will be subject to the public sector equality duty, but new clause 39 would ensure that when the passengers’ council is constituted disabled people are represented on that body in accordance with the old commitment, “Nothing about us without us”. I hope Ministers will look carefully at that issue.

We heard from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), that they wished to advance a passenger growth target. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will know that that was the subject of some constructive disagreement on the Select Committee. Freight has historically been the poor relation on the railway network, in particular when it comes to pathing agreements. I fear that if a passenger growth target was in the Bill on the same basis and weight as the freight growth target, the advantages for the freight growth target in those decisions would be lost. That is an argument we heard in the Public Bill Committee’s evidence sessions from the Rail Freight Group.

[Olly Glover]

Without boring the House with a re-litigation of the debate we had in Committee, I will just say that the idea that passenger and freight are mutually exclusive and that there must be a choice between them is not correct. The Westbahn upgrade in Austria is a really good example of how investment has delivered an increase in both speed and frequency of passenger trains, and just as much freight, if not more, than before. We do not need to choose between them; we can have both if we so wish.

[Laurence Turner]

The hon. Member describes the railway as it could be—and he tempts me to get on to Red Star Parcels, but that might be one for another day—but we must have regard to the railway as it is now and the fact is that the railway the Bill inherits sets up that binary choice all too often. I very much hope we can get more interaction between modes, as he describes.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said—I hope I do not misrepresent her—that the Bill carries forward, in a different form, an idea created by the previous Conservative Government, but I think that is really too short a horizon.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond.

We Liberal Democrats also support this legislative tidying up. I hope the Minister is grateful for the opportunity to talk about what I know is his favourite mode of transport, ships, rather than dabbling in railway tedium. I have only one question for him: does he agree that the Paris memorandum highlights the inherently international nature of a lot of our shipping, and that we should be willing to take account of other jurisdictions’ changes to shipping legislation in future as part of that international co-operation?

High Speed 2 Reset

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

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

[Heidi Alexander]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for our overall approach. I am reassured that we have the capability and capacity that is needed in the executive leadership of HS2. That was not the case previously. A new financial director and new commercial director are in place, and I am reassured that the six new appointments to the HS2 board, which the new chair has led over the past year, have the right skills.

On the expert panel, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are the multiple layers of assurance as regards the new plan and who has looked at it. We have real expertise on the third line of defence panel, including Kenny Laird, Andrew Paul, Rachel McLean, Colin Brown, Laurent Troger and Miles Ashley. We have also included a rep from the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, and the project representative is involved as well. This is a substantial group of people, who are all putting their shoulder to the wheel to make this project a success.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Hammersmith Bridge

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on consecutive days, Sir Alec. I commend the proposer, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for articulately outlining the long-running saga of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, and a saga it is: the closure of this bridge has outlasted a pandemic and accompanied our departure from the European Union. Hopefully, the Government will take action so that not many other national or global events are added to the list of things that this bridge has witnessed.

It was agreed under the previous Conservative Government that the £250 million cost of fixing the bridge would be split evenly between the Department for Transport, Transport for London and Hammersmith and Fulham council. The current Labour Government have yet to find a way to honour that agreement or find another solution. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) articulately said, the ongoing cost to Hammersmith and Fulham council, with nearly £50 million already spent just to maintain the bridge, shows that the bill will continue to mount, absent a permanent solution. In our country, the failure to take long-term decisions to reach a conclusion often means that we spend a comparable amount of money maintaining an inadequate status quo in the meantime.

London is one of the most congested cities in Europe, and the bridges crossing the Thames are the central arteries for traffic of all kinds through the city. It should be unthinkable that a bridge is sitting underused with no clear action being taken. Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament and councillors in west London have consistently held the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue and will continue to do so. As well as the long campaign on this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in relation to its impact on Richmond borough, the hon. Member for Putney is correct to highlight the impact of the closure of Hammersmith bridge on Putney, where long traffic jams on Lower Richmond Road, Putney Bridge Road and Putney High Street, combined with a sub-optimally designed junction at Putney bridge, hit residents on a daily basis.

Last weekend, while visiting the area, I learned of local Liberal Democrats campaigning hard for Wandsworth council to play a greater role, alongside the two most directly affected boroughs, to improve the current situation. I declare an interest as a former Wandsworth resident, and my recent visit showed how little had changed for public transport and active travel since I lived in that area. In addition to the closure of the bridge, that is why there is significant car traffic and a lot of congestion, including in areas well away from the two bridges that we have discussed. South-west London is being let down by the failure to get a grip of this issue, and that points to the struggle to be competent about infrastructure in many areas of the UK.

The costs to rectify Hammersmith bridge are small compared with those, for example, of the proposed lower Thames crossing, which this Labour Government have not hesitated to back. As has been said, the Hammersmith bridge issue speaks to a structural problem for London infrastructure, in that the relationship between Transport for London and councils is not always best placed to ensure that planning and decision making on significant infrastructure happens on an effective cross-borough or cross-city basis.

Not unusually, the previous Conservative Government failed to get a grip of this mess. In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, stated that the Conservative Government would “not allow this” bridge “to remain closed”. The Conservatives then sat on the business case for repairing the bridge for years. If the Conservatives had kept their promise, the repairs could have been completed by now for £100 million less than the current estimated price tag. We all hope that the Minister will commit to resolving the issue and give us hope that this Government will end the embarrassing inertia and decision-making paralysis.

A minimum key ask is that we increase the usefulness of the bridge by restoring it to enable cross-river bus services and emergency service vehicle access. Even if the bridge were to reopen to motor traffic, we need to go much further and think more boldly about the chronic congestion in London suburbs. One option is a massive road-building programme, such as that attempted in the ’60s and ’70s as part of the London ringways programme, which was dropped because it was deeply unpopular. The only alternative is to transform public transport, walking and cycling. TfL is showing some leadership on the former, with proposals for the west London orbital between Hounslow and Hendon, although that does not specifically help with the cross-river issue.

My earlier brief and amateurish study of maps shows that the density of river crossings in London is markedly different from that in Paris, with Paris having almost double the number of river crossings on a 20 km section to the west of the city comparable to London. If the Labour Government can find £10 billion for the lower Thames crossing—admittedly with some private financing, but they have already committed at least £3 billion to that—they should surely be able to find the price tag needed to do the right thing for communities in south-west London by fixing Hammersmith bridge. I hope that this Government can seize the opportunity to do the right thing.

Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Ms Lewell. I welcome the Minister’s comments, and it is good that he is aware of some of the concerns about the proposed changes to article 71 and some of the findings from the consultation, but can he go a little further? What he says about the CAA not using these provisions too casually is important, but what will be done—to answer the age-old question of who watches the watchers—to ensure that the CAA is using the powers in the regulations sensibly rather than disproportionately? I agree with the shadow Minister’s comments. The Liberal Democrats are broadly inclined to support the regulations, but we would like to hear a little more from the Minister about what assurances can be given that these new powers will not be abused.

Oral Answers to Questions

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Road Emulsion Association research has found that 57% of UK drivers experience fewer and less severe potholes on Europe’s motorways compared with ours. That was confirmed by Office of Rail and Road benchmarking, which identified that the Netherlands’ strategic road network had double the high standard of ride quality than UK roads. Does the Minister agree that we should embrace good road practices from other countries, and what steps is he taking to ensure that our money is well spent?

[Simon Lightwood]

We are almost doubling the amount of money going to local highways maintenance to turn the tide. That is why a massive percentage of the road investment strategy—something like £8.5 billion—is going on repairing and renewing our strategic road network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

An October 2024 Active Travel England analysis of case studies found that walking and cycling schemes typically generate a benefit-cost ratio of between 3.5:1 and 19:1. Given the plans for significant devolution of transport funding, how will the Government ensure that local authorities deliver consistent standards and improvements to streets and routes to enable walking and cycling, and the huge accompanying economic and health benefits?

Draft Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the Minister for explaining the proposed regulatory changes, which the Liberal Democrats support. Of course, the rules of physics still apply, and these electric goods vehicles will be heavier, so I simply ask the Minister whether he agrees that that underlines the importance of the work the Government are doing on the road safety strategy to reduce the risk and impact of collisions.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Olly Glover Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Even taking into account the Lords amendments, we continue to welcome steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. I repeat the Liberal Democrat point from Second Reading that SAF is just one step in that direction; in the longer term, it needs to complement rather than detract from investment in zero-carbon flight technology.

I thank the Government for their engagement in the other place and for bringing forward these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness Pidgeon for her work and advocacy to strengthen the Bill. To that end, the Liberal Democrats support all the amendments. We support Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which will help to provide revenue certainty that can relate only to UK-produced aviation fuel, and Lords amendments 4 and 5, which will simplify industry consultation requirements, while noting the way in which Lords amendment 6 will bring in an overarching consultation requirement. We support the duty placed on the Secretary of State through Lords amendment 6 to consult before making regulations under the Act, including its focus on consultation and engagement with the devolved Administrations, which, of course, is always important.

With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I only regret that I lack the skill of the shadow Minister in making aviation puns.

[Mr Perkins]

I warmly welcome the Bill, which will boost home-grown production of sustainable aviation fuel. I also welcome the work done on the Bill in the other place and believe the amendments strengthen it. My hon. Friend the Minister should be heartened by the fact that the amendments he presents today are not being lambasted from all sides; instead, everyone seeks to claim credit for them, which is a nice place for him to be. The Conservatives, characteristically, have added this matter to the list of things they are now calling for but did not do during their 14 years in power. None the less, I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith).