Railways Bill (Second sitting)
Olly Glover ExcerptsTuesday 20th January 2026
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 January 2026 - (20 Jan 2026)
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Q
Peter McDonald: It certainly does not take us further away, if I can put it that way. In technical terms, I would say that the Bill is neutral for the devolution settlement. It does not adjust the fundamental constitutional arrangement in Wales, just as it does not change the fundamental constitutional arrangement of Scotland.
I think the Bill makes the current settlement more operable and better; I will not comment on the Scottish case—I will leave that for Bill. Certainly, the Welsh Government support track-train integration. I appreciate that I came at your question from a negative direction, but the Bill definitely advances us in terms of making the settlement more operable and efficient.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Q
Peter McDonald: It is very reasonable for there to be a conditioning adjective in the clause, certainly for the purposes of primary legislation. In practice, hundreds of operational decisions will be happening every day that—certainly in the case of Wales and England—affect the border. I certainly would not want each of them to have to go through a duty to consult.
The Welsh Government view is that “significantly affect” is reasonable. It could be further codified and defined in a memorandum of understanding, which provides a more flexible, non-legislative route to get into when consultation matters and when this can be done at working level more informally, without legislative backing.
Bill Reeve: We would agree. I might have a professional interest in the signalling of the Newquay branch in Cornwall, but I am not sure I need to be consulted on it. We are a small team in proportion to the size of the network that we are responsible for: we would be overwhelmed if we had to be consulted about everything on a precautionary basis. As Peter said, the working of the MOU will be important and people’s behaviours will always matter. But the drafting is fine from our perspective.
Olly Glover
Q
Darren Caplan: I think the question was about whether it is suboptimal at the moment. Yes, it is. We have a control period that lasts for five years and looks at operations, maintenance and renewal. That does not include enhancements. That was taken out in 2018, 2019, so enhancements have been reduced. It did not include major projects; we are very supportive of the announcements on East West Rail and Northern Powerhouse Rail, but that is not part of the overall plan. There is no rolling stock pipeline or strategy—we have called for that, but we are still waiting to hear back. There is nothing about decarbonising the network, or having an electrified network—when you have that, it is stop-start and boom-or-bust.
This is an opportunity to get it together. Back in 2024, we called for a long-term strategy for rail, and we are positive that it is in the GBR plans, so we support the long-term strategy and reviews. I totally agree with these guys that we need to bring more than just ORR work into that pipeline and have a 30-year purview. However, there is quite a lot of work to do on it, and the Bill does not quite capture that yet, but it is a start.
Rob Morris: From my perspective, I totally agree that it is currently sub-optimal. Decisions have been made in the past where things have been switched on and then switched off—electrification is a good example. With GBR, we now have a great opportunity to look at the whole system as a fully integrated system, so that we can manage the risks and the performance all together. That suggests that there will now be an opportunity for greater clarity of thinking, reduction in costs and much more efficient execution of the whole system.
The important thing is that we have a review of the long-term strategy in regular periods to make it transparent—perhaps every five years, so that the supply chain can set itself up for the next five years. What has happened in the past is that, when there has been a change of approach, it has not been communicated and it has created a vacuum. When there is a vacuum, there is uncertainty and we will not invest in those sorts of things. Then, when we restart things such as an electrification programme, it costs significantly more than if you had a steady-state approach to it.
Malcolm Brown: I agree that it has been sub-optimal. I think the clue is in the title; it is a rail system, and therefore a system has a number of components that we require to work as one. For example, I will invest £1 billion in new trains that we have made in Derby, and then those trains are getting maintained. These are state-of-the-art trains—they are absolutely brand new—but they are being maintained in sheds that were built in the Victorian era. That is not how I would like to look after my assets. I would like a holistic, full-system approach that takes these things into account. It cannot be perfect, but there is a lot more that we can do. The one word of caution I would give is this: be careful we don’t try to boil the ocean. We cannot have answers to everything, and nor should we expect the long-term rail strategy to have them.
Lastly, it is a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, and if it comes through, that is a major step forward. There is no point in devising electric trains with pantographs and batteries if we do not have the infrastructure to support that, either in maintenance or passenger service. Those two combined are utterly critical, and it is certainly in the title.
Rob Morris: May I add one comment to what Malcolm said? That old-system thinking with GBR opens up opportunities for the supply chain—ROSCOs and OEMs like ourselves. We can provide the optimum infrastructural rolling stock solution that also does the best in net zero outcomes for carbon, such as the battery bi-mode trains and discontinuous electrification of new technology that manufacturers like ourselves provide.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Malcolm Brown: To cut to the chase, yes. Our hope has to be that with GBR—we have talked in this room about the missing building blocks, but our hope is that they all align—we will end up in a better place than we have been, certainly for the past six or seven years.
You referenced GBRX. It is a limb of GBR that does all the very high-tech and signalling aspects. That seems to be working very well. We work closely with it, and we are investing in new technology—for example, on the east coast main line. We have been installing that on trains. It is very much future forward—we are looking into the future. We know that that will not be an immediate change, but we can see in the future that this is—to go back to this point—the direction of travel. It is not a no-regrets bid, but it is something that we have a degree of confidence in.
Rob Morris: To add to that, yes, again the funding ambition and the need that it generates is the fuel for innovation. The one thing I would say, though, is that I am a little concerned about the Bill’s requirement for GBR to do R&D. R&D is a good thing, and we would expect it, but the thing that GBR should not do, perhaps, is to crowd out the R&D that suppliers like ourselves and many others do, both locally here in the UK and globally, because we will potentially end up reinventing the wheel. While we as global suppliers, and our competitors, have wheels to put out all around the world—the wheels are an analogy, of course—they all have functional spokes, and what we do not want to do is to reinvent the shape of that wheel for the UK. That would be abortive, it would cost, it would take time and it would be the taxpayer who pays for it. The provision in the Bill should be about harmonising with the supply chain on what is done within R&D for the benefit of the passenger, the taxpayer and the freight user.
Darren Caplan: We are very concerned. We think that GBR is heading in the right direction, but Members might not be aware of how difficult it is in the supply chain supply sector at the moment. Through Savanta, we conducted a poll at the end of last year, between October and December, of rail business leaders: 64% of them said that the market is going to contract this year, which is up from 48% last year, and last year had been our record low; 62% are freezing or reducing headcount at the moment, with 34% actively laying off staff; and 85% expect a hiatus this year, which is partly because of the time it has taken for GBR to be set up, which is often cited as a reason why there is lack of confidence in the market at the moment. That is in contrast to the international situation: UNIFE, the European trade association, does a global market study, which shows that around the world, rail has grown between 3% and 6% every year.
I know lots of products are out there and things feel positive, but actually our members in the supply sector are feeling that they are in a very difficult place at the moment. We need certainty, and any measures that can help with that. We have already mentioned schedule 2, which does not help at all—it has to be changed, because it makes things less certain—but clause 72 also has potential to deter private investment. That is the regulation to make changes to non-GBR infrastructure facilities and services. It gives the Government the powers to make future changes to legislation by regulation outside a parliamentary vote—so-called Henry VIII powers. That weakens the power of MPs. It will mean that the Government can rewrite the rules about non-GBR networks and how those integrate with the GBR network, including setting conditions of access and charges.
That is for any network, station or track not operated by GBR, which could be High Speed 1, freight terminals, depots—we heard from freight earlier—ports and airports, telecoms and energy assets. They all integrate with the GBR network, and there is a lack of certainty about how they will integrate in the future, which will deter private and third-party investment. One global logistics company would strongly like to see such sites excluded because of the effect that it will have on investing in those assets. If you get rid of schedule 2 and amend clause 72, you can help to create a better situation when it comes to investment.
I have a prop here, which is a chart showing the current investment for renewals in the UK over the past 30 years—you can see that it goes up and down. The situation that we are talking about with GBR makes it less certain. I have another chart here that shows electrification—
Keir Mather
Thank you. That is a really important point, which I am sure we will come back to, but I am conscious that other Members have questions, so I will sneak in at the end if I can.
Olly Glover
Q
Jason Prince: I think the Bill needs strengthening in the relationship between MSAs; I will put that on record. We are working very positively with officials to see how we can strengthen the Bill to ensure that it reflects that. We are on a journey of devolution where local government reform is making sure that mayors will be the conduit, broadly, across the UK. The Bill does set a framework for how that engagement will take place.
From a technical point of view, I think what would be beneficial, which is not necessarily something you will cover in line-by-line scrutiny but which needs to be looked at in the guidance issued, is to look at how will this work in practice—your specific question—when you look at how railway under a national structure will work between different areas. When you look at areas like the West Midlands, for example, and the West Midlands Rail Executive, their geography is bigger than an MSA. At the minute the Bill does not acknowledge things like that, so I think there is something that needs to be looked at. Guidance accompanying what is in the legislation would probably give some clarity, and there is an opportunity to bring that through that process.
Olly Glover
Q
Andy Burnham: This is a really important point. Giving city regions the ability, either individually or together, to manage events better with the railways, and a role over that, is really important. The Everton stadium example is probably most relevant with rugby league, where England played Australia. There was just an utter meltdown of the TransPennine timetable, and chaos at stations. That affects the country’s reputation when it is a major event.
We have the Euros coming in 2028. Manchester and Liverpool will be hosting games. You just want to have a grip on the system. At the moment, we do not feel that we have that with rail, but we do with trams and buses. We have a control room for Transport for Greater Manchester. We manage these things really closely. Oasis played in the summer—you may have noticed that—and we handled major numbers coming through the city on five consecutive nights really well. Obviously, there were some issues, but really well.
The railway does not quite live in that world with us, and that is an issue. It is reputational for the country. The railway has been living in its own world a bit too much. That has got to change. I realise some of that is culture change rather than the structures that we lay out in the Bill, but the railway does have to come through this re-emerging as a public service again—people putting a bit more into the railway than they are required to, because they care, and we all care about the reputation of our places and our country.
It feels to me like that has been lost, as I look at where the railway has got to in recent times. We need to use this Bill to get it back. It is not a trivial point to say that the bee on the side of trains creates a sense of civic pride again. This is about us and the places where we live. It is a softer point perhaps, but it should not be missed.
Tracy Brabin: On events, we have seen a 10% uplift in passenger numbers on rail. There is still a feeling post covid that rail passengers are in decline, because of the change in the 9 to 5, Monday to Friday and so on. Actually, we are seeing an uplift in passenger numbers. Particularly Sundays are rammed.
I can give one example of the lack of connectivity. I was a participant in the Abbey Dash in Leeds. There were thousands of people coming into Leeds, then there was a signal failure and the whole of Leeds station closed down. On Trainline on your phone, the app was suggesting the trains were all running. I enquired and they said, “Well, that is a private company. They are not connected to us, so they don’t know.” People were coming to the station assuming that the trains were still running. We have to have that local accountability and the connected nature of the ebbs and flows of the network.
If you build it, they will come. If we have more carriages—more than two on CrossCountry—you will get more passengers because people will enjoy the journey and feel it is value for money, rather than being rammed in like cattle. Standing at London Bridge station, you see Southern trains with 13 carriages. I dream about 13 carriages. We have trains that are two and three carriages that are absolutely rammed because we have such an uplift in footfall.
Olly Glover
You may enjoy a ten-minute rule Bill speech that I am making tomorrow.
Tracy Brabin: I shall set my timer to make sure I watch it.
The Chair
I have a lot of colleagues indicating that they want to speak and I do not believe we will get everyone in. If we could have shorter questions, and perhaps shorter answers, to try and get as many people as possible in, that would be really helpful.
Olly Glover
Q
Richard Bowker: There were tensions, some of which were actually quite healthy in a way, because if somebody is basically in charge of everything and has no checks and balances, I am not sure that is a good thing. What is described here, and the way the Bill works, is a far better set of circumstances than I had to deal with 20 years ago. Why? Because, as I said in answer to another question, the SRA was responsible for strategy and for franchising, while the rail regulator was responsible for the network, regulating Network Rail and who could go on the network, ultimately. Those two things did not interface well at times. They did in many ways, and we got a lot done, but it was not perfect.
I think the Bill helps significantly in terms of providing clarity and a directing mind. What is key to all this, though, is not necessarily what is written here; it is about how it is then implemented in practice. You have some good building blocks, but the real test will be when real people try to make this work.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Whether it is the access in use concerns, the failure of the appeals process to be anything worthy of the name, or the fact that the proposed powers for the Secretary of State to change without notice access in use, taken in combination, the evidence from multiple witnesses today was that the Bill does not make it easier. Are you going to listen to them, or are the Government going to pursue their dogged insistence that everyone else is wrong and they are right?
Keir Mather: If you take something like the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, the consultations are undertaken in close partnership with the private sector. If you are asking me whether it is going to be easier in the long term, with GBR created, for private sector operators to engage with a level playing field, I think that it will be. I think that it creates a very clear structure of accountability measures, clear metrics by which decisions are taken and robust accountability, if GBR does not meet its obligations under the access regime, to make sure that it does things correctly, especially on the matter of access.
I think it is important that we dig into this further, because it came out consistently with the freight operators. GBR has to decide how it meets its capacity duty once it has decided what best use of the railway constitutes. That is a really important safeguard that is built into the Bill. The Secretary of State gives GBR its funding envelope through the business plan, and needs to ensure that GBR will deliver the services that it has said it will. It is therefore very important to have that capacity duty in place, but that is after GBR has made a determination, while balancing its existing duties and its need to promote freight and service providers on the railway, on whether or not those services stack up.
I think that the accountability process and appeals process are very clear, and give private operators multiple points to raise concerns, and robust enforcement measures for the ORR to substitute decisions and ask GBR to think again. The point about thinking again is very important, because we want GBR to improve as an organisation, and to become more agile and more responsive to the needs of the private sector, and the appeals process facilitates that.
Olly Glover
Q
Keir Mather: That is a really important point. I hope that you feel that the human side of the equation, in terms of furthering the interests of passengers through the duties, is embedded in clause 18, but I take your point about the funding envelope, and the way that passenger services are funded via the spending review period set by the Secretary of State, as opposed to infrastructure more broadly. The reason for that in the immediate term is that the procurement and delivery of passenger services is a far more complex and changeable process to work through than the delivery of long-term infrastructure, or other functions that sit under GBR.
In the future, we can certainly get into a debate about whether passenger services should be funded in a similar way to other aspects of GBR’s operation, but for the moment, and after GBR is stood up, which let us remember is in quite short order after the passage of the Bill, in around 12 months’ time, the Secretary of State needs to be able to determine that passenger services offer value for money. It is therefore right that she retains more control over the funding envelope for those services at that stage. We can certainly take the debate on how that should change in the future forward as part of this Committee. I would be very keen to explore it further.
Laurence Turner
Q
I want to raise devolution, and specifically clause 5. There is a lot of history to the clause, and a line of continuity with the old section 20 of Barbara Castle’s Transport Act 1968. A lot of great things were accomplished under that legislation, including the creation of a cross-city line in Birmingham, but then privatisation came along. There was an attempt to do something similar under section 13 of the Railways Act 2005, which frankly did not work; there was never a single agreement signed. What lessons have been learned about what went right in the past and what went wrong with the 2005 legislation, when it comes to clause 5 of the Bill?
Keir Mather: I suppose that, in the 2005 Act, section 13 was not only really narrow in scope, in that it covered only franchised services, but represented a significant watering down of relationships between the rail industry and passenger transport executives. The difference with clause 5 of the Bill is that it is significantly wider in scope, to ensure that partnerships under GBR cover the full rail offer, rather than focusing only on services.
There is an important point around corporate structure. It is right that the corporate structure is not laid out in the Bill—no piece of rail legislation in 113 years has done that—but what has come out quite consistently in the testimony of the mayors, and in the broader points made around devolution, is that, whether it be on the MCA basis or on the local authority basis more generally, people want GBR’s structure to be flat, and responsive to dynamic changes both in demographics around housing and your ability to get to Everton stadium when the rugby league is on, which is of personal interest to me.
I think the point is very well made, and it is certainly taken by me as the Minister, that democratic accountability means that the operational reality of GBR should be diffuse wherever possible. People do not want to see a replication of a centralised model of the past.
Oral Answers to Questions
Olly Glover Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to embrace our 10-year-long campaign for a rail fares freeze. However, I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that passengers have had to bear above-inflation fare increases for two decades prior to that, yet experience trains that are late and overcrowded, and lack the right onboard amenities such as luggage storage, functioning toilets and effective wi-fi. Does the Secretary of State support the idea of a 21st-century railway passenger charter that would guarantee the better passenger experience our passengers deserve?
Keir Mather
The Lib Dem spokesperson is right to identify the fact that passengers deserve access to a rail network that serves their needs, which is why accessibility will sit at the heart of Great British Railways. It will have a legislative requirement, with the licensing watchdog ensuring that accessibility is always considered— there will be an accessibility duty within the Railways Bill. On fares, the Bill and the rail fare freeze will save passengers £600 million in 2026-27; contrast that with the period from 2010 to 2014, in which fares rose by 60%. If the Lib Dem spokesperson is interested in the rights of passengers and affordability on the railway, he should have supported the Railways Bill on Second Reading.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Across the country, people enjoy traffic-free walking, cycling and wheeling on disused railways such as the Tissington trail in Derbyshire, the Mawddach trail in Gwynedd or the Deeside way in Aberdeenshire. What steps will the Secretary of State take to make it easier for local government and communities to gain access to the 8,000 miles of disused railway that we still have, which creates such a good opportunity for family-friendly cycling trails, as part of a national network?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The disused part of the rail network is currently in the custody of National Highways. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that many of those trails provide excellent opportunities for walking, wheeling and cycling; indeed, I have spent many happy times cycling on the Tissington and Monsal trails in Derbyshire. We will continue to work through Active Travel England and with local authorities to encourage them to make great use of those greenways.
Railways Bill
Olly Glover ExcerptsTuesday 9th December 2025
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank those who have put so much work into the Bill, which has had a long gestation, with its roots in the multiple timetable change meltdowns across the network in May 2018. They and the Government are right to recognise that our railways need change. That should be our starting point.
I will start with the reasons why we need that change. Unfortunately, the British Railways Act 1994 framework introduced by the Conservative Government of that era has certainly been full of problems, and previous Conservative Governments have presided over above-inflation fare increases, overcrowded trains and frankly incomprehensible and totally baffling contract extensions awarded to failing train operators such as CrossCountry and Avanti West Coast. I think we can all agree in this House that the current structure and system is not putting passengers or freight users first, but we should also recognise that meddling and interference from central Government has increased since the pandemic and is at the heart of some of our problems—more of which anon.
Let us start with what is good about the Bill. It is certainly an honest and serious attempt to simplify the current convoluted industry structure and processes. It is quite right to focus on the need for accessibility improvements, and it is welcome that it introduces the idea of a long-term rail strategy, although the usefulness of that will depend on how “long-term” is defined. The creation of a passenger standards authority to build on the work of Transport Focus is welcome to ensure that the passenger really is put first.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
In constituencies such as North Shropshire, where access to the railway is very poor indeed, we have initiatives for step-free access at Whitchurch station and to connect Oswestry, which is the second largest town in Shropshire but has no rail connection, to the line at Gobowen. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill really needs to take up those types of opportunities? Otherwise, many people will fail to recognise the benefits of hopefully improving the rail system.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that some of the more sparsely populated parts of our country have been neglected in their rail offer. It is important that the spending recognises that and does not just follow large towns or cities or inter-city routes.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Surely improving our railways should include the ambition of making our public transport cleaner and greener. In Bath, dirty diesel trains are still running through the city. Surely one of our first steps should be an ambitious electrification plan, reversing or addressing the years of failure of the previous Conservative Government.
Olly Glover
I shall have to ask my office to initiate an investigation into the leak of my speech—I will go on to say why we do indeed need a rolling electrification programme, which is something that has hitherto been missing under Governments of all colours.
Nevertheless, we Liberal Democrats have some concerns about the Bill in its current form. First of all, though, we certainly welcome the Government’s recent embrace of a seven-year Lib Dem call for a freeze on rail fares. It is very welcome, but it would be entirely wrong to suggest—to be fair, the Secretary of State has not yet done so—that GBR is needed for such things. This is all about influence and persuasion with the Treasury and making sure we make coherent choices about fares and the cost of motoring, so that we encourage the transport choices we wish to see.
The legislation as drafted will not in and of itself bring better value for money for customers in the form of affordability, reliability and improved access to the network. It is not just me who thinks that; the Secretary of State herself stated in May that she could not promise lower fares under renationalisation. One of my biggest concerns is that GBR currently sounds like a railways version of NHS England—something that the Government themselves have decided to abolish—rather than an organisation given real autonomy, following a clear vision and long-term plan for the industry, that is likely to create customer focus and commercial flair, which is what our railways really need. What they do not need is even more state control and micromanagement, which, to date, has not produced good outcomes. The capacity duty for GBR laid out in the Bill is another big concern here; in just three short paragraphs, it sets out a very broad and draconian basis for rejecting applications to access the network that are not GBR.
Let me give some examples of how state control and micromanagement has hurt us to date. It was the Department for Transport, not any failing train operator, that specified the inter-city trains currently in service with LNER and GWR, which, as I am sure the Secretary of State will know from her own travels, have been replete with problems and concerns about suboptimal internal comfort and design. Indeed, the current significant rolling stock shortages—a result of problems that GWR is facing with those trains—were confounded by a DFT decision to withdraw high-speed train rolling stock from the west country after the pandemic without a replacement, which has led to frequent overcrowding on trains serving my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, partly because five-car inter-city trains designed for journeys such as London to Bristol and London to Penzance are currently operating stopping services in Devon and Cornwall.
It was a Department for Transport decision to appoint Chiltern Railways to operate East West Rail phase 1 between Oxford and Milton Keynes. The new railway has been ready for more than a year and we still have no passenger services running on that line. We have had 20 years of Department for Transport-specified timetables, with relatively little improvement to connections between trains and non-London journey times. When I used to work at Southern, the timetable specification document given to us by the Department for Transport had 200 pages of detail as to exactly what should be followed.
There is a real lack of clarity on how open access passenger and freight will be effectively regulated and protected in the new structure. That is especially important for freight, which the Government have decided not to nationalise. There is no requirement in the Bill to set a target for passenger growth, which may suggest a lack of ambition. The Bill is very vague on the criteria for calculating things such as network access charges. The Bill gives GBR the power to apply discounted or elevated track charges, but it is totally unclear as to what criteria will be applied in deciding the charges. It is also unclear how the ORR will be able to police and enforce that effectively, given its reduced powers. The Bill seems to imply that appeals against GBR access decisions will require judicial review-level criteria, making them very inaccessible to most parties that may wish to make those challenges.
We hope that some of those concerns will be addressed through further scrutiny on the Bill Committee—in the miraculous event that the Bill passes later today. We hope that, with an open-minded approach from the Government, we will be able to set a specific time definition for “long-term rail strategy”. The Liberal Democrats believe that it should be 30 years rather than a short period of 10 years or 15 years. We hope to see a clearer definition and some bounds put in for the many references to the Secretary of State’s powers to override, and we want to see greater ambition for both freight and passenger growth.
We need more recognition of the importance of competition and open access for both freight and long-distance passengers. Rail freight remains in the private sector and therefore needs protections, given the Government’s clear preference for state ownership and operation. Open access has driven up ridership and customer satisfaction on the east coast main line but is now at risk. The real question for the Government is whether something as innovative as Hull Trains, which has transformed the inter-city passenger offer between Hull and London, would even be possible under GBR?
We desperately need competition on the west coast main line, given Avanti West Coast’s outrageous fares and performance. There is no guarantee that when Avanti returns to the public sector those fares will come down. There are many positive examples of private sector tendering and operation—particularly the Spanish high-speed network, the original LGV Sud-Est in France, which is the busiest high-speed line in Europe, and French and German operating contracts procured by regional governments. Although the Passenger Standards Authority is welcome, we need an even stronger and louder passenger voice on it.
What would the Lib Dems do instead or additionally? [Laughter.] Well, I am going to address that in case anybody wanted to accuse us of being negative without articulating our positive vision. We need to make sure that as well as making the structural changes it intends to, the Bill, and whatever follows, addresses the real problems on our network.
Successive Governments have failed to set out a clear, long-term vision and set of objectives for the railway that cover passenger and freight growth, customer satisfaction and punctuality. They have failed to accompany that with a long-term funding settlement and infrastructure plan, which should include incentives and rewards for contractors and suppliers for hitting quality, time and cost objectives when it comes to enhancements to the network. They should be based on a vision for a regional or national timetable designed around convenient and reliable connections between trains at well-designed major interchange stations, as is the case in Switzerland.
The Bill should limit future fare increases to no more than the rate of inflation, which would deal with the arbitrary approach that has been taken up until now. We need value for money and quality guarantees for passengers given the high fares we have. In particular, the Bill does not guarantee that my Oxfordshire constituency will get the improvements that we really want to see, such as electrification between Didcot and Oxford. The equivalent part of railway to Cambridge was electrified in 1986 under that hardly well-known pro-rail Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. We need a clear, long-term rolling programme for rolling stock. We need accessibility improvements at stations, including Cholsey, and new stations such as one to serve Grove and Wantage. I am desperate to see that for my constituents.
Peter Swallow
I am listening carefully to all the hon. Gentleman’s recommendations. Many of them sound wonderful, but I suspect that they come with something of a price tag. I hope he will get on to the part of his speech where he sets out how the Liberal Democrats would fund those investments.
Olly Glover
The hon. Gentleman might find that the Bill is also rather lacking in detail on how future rail improvements will be funded. However, he is right in the sense that we need to get costs down. That is why a rolling programme of electrification, new stations, rolling stock and so on would get costs down. It is not just me who thinks so; Andrew Haines, the former chief executive of Network Rail, said in testimony to the Transport Committee that the evidence is “incontrovertible” that a rolling programme of electrification would reduce costs.
I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) that we need a greater voice not just for combined authorities but for local authorities. Only with those changes will we see a railway that is innovative, ambitious and aligned with the needs of our economy, passengers and freight end users. For now, the Bill, despite its good intentions, needs further work before it can move forward. Therefore, with some sadness, Liberal Democrat Members cannot support it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Oral Answers to Questions
Olly Glover Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
For decades, rail fares have been subject to above-inflation increases, and many people feel that prices such as £7,780 for an annual season ticket from Didcot to the London travelcard area do not represent good value for money and hinder the railways’ potential to reduce congestion and contribute to economic growth. Does the Secretary of State support the idea of a rail fares freeze? If she does, what representations has she made to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to divulge conversations that I have had in advance of the Budget. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I am not going to do that. I am acutely aware of the importance that the travelling public place on affordability, and of course I want to find a way to help those who rely on our railways, given the cost of living pressures that people are experiencing. I have spoken before, though, about the scale of the public subsidy that we are currently putting into the railways, and we have to get the right balance between supporting rail users and being fair to the taxpayer.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The new railway between Oxford, Bicester and Milton Keynes has been open for more than a year, successfully running freight and charter trains, but passenger trains have yet to start. When will passenger services begin, and what does the Secretary of State feel are the lessons for her Department as to what has gone wrong?
Heidi Alexander
There were significant delays under the previous Government—14 months between their intention to move to procurement in March 2023 and any action on it, which was not until the general election last year. Within a couple of months of my being in post, we appointed Chiltern Railways as the operator. There are ongoing discussions locally, and I hope that services are up and running as soon as possible in the new year.
Draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulation 2025
Olly Glover Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I put on the record very briefly the Liberal Democrats’ support for the proposed updating and expansion of maritime regulations.
Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards
Olly Glover Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I join other hon. Members in commending the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for bringing this very important topic to Westminster Hall and, indeed, for his impressive efforts in getting media coverage before the debate had even occurred—I might ask him later for his tips on that, if he might be so generous, because hitherto I have not had quite such success, but it is very good to see. He is quite right to talk about the fear of driving at night that this issue instils and offers some good tips for mitigating the effects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) talked about the economic impact of reduced night driving and the problem of automated light dimming—I shall return to that subject, because I have some very strong views about it. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) joined other hon. Members in talking about the rural context and how important night-time driving is for people who live in rural areas and for the rural economy. It was once again great to hear the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) bring his professional optometrist’s experience to the debate and quite rightly highlight the impact of the issue on elderly people’s mobility, as well as the safety aspects of those who continue driving even though their eyesight may be compromised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) gave us an excellent summary of his very strong and robust campaigning on this issue, which this debate will hopefully accelerate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was very articulate about the need to strengthen MOT requirements and the fact that the data under-represents the problem at hand, a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord).
Following a petition with more than 14,000 signatures, the previous Government committed to commissioning research into headlight glare, a project that was taken up by the current Labour Government, with the results eagerly expected. While LED headlights improve driver visibility and energy efficiency, they can cause discomfort or temporary blindness to oncoming drivers. An RAC survey in December 2024 found that 95% of drivers believe some headlights are too bright, with 53% reporting being temporarily blinded and 25% avoiding night driving altogether because of glare.
Research shows that glare particularly affects people with cataracts or other vision issues. Headlight alignment and condition are checked during the MOT test, yet overly bright lights can still pass if technically compliant. There are concerns about poorly aligned or aftermarket LED conversions sold online; police reports list dazzling headlights as a factor in around 200 to 300 collisions annually in Great Britain. However, as hon. Members have suggested, that is almost certainly an underestimate.
The UK raised the issue at the UN Economic Commission for Europe, which agreed to tighten rules on headlamp alignment and to make automatic levelling systems mandatory by 2027. Ongoing Government-funded research by the Transport Research Laboratory will include real-world glare assessments across different road types.
This issue is close to my heart, because my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has many rural components, and my main method of transport around the constituency is a bicycle. I assure the hon. Member for Crawley that I certainly do not use a flashing light outside street-lit areas, nor am I one of those covered in dark clothing who is invisible. However, despite wearing high-vis clothing with retroreflective strips and having panniers with retroreflective elements, a front light, a rear light and loads of reflectors, I encounter a growing problem of car drivers taking too long to dip their headlights. Often it is so bad, particularly on roads that do not have a white line, that I just have to stop until the offending vehicle has gone—perhaps after some creative hand gestures in front of my light, as a last-minute attempt to make sure that they see me.
Some people dip their headlights and others do not, so it seems unlikely that it is to do with my visibility. I therefore wonder whether the automation that some hon. Members have mentioned is the factor; possibly some drivers rely on that, whereas others are observant, keeping a close eye and dipping as soon as they can. I can say from my experience as a cyclist that this is a real safety issue: if somebody is behind me when I have to stop suddenly, they will not be expecting to have to stop too.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Department for Transport’s decision to commission an independent review into headlight glare and we urge the Government to develop an updated road strategy including vehicle design, including lighting, within its scope. I know that that is something they are working on. We are deeply concerned about increasing reports of overly bright or poorly aligned LED headlights causing discomfort, temporary blindness and heightened safety risks for other road users, including drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. For all those reasons, this debate is very welcome and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to it.
Connected and Automated Vehicles
Olly Glover Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for bringing up this very important topic, which as a species we have been grappling with for a couple of decades, so that we can talk about how to deal with it in the UK. It was interesting to hear of her experience of using Wayve in London and her finding it miraculous. She made an interesting point about the potential for autonomous vehicles to act as a form of demand-responsive transport—a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton). They may be interested in the discussions of demand-responsive transport in the recent Transport Committee inquiry report called “Buses connecting communities”, the response to which we eagerly anticipate from the Government.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked of his great enthusiasm for diesel fumes and gear sticks. Hon. Members will be surprised to learn that he has not already encountered the transporter room in “Star Trek”, as it appears to many of us that he has already been subject to an accident using said technology; that would explain his ability to appear in multiple places in Parliament at once.
The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) correctly highlighted the need to get regulation and monitoring right—more on that shortly. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) once again showed her knowledge and passion for all forms of buses in the widest sense of the term. She highlighted some existing examples of driverless transport, including the docklands light railway, although all DLR trains have a member of staff on board precisely to address the issue that she rightly highlighted: needing to ensure that people still have a strong sense of personal safety and security in such vehicles.
The hon. Lady was also quite right to highlight the challenges of vegetation and white lines management. White lines are a major issue for today, let alone for autonomous vehicles—it is a major issue even for those of us who use the very primitive form of transport known as a bicycle. The presence of a white line makes cycling on unlit roads enormously easier compared with roads without white lines—we seem to have a completely arbitrary mix of the two. That has relevance for tomorrow’s debate on headlight dazzle, because drivers can lock their eyes on white lines when they are suffering from that. I make that point only to show that sometimes historical solutions are applicable to new problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) also talked about the importance of white lines, and quite rightly suggested that the challenges of introducing autonomous and connected vehicles are going to be rather different for rural roads than for urban roads. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) took us through the history of transport and what we consider normal. He rightly made the point that it is important for local authorities and all of us to have knowledge of these things. I am a complete luddite about artificial intelligence, and that is certainly one of the challenge of our jobs: we are expected to know everything about everything, whereas really the key challenge is to know enough about the key topics.
The Liberal Democrats were pleased to support the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Automated vehicles represent the next step towards safer and more sustainable transport.
In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, I was pleased to see Milton Park trialling an autonomous bus—not just within the park estate, which is a reasonably contained business-park environment, but covering the couple of miles between Milton Park and Didcot Parkway railway station. The United Kingdom has a strong tech sector and a real opportunity to lead the development of self-driving vehicle technology, which is an opportunity to attract the investment and innovation that we all know our country needs.
Autonomous vehicles have the potential to play a major role in improving road safety, given that the majority of traffic accidents are caused by human error. They also have the potential to help move us towards net zero by reducing the need for individual car ownership and promoting the more efficient use of vehicles. However, public confidence is essential for the success of automated transport.
As one who worked in rail before coming to this place, it is a mystery to me that there is relatively little driverless and automated technology in the sector, despite it being a self-contained, heavily regulated environment that in theory ought to be the more promising place to try it. It is true that Paris has automated some metro lines, but in a job I did before coming to this place, UK rail experts—believe it or not—were dispatched to Canada to help work on a new automated metro system in Montréal, known as the Réseau express métropolitain, which was entirely driverless. It all seemed to work perfectly in trials, but at peak times, during large-scale operations and at times of major computer failure, the whole system, lacking staff, completely collapsed. We were sent there to suggest how they could come up with ways of managing such major disruption better. That is one of my points of scepticism.
I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich is right that Wayve cars operating in London have anticipated all the normal difficulties, such as pedestrians, cyclists, whether or not they go through red lights and so on, but we do not know whether, if every car were autonomous, they would be quite so resilient. We can only find out by doing more trials and research, looking at that data and exploring it with great care. Safety for all road users, especially cyclists and pedestrians, must continue to be a top priority.
Early international trials, such as those in San Francisco, show encouraging signs of safety improvements, but any single serious incident could damage public trust. As is so often the case with these things, one very bad thing will negate nine very good things. It is the same with customer service in a restaurant or a hotel. Clear communication about the purpose and limits of trials is vital, and the interaction between human control and automation must be carefully managed.
Issues seen in overseas trials, such as autonomous vehicles blocking emergency vehicles or stopping in cycle lanes, must be addressed to ensure public confidence in UK deployments. A strong and transparent safety network is needed to govern how automated vehicles are tested and introduced on public roads. Automated vehicles should meet or exceed the safety standards of careful and competent human drivers.
The shift provides an opportunity to not just maintain but significantly improve the overall safety and accessibility of road networks. The success of AVs will depend on adequate infrastructure. Poor road conditions, including pot holes, could affect vehicle performance and public safety. Therefore, minimum road-quality standards and sufficient resources for local authorities will be essential to support their introduction.
As hon. Members have already said, accessibility must remain at the heart of automation. Older and disabled people often rely on drivers for assistance, including in terms of boarding the vehicle. That is one area where we need to think carefully before designating this as the solution to some of the accessibility challenges. Automated taxis or public transport must continue to provide appropriate support for vulnerable users. Ensuring inclusivity will be key to public acceptance.
The real challenge is that, once autonomous vehicles become owned on a large scale in the same way that cars are now, what sounds like a great opportunity will also come with some risks. Presumably, they would not initially be cheap, just as electric vehicles are not cheap now. Something that has the potential to erode public transport ridership could also erode public transport viability, which is likely to still be essential for those who would not necessarily be able to afford to own such a vehicle. The cost aspect needs to be carefully considered.
Data protection and privacy are also critical concerns. We need to consider how processing large amounts of data, including potentially sensitive personal information, will be handled, and the strong safeguards needed to prevent the misuse or monetisation of personal data. Insurance arrangements must also be clear and fair, and cyclists and pedestrians involved in incidents must have access to fair and timely compensation, particularly as many of those will not hold personal insurance.
In conclusion, although there is a huge opportunity for automated vehicles to make travel safer, more efficient and more accessible, we need to adequately consider the risks. Some of those have been well covered in this debate, but others may not have been—for example, the potential for job losses, the need to manage cyber-security carefully and the potential health impacts. I do not mean health impacts from the vehicles themselves, but we are already struggling to encourage walking and cycling in this country; were these developments to further erode those activities, our current issues with obesity and other health inequalities might worsen.
The UK can lead in this field if it embraces innovation responsibly and brings the public with it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how we can do just that.
Heathrow: National Airports Review
Olly Glover Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 ExcerptsWednesday 15th October 2025
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill 2024-26 View all Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 15 October 2025 - (15 Oct 2025)
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.
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.
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.