Eating Disorders Awareness Week

Debate between Olly Glover and Wera Hobhouse

Thursday 26th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for introducing the debate and for her enormous dedication and hard work on this vital issue over many years.

I would like to talk about the themes that have arisen from constituency cases that my team and I have encountered and supported. The key concern is not the clinical aspects of care but the delay and fragmentation of the ownership of care. Life-threatening conditions can drift. Gaining access to care, support and treatment often involves a Kafkaesque labyrinth of dysfunctional process and procedure, and referrals and re-referrals between a range of teams in the complicated organisation that the NHS is. We need independent specialist assessments, safe interim arrangements, and timely and accountable co-ordination of care.

Some people wait more than eight months for an answer either way regarding whether they are eligible for treatment under the current criteria. That can further compromise their confidence in coming forward and asking for support. It can have a huge personal cost, impacting people’s ability to drive or work, reducing life expectancy and creating long-term medical complications, which add to wider pressures on the NHS. As in other debates that we have about healthcare in this country, this issue highlights an area where, if we get the start of the process right with early, preventive interventions, we will be able to help individuals and alleviate some of the pressure on critical care services.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It is worth mentioning again that if a person with an eating disorder does not get treatment, it takes them three times as long as they have been suffering to recover. If they have suffered from an eating disorder for three years, it takes them nine years to fully recover. We know from other health services that early intervention is key, but it is particularly important for eating disorders because the longer they are left, the much longer the recovery process is. Some people never recover and it is a life sentence.

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend again shows her wealth of knowledge and experience of this topic. Some of the cases that my team and I have supported have involved people who have been living with eating disorders for decades. I have also seen cases where the transition from support services for children and young people into those for adults has been managed badly. That is not unique to eating disorders; it is a wider issue in mental health provision.

As we have heard, eating disorders can have a devastating impact. They rob people of years of life, wipe out adolescence, remove educational and social opportunities, and leave many isolated and unable to cope. Eating disorders are one of the deadliest mental health conditions and constitute a significant health crisis. Cases of eating disorders have surged, with hospital admissions doubling in a decade. It is a huge concern, in the face of that crisis, that eating disorder services are being cut in much of the country. Over half of the country’s integrated care boards have cut real-terms spending on children’s eating disorder services in the last financial year.

I am proud of the leadership that parliamentarians such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath and Baroness Parminter in the other place have shown on this issue, including working with campaign groups such as Dump the Scales. The scandal of people being told that they are “not thin enough” for medical help must end. Far too many people cannot access the services they need.

I welcome recent guidance from NHS England on how to design eating disorder services to support children and young people better, but we need to do more than tinker around the edges with updated guidance. We need a meaningful national strategy to transform these services, with more specialist support, and we need to build a culture across the health service and beyond that recognises the complexities of eating disorders and the terrible dangers they pose.

Lending urgency to that is the fact that the target of 95% of urgent cases receiving treatment within a week, and routine cases receiving it within four weeks, is routinely being missed. From September to November last year, only 78% of urgent referrals and 82% of routine referrals started treatment within the target timeframe. That is why I am very happy to support a wider Liberal Democrat campaign for investment in community health services and prevention, including better specialist support for people with eating disorders. As we heard from my hon. Friend, early intervention can greatly reduce the number of people who are suffering.

We are also campaigning for regular mental health check-ups—the concept of a mental health MOT—at key points in people’s lives when they are most vulnerable to mental ill health. Like others who have spoken, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. So many people are suffering, and lots of people are trying to help—that is not the issue. We need to make the overall system work much better, with all its different component parts working towards the goal of supporting people.

Railways Bill

Debate between Olly Glover and Wera Hobhouse

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

Debate between Olly Glover and Wera Hobhouse

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Olly Glover]

That is one of many excellent Liberal Democrat measures that we have proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) will tell us more about that, and I do not want to steal too much more of her thunder.

Polling for The Dad Shift and Movember has found that the financial pressure is wrecking the health of new parents and their families, with more than half of new dads reporting mental and physical health consequences. Some 61% become less present with their families, and 57% are put off having more children. Although we in the Liberal Democrats may not be able to go quite as far as is asked for in this e-petition, we nevertheless support a number of significant changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will say a lot more.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to please stick to the informal time limit. If they do not, I will have to make it a formal time limit.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Debate between Olly Glover and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Olly Glover]

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

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

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Debate between Olly Glover and Wera Hobhouse

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend is saying, and I thank him for giving way. I just wanted to congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on her maiden speech. We should not forget that there are so many new Members. It was such a wonderful speech, and I wish the hon. Lady, and her daughter, all the best on her journey. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to mention her speech at the end of his own.

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I am sorry I omitted to do that earlier. The passion expressed by the hon. Member for Thurrock and her tribute to her constituency were very clear, and it was touching and moving to hear about her child and her family. I know that she will be a great champion for special educational needs and disabilities provision.

Let me end by saying that I hope the Government will extend their passion for public ownership to the investment in rail infrastructure that we in Oxfordshire need, and from which, as many other Members have said, the rest of the country will benefit.