Olly Glover MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—I had forgotten how to do it. When assessing the effectiveness and suitability of the King’s Speech, we need to consider what we need for a great and renewed United Kingdom. First, we need a fairer society with greater opportunities; secondly, we need an economy that works for people; and thirdly, we need a strong and globally relevant United Kingdom. Starting with a fairer society, the King’s Speech contains some good intentions in relation to housing, with the social housing renewal Bill and the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill. However, the former falls a long way short of real action on social housing, with the Government continuing to refuse to refocus their targets on social housing specifically, and with no clear legislative plan to properly regulate property management companies and their charges. The proposed Bills on health and education also both fall short. The Government continue to prevaricate on the desperate need to act on the findings of numerous reviews of adult social care, which is the best way to support our struggling NHS. The focus on special educational needs provision is welcome, but the proposals in the King’s Speech are unlikely to succeed without investment in state special schools, which is necessary to reduce significant local authority expenditure on private special schools and transport to distant special schools. On transport more widely, measures to improve taxi and private hire safety and regulation, railway investment in the north of England, and private finance for roads have merit. However, it is important that we do not blindly follow the Treasury’s obsession with avoiding capital spending. There are many examples of private finance initiatives that ended up as very poor value for money on a whole-life-cost basis, which is what we should think about rather than “sign and forget” private finance deals. While votes at 16 are welcome, real ambition is missing when it comes to fixing our broken politics. The Government’s proposals do not address the real need to modernise the House of Lords, deal with grubby money in our politics, or introduce a fair voting system that delivers election outcomes that bear some resemblance to how people vote. Perhaps the greatest omission for my constituents is yet another failure to deal with the dysfunction of our planning system—centrally imposed housing targets without the same targets or focus on the infrastructure and public services needed to support them, whether that is healthcare, transport, or large-scale leisure. Councils are often blamed for not providing those services, but much of the fault really lies with central Government. On an economy that works for people, we face the twin challenges of small and local businesses being under massive pressure and some very large companies needing to be prodded to play fair and respect consumers. The Government’s proposals go some way towards dealing with the problems with big businesses, but totally absent from their agenda are things that would really help small and local companies, such as business rates reforms, measures to rejuvenate our high streets, and initiatives to encourage greater employment. The Government’s plans include some welcome measures to better protect consumer rights and reduce costs. The energy independence Bill and the electricity generator levy Bill are long overdue attempts to ensure that consumers feel the benefit of our move towards renewable electricity generation and accompanying grid upgrades, including by reducing the effect of electricity prices being determined by a small amount of gas power generation. However, we need more and faster action on home insulation, a heating oil price cap and the creation of an energy security bank to finance critical green energy generation upgrades. These steps are exactly what we need. Climate change prevention cannot be done to people; it must be done with them, and the benefits have to be very clear to people, economy and planet. The clean water Bill is an attempt to end the likes of Thames Water charging ever-higher water bills while delivering inadequate upgrades to reduce water leaks and sewage dumping, aided by a toothless Ofwat largely watching from the sidelines. What is missing from the Government’s proposals is the radicalism needed to assuage justified public anger by mandating water companies to publish the volume and concentration of discharges from emergency overflows and to end sewage dumping at key bathing sites by 2030, and by making all our water companies become customer-owned public benefit corporations. The King’s Speech also lacks a credible plan to help more people to get into the workplace, which will happen only with investment in skills, education and training that adapt to changing societal and economic needs, in improvements to the Access to Work programme, and in research and insight into the many reasons why some people do not work. On international matters, it is welcome that the Government have acknowledged the need to try to do something with their European partnership Bill. However, the Bill continues to reflect the Government’s self-delusion on the Europe issue. Those with expertise in the matter are clear that there is very little growth to be had by tinkering around the edges of our existing inadequate agreements with the European Union. Only by joining the customs union and single market will we regain the significant economic and security benefits of being part of humanity’s most successful peace and economic project. It is interesting that it apparently takes an undeclared leadership contest and crisis within the Labour Government for the idea even to start to be discussed and maybe accepted.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. Despite the Government’s ambitious house building targets, the charity Shelter believes that the current approach is not providing enough social and genuinely affordable homes. Will the Prime Minister end his Government’s warm embrace of the developer-led model, and instead heed Liberal Democrat calls for 150,000 social homes per year, and new powers for local councils to build them?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. At a recent meeting with members of Wantage chamber of commerce, local businesses were united in their concerns about business rates and unconvinced by recent Government tweaks that Ministers have just alluded to. Page 31 of Labour’s manifesto states:“The current business rates system disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets. In England, Labour will replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer”—

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her passionate introduction of the topic. I also thank the 238 of my constituents who signed the petition, the many who have written to me about it, and those who I have met at constituency surgeries. There are three key reasons why we need to do much better on animal testing and move towards ending it. First, it is unethical in many cases; it has distressing side effects and often continues the suffering of animals when completely unnecessary. Long-lasting confinement to small cages, continued lack of social interaction and intrusive experiments can all contribute to extreme emotional and physical effects. Secondly, animal testing leads to detachment from recognising that animals are living beings. According to the National Library of Medicine, the emotional and social behaviours of dogs and cats, for example, are comparable to those of young children; I declare an interest here, because my favourite animal is a cat. It is absolutely possible to have a conversation with a cat—I appreciate that many in this room will take that as further evidence for questioning my sanity, but I have had prolonged conversations with cats, albeit admittedly on their terms and using their language. One wonderful thing about cats is their enormous diversity of personalities: they all have their own character, likes and dislikes, and that is why they are so fascinating. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has said: “Animals in laboratories are treated like disposable laboratory equipment”, rather than as the emotional living beings that they are. Animals being tested on can experience psychological distress, including anxiety and depression. The third key reason is the availability of alternatives: there are several emerging human-relevant models that can replace animal testing—artificial intelligence has already been mentioned, but there is also the advanced use of human cells and tissues, which can hopefully provide more relevant results. Having mentioned cats, it is sad to see, in the 2024 statistics of scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain, that the number of experimental procedures on cats increased by 30% between 2023 and 2024. We need to be going in the other direction. Many of my constituents have also written to me expressing their concerns about the treatment of beagles—a topic that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) covered in detail—and voicing concern about the seemingly contradictory approach that the Government are taking. Although they published their long-awaited strategy on animal testing in November 2025, since then the Government have authorised the use of more than 6.5 million animals in experiments over the coming years. Those experiments authorised by the Home Office include monkeys being subjected to invasive brain surgery, tests to do with eyes being done on rabbits, bile being collected from dogs, and many other upsetting things that other hon. Members have also described. In conclusion, the Government are right to say that they are taking a step forward in their strategy, and I know that many campaigners will welcome that. They are also right that we need a realistic plan for how we can end all animal testing and find other ways to safely test new medicines and treatments. However, many of my constituents and many campaigners will feel that what has been proposed so far does not go fast or far enough. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Ministerial Code · Hansard source

  More

  I was reading the ministerial code just yesterday evening. Paragraph 2.1 states: “The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.” That provides clarity on how Ministers can be held to account by the Prime Minister. However, as the old saying goes, “Who watches the watchmen?” When there is a concern about whether the Prime Minister’s conduct goes against the ministerial code, does the Minister agree that the code itself needs strengthening so that the PM can be held to its standards?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Ministerial Code · Hansard source

  More

  1. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the ministerial code.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing a debate on this important topic, and the Backbench Business Committee for choosing it. We have heard from many hon. Members the important reasons the DVLA needs to improve. I do not have time to mention all the excellent contributions, but I highlight that of the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), who certainly need not have apologised for not using notes. In fact, the passion and authenticity of his speech show the rest of us that having fewer notes can often lead to much better contributions—alas, I have not managed to do that this afternoon. We have heard lots of reasons why a well-functioning DVLA really matters, including safety culture, which is so important for everybody on our roads. Only if the DVLA works, and if people have faith in it, will we be able to encourage everybody to do the right thing in relation to medical conditions that any of us could develop and which could affect our ability to drive safely. Faith in public institutions, and in the accountability of institutions with which we have an obligation to comply, is important. It is all the more important in the light of the 70 years of societal change—encouraged by Government policy—that have made the car an essential and almost inevitable form of transport for most in our country. The Government have rightly set out an ambitious road safety strategy that will impose additional duties and expectations on the DLVA, so we will need a better DVLA if that strategy is to succeed. Like other Members, I have had many constituents get in touch with me about issues that affect their ability to access jobs and contribute to the economy, and the personal independence their cars give them. I have constituents who have had very long, unexplained waits for licence renewal. That is often the real frustration: the accountability and the communication from the DVLA just are not there in many cases. Another constituent had a circular and extremely confusing communication merry-go-round between himself, the DVLA and medical personnel. He turned to me and my excellent casework team for help with how to emerge from that incredibly frustrating communication merry-go-round, because he did not know how to get out of it, despite his best efforts to engage with the process. We are in the midst of a vehicle technological revolution. Driverless taxis are being piloted in London, and electric vehicles are now commonplace. As these changes are felt on our roads, we need to have confidence in the regulator responsible for managing them. We need a dynamic organisation ready to adapt to the challenges that these changes will bring. Unfortunately, the DVLA has not given us confidence that it will be up to the task, and that is not just based on constituents’ experience; the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and a November 2024 Cabinet Office review have all found it wanting. The well-documented delays in medical driving licences show a system struggling to cope with demand. The 2023 Public Accounts Committee report found that over 3 million people had experienced long delays, with some losing employment and income as a result. Improvements have been made, with the average time to process medical licence cases being 44 days in 2024-25, down from 54 days the year before, but that is clearly still far too long. The DVLA is only facing more and more demands for its services, with an ageing population and the Government’s plan to introduce mandatory eye tests for over-70s. Without structural reform, this problem is not likely to improve any time soon. Equally, the DVLA’s capacity to administer an increasingly complex and rapidly changing vehicle excise duty regime is a concern. The current VED system is already complex and opaque, given that cars, heavy goods vehicles and motorbikes are all calculated according to different metrics. Shortly after the transition in April 2025, when electric vehicles began paying VED, the DVLA acknowledged issues with V5C vehicle logbooks displaying incorrect tax information. That understandably raised concerns about the robustness of the agency’s data and systems. At the 2025 Budget, the Government announced electric vehicle excise duty—eVED—a new tax payable alongside the existing VED from April 2028; there are far too many acronyms here, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that electric vehicle registrations accounted for a record 19.6% market share in 2024, this will put further administrative pressure on a DVLA that is already making mistakes and struggling to cope with demand. Finally, as driverless cars become more commonplace in the UK, the DVLA will play a central role in licensing, registration and data management for autonomous vehicles—a function for which the agency’s current legislative mandate and systems were not designed. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) highlighted some of the existing problems with the administration of licence plates. All these changes will place greater pressure on the agency, and confidence is low that it will be able to handle it, so the Government need to go faster in their reform of the DVLA. The 2024 report was a welcome start in identifying the structural problems. The Government now need to get on with the unglamorous but essential job of genuine and meaningful system reform, to ensure we have a regulator that is up to the job it faces. Although it is outside the scope of the debate, reform of the DVLA must go hand in hand with further reform of the DVSA to address the persistent backlog in practical driving tests. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and pay tribute to his constituent and their family. I am going to be talking quite a lot about what we can do to prevent such occurrences in the future.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that awareness raising and increasing understanding are key priorities in dealing with SUDEP and epilepsy in general. Patients with epilepsy carry a risk of premature death that is, on average, two to three times higher than in the general population, as has been outlined by Frontiers in Epidemiology . What is most devastating is the knowledge that 60% of epilepsy-related deaths each year are believed to be preventable, according to the European Journal of Neurology , w ith SUDEP accounting for many of these deaths.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his tribute to his constituent, and I look forward to working with him and others on this issue. The checklist, commissioned by NHS Midlands and developed by SUDEP Action, is designed for commissioners and providers of care. There is hope that it will be red-flagged in annual health checks for people with learning disabilities, as the hon. Gentleman has said. Despite the existence of this high-risk cohort, most families were, like Clive’s, unaware of SUDEP and epilepsy risk despite learnings from earlier deaths. They were never given the information they needed, and the mistakes of the past continue to be repeated. Recent research by the European Journal of Neurology surveying neurologists found that only one fifth discussed SUDEP with all patients. That speaks to an unacceptable systemic failure. More than 20 years after national guidance was introduced, young people and their families are still being left in the dark. So what needs to be done? SUDEP Action has developed practical safety tools to empower neighbourhoods: the SUDEP and seizure safety checklist; the EpSMon app, which helps people understand their personal epilepsy risks; and the Charlie card to support risk reduction and communication across care settings. We know that where the adult checklist is used, the rate of SUDEP conversations has risen from 20% to 80% and risks have fallen. But the challenges are vast. Progress is fragmented, it is far too slow, and at a time of rising inequalities all too often the risks are getting worse. The series of prevention of future deaths reports into epilepsy reflects broader patterns: missed opportunities; a SUDEP and epilepsy risk communication gap; a failure to act; and a culture that too often fails to listen to families.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he is absolutely right to raise prison as another setting where people are often vulnerable and where more needs to be done in relation to SUDEP. Sepsis, which has a similar history of systemic failure, will shortly benefit from a modern service framework co-produced with the UK Sepsis Trust. Meanwhile, neither epilepsy nor neurology is explicitly mentioned in the NHS 10-year plan. There is a mandatory national framework to protect unborn children from anti-seizure medication risks, but there is no mandatory national framework to protect people living with epilepsy from SUDEP and epilepsy deaths, despite 30 years of evidence and repeated calls for action. SUDEP Action provides intensive assistance on 60 to 70 investigations of deaths each year and sees the toll of long, drawn-out processes and, far too often, a defensive culture by default. It also sees a painful accountability gap where inquests are not even held and families feel silenced. The complacency around SUDEP, seizures and epilepsy, which was first called out by Liam Donaldson as chief medical officer in his annual report in 2021, carries wider harms for communities and persists in too many places. Moving towards my conclusion, I wish to outline some key asks for the Minister. There are hundreds more stories from families that I wish I could have shared today, but I always endeavour to be as brief and concise as possible in this setting. My thoughts are with all in the bereaved community, whom I stand by and will continue to campaign for. In order to effectively support the wonderful charities that are doing so much to prevent SUDEP and support families through this, I have four questions for the Minister. First, will the Minister commit to developing a modern framework for SUDEP? This would require policymakers working on epilepsy to work with those with lived experience via SUDEP Action and to spread good practice. In addition to mandatory information on side effects from anti-seizure medicines, there must be a framework for person-centred information about SUDEP and seizure risk, as well as national training initiatives that support whole-system learning. Epilepsy and SUDEP must be included in neighbourhood healthcare, integrated with acute hospitals, social care and community health settings, as well as in prisons as the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) said, to maximise the opportunity for prevention. There must be safe levels of epilepsy specialist doctors and nurses in local areas. Improving the quality of the annual check for learning disabilities by including a SUDEP check for people with epilepsy would be a significant step forward in upskilling primary care. Secondly, will the Minister commit today to arranging a meeting with SUDEP Action? Ministerial colleagues have offered engagement on prevention of future deaths reports with SUDEP Action, promising meetings in letters sent in January and February, but such meetings have yet to take place. Thirdly, will the Minister support a national oversight mechanism in the Hillsborough Bill? Families have been campaigning for an amendment to the Hillsborough law so that there can be a single, permanent oversight body to prevent the same mistakes that have happened across different tragedies, such as Grenfell, the Post Office, Horizon and infected blood. It would track progress across Departments and public authorities, publicly report on failures, delays or resistance to reform, and prevent the repeated cycles of injustice that are seen after major disasters and scandals. Finally, will the Minister accept an invitation to visit my constituency to see the work of SUDEP Action, a charity built by families and clinical champions from grief, sustained by courage and determined to stop deaths? I am grateful for the Minister’s time in this Adjournment debate and look forward to her response.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. I thank her for her tireless campaigning and offer my condolences for her loss. My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage is the home to SUDEP Action, a charity that is local, national and international in its impact. In 1995, five bereaved women came together around a kitchen table to found the charity in tribute to Alan, aged 27; Matthew, 21; Natalie, 22; and William, 22—all of whom had died, with the condition unrecognised beforehand. Jane Hanna, Sheila Pring, Catherine Brookes, Sue Kelk and Jennifer Preston faced despair together and chose to build hope. Since 2020, SUDEP Action has worked alongside the Epilepsy Research Institute to identify tackling epilepsy deaths as a No. 1 research priority. The key challenge that SUDEP Action faces is that research insight does not reliably or quickly reach neurology consultations, primary care or social care. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines exist, but services are inadequately supported to implement them. Jane Hanna from SUDEP Action told me that my own constituents face nine-month waits for a first seizure clinic and waits of nine to 12 months for follow-ups. She told me that waits of this magnitude, such as we are experiencing in my constituency, are unsafe. Her partner Alan waited for four months and died suddenly five months later. Waits such as these are not confined to my constituency; they are reflective of a structural problem across the country. Free safety tools exist to tackle the lack of knowledge and the complacency around seizures and SUDEP, but systemic issues are difficult to shift because of poor access, poor medicine management, failure to communicate risk and poor recording of deaths. An independent review was named after Clive Treacey. Clive died at 47 in 2017 in a hospital setting where he had lived for 10 years. The report on his life is shocking for this country in the 21st century. The Minister might be aware of the debate secured last year by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who I am pleased to see in his place tonight, and of the response from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who supported the Clive Treacey checklist.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy · Hansard source

  More

  In the United Kingdom, more than 600,000 people—one in a 100—live with epilepsy and every day around 80 people are diagnosed. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, abbreviated as SUDEP, is the term used when a person with epilepsy dies suddenly and unexpectedly. At least 21 people die every week in the UK from SUDEP, and even that is an underestimate, with epilepsy deaths believed to be under recorded. I will raise two key themes in this debate: first, the SUDEP and epilepsy risk communication and understanding gap, and secondly, the inherent systemic failure to prevent deaths following prevention of future deaths reports. I will conclude by outlining my key asks, which are needed for lasting and meaningful change. The causes of epilepsy-related deaths range from prolonged seizures and accidents to drownings and suicide; however, SUDEP is a devastating worst outcome, accounting for half of all epilepsy fatalities. According to the charity SUDEP Action and the Epilepsy Research Institute UK, the highest rates of death are in areas of deprivation and among vulnerable groups, such as those with worsening mental health, people with learning disabilities or autism, pregnant women and children. SUDEP affects all ages, but we know that it disproportionately affects the young, with a peak in people’s 20s and 30s.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman’s ask is entirely legitimate and justified. We hope that the current Scottish Government will, in the first instance, build on the wonderful achievement of the Scottish Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition in 2003 of introducing a Scottish Mountain Rescue grant. In terms of our asks of the Minister, it is clear that the Government need to better support mountain rescue teams. At the very least, the Government need to ensure that they are not adding pressure through cumbersome bureaucracy and administrative costs that stretch their finances further. That is the risk of the current interpretation of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 and the impact they will have on mountain rescue teams. Those regulations are very serious, and we understand that they came from the findings of the inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombings, but their implementation should be proportionate to the risk and the nature of the organisations concerned. Mountain rescue teams have been in touch with Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament to raise concerns over the impact those regulations will have on their ability to provide services at temporary sporting events in remote locations, such as fell races or mountain bike events. They have emphatically said that, as things stand, the regulations will mean that they cease providing rescue cover at those events, due to excessive administrative burden and costs. Without cover at events, mountain rescue teams will be forced to scramble from their homes should an injury occur, increasing the wait time for patients, with potentially catastrophic implications for patients’ health. We hope that the Government will heed the calls from mountain rescue teams and the Liberal Democrats for a carve-out for rescue cover. Steps should be taken to ensure that that change is as smooth as possible, and that the negative impact of the cost is mitigated as far as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) raised these concerns in Committee with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who stated that he did “not want small events…to be overregulated” or “volunteers to be over-burdened with financial registration fees” —[ Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 15 April 2026; c. 9.] He promised to look into the issue with the Care Quality Commission. The Minister present today is not responsible for this piece of delegated legislation, but I hope she will be able to assist with those discussions in the Department of Health and Social Care, and that she, with the Department, will consider some of the ideas put forward for supporting mountain rescue services if the changes are enacted. If the changes take effect, they will be catastrophic for many mountain rescue services. It is essential that Government support via other routes is ramped up to mitigate the impact, so that mountain rescue can continue to provide the critical functions we have heard about in the debate.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her passionate, articulate exposition of the great work that mountain rescue does in her constituency. We also heard the passion for mountain rescue and the great outdoors from the hon. Members for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), and from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and a few others who intervened. I too have a passion for the great outdoors and mountain walking. I spent a bit of the recess that we just had doing some of that in south Wales. It is often quite hard to articulate exactly why walking up a hill or a mountain is so tempting. Of course there is the reason that it is there, but beyond that it is the combination of the satisfaction of having done so, the exhilaration of overcoming a challenge and pushing one’s own boundaries. But the risk that we have heard about today underlines the importance of our all respecting the hills and mountains and the great outdoors more widely. With greater numbers seeking enjoyment of it, but with skills such as paper map reading and compass navigation not necessarily what they were, mountain rescue will continue to play an essential role, particularly as even those with reasonable experience in mountain environments can get things wrong, experience bad luck or get into bad habits. Alas, I know that only too well myself. A combination of bad habits and a bit of bad luck meant that I needed to be rescued by mountain rescue in Italy, when 36 hours on the side of a mountain with no food and water turned into the not entirely welcome exhilaration of being winched on to a helicopter and then spending 27 hours in an Italian hospital. Thanks to mountain rescue, I lived to tell the tale and learned from my experience. I have significantly added to my previous experience and made sure that when I do these things, I have better risk mitigations. I pay tribute to that particular branch of the Italian mountain rescue, as well as the mountain rescue teams who have saved so many people in this country. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) in his comments on Lowland Rescue Oxfordshire, which was honoured to receive the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service. Between its creation in 2008 and 2022 its volunteers attended more than 600 incidents, equating to more than 18,000 hours deployed on searches, both in and out of Oxfordshire. They were initially focused on foot search, but they expanded their skills to incorporate water rescue, dog search and drone search. As we have heard, mountain rescue teams are a de facto fourth emergency service, especially during major incidents such as flooding and heavy snowfall, yet they do not have the equivalent funding streams or protections of other services. As climate change leads to more serious weather events in the UK we will, alas, come to rely on mountain rescue services more and more—and that reliance will not be reserved just for avid hikers, climbers, mountain bikers or other forms of adventure, but for whole communities, as flooding events become more common. In some teams, annual call-outs now exceed 150 to 300 incidents. As we have heard, drivers of the growth in those incident numbers include an increase in outdoor recreation and tourism, social media-driven locations attracting increased numbers of inexperienced visitors, and the impact of climate change on weather-related incidents. The accounts of Mountain Rescue England and Wales show a total income of approximately £1.25 million in 2024, with the majority coming from donations and charitable activities rather than Government support. Since 2011, the UK Government have provided grant funding, historically around £200,000 to £250,000 per year across the whole UK. That funding is project-based rather than being core funding, and is primarily for equipment and training, rather than operational sustainability. That is a challenge faced by many other third-sector organisations—charities, museums and so on—where the grant funding system is focused on capital rather than operational sustainability. As we heard from the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan, Scotland operates a distinct model. The Scottish Government provide direct annual grant funding to Scottish Mountain Rescue in recognition of its team’s role in delivering land-based search and rescue on behalf of Police Scotland. That includes an annual grant totalling more than £300,000 per year, which is distributed to teams via an agreed formula; allocation reflects call-out volume, team size and assets, including funding in the Scottish Government’s fairer funding pilot, providing assurance of continued funding until at least March 2027 and giving those organisations the ability to plan ahead.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on consecutive days, Sir Alec. I commend the proposer, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for articulately outlining the long-running saga of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, and a saga it is: the closure of this bridge has outlasted a pandemic and accompanied our departure from the European Union. Hopefully, the Government will take action so that not many other national or global events are added to the list of things that this bridge has witnessed. It was agreed under the previous Conservative Government that the £250 million cost of fixing the bridge would be split evenly between the Department for Transport, Transport for London and Hammersmith and Fulham council. The current Labour Government have yet to find a way to honour that agreement or find another solution. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) articulately said, the ongoing cost to Hammersmith and Fulham council, with nearly £50 million already spent just to maintain the bridge, shows that the bill will continue to mount, absent a permanent solution. In our country, the failure to take long-term decisions to reach a conclusion often means that we spend a comparable amount of money maintaining an inadequate status quo in the meantime. London is one of the most congested cities in Europe, and the bridges crossing the Thames are the central arteries for traffic of all kinds through the city. It should be unthinkable that a bridge is sitting underused with no clear action being taken. Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament and councillors in west London have consistently held the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue and will continue to do so. As well as the long campaign on this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in relation to its impact on Richmond borough, the hon. Member for Putney is correct to highlight the impact of the closure of Hammersmith bridge on Putney, where long traffic jams on Lower Richmond Road, Putney Bridge Road and Putney High Street, combined with a sub-optimally designed junction at Putney bridge, hit residents on a daily basis. Last weekend, while visiting the area, I learned of local Liberal Democrats campaigning hard for Wandsworth council to play a greater role, alongside the two most directly affected boroughs, to improve the current situation. I declare an interest as a former Wandsworth resident, and my recent visit showed how little had changed for public transport and active travel since I lived in that area. In addition to the closure of the bridge, that is why there is significant car traffic and a lot of congestion, including in areas well away from the two bridges that we have discussed. South-west London is being let down by the failure to get a grip of this issue, and that points to the struggle to be competent about infrastructure in many areas of the UK. The costs to rectify Hammersmith bridge are small compared with those, for example, of the proposed lower Thames crossing, which this Labour Government have not hesitated to back. As has been said, the Hammersmith bridge issue speaks to a structural problem for London infrastructure, in that the relationship between Transport for London and councils is not always best placed to ensure that planning and decision making on significant infrastructure happens on an effective cross-borough or cross-city basis. Not unusually, the previous Conservative Government failed to get a grip of this mess. In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, stated that the Conservative Government would “not allow this” bridge “to remain closed”. The Conservatives then sat on the business case for repairing the bridge for years. If the Conservatives had kept their promise, the repairs could have been completed by now for £100 million less than the current estimated price tag. We all hope that the Minister will commit to resolving the issue and give us hope that this Government will end the embarrassing inertia and decision-making paralysis. A minimum key ask is that we increase the usefulness of the bridge by restoring it to enable cross-river bus services and emergency service vehicle access. Even if the bridge were to reopen to motor traffic, we need to go much further and think more boldly about the chronic congestion in London suburbs. One option is a massive road-building programme, such as that attempted in the ’60s and ’70s as part of the London ringways programme, which was dropped because it was deeply unpopular. The only alternative is to transform public transport, walking and cycling. TfL is showing some leadership on the former, with proposals for the west London orbital between Hounslow and Hendon, although that does not specifically help with the cross-river issue. My earlier brief and amateurish study of maps shows that the density of river crossings in London is markedly different from that in Paris, with Paris having almost double the number of river crossings on a 20 km section to the west of the city comparable to London. If the Labour Government can find £10 billion for the lower Thames crossing—admittedly with some private financing, but they have already committed at least £3 billion to that—they should surely be able to find the price tag needed to do the right thing for communities in south-west London by fixing Hammersmith bridge. I hope that this Government can seize the opportunity to do the right thing.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing this important and sensitive debate with his customary eloquence. I thank the 464 of my constituents who signed the e-petition, placing my constituency in the top 25 nationally for signatories. I also want to thank the many constituents who have been in touch with me and my team—many of whom I have met at constituency surgeries—about their maternity experiences. This debate is important because of the familial and societal importance of safe, reassuring and comfortable pregnancy and childbirth, and all the anxiety and exhilaration that comes with that. I know that not from my own experience, but from that of friends and constituents. I have never seen people cry so much or so intensely as at the funeral of my friend Steve and Yue’s daughter. They, along with my friend Joel, who also lost a baby, have been superbly supported by Sands, the stillbirth and neonatal charity. They have all now experience successful births. I want to emphasise what this debate should be about. It is definitely not about criticising hard-working and dedicated individual midwives and health workers, who so often do an amazing job in very challenging circumstances. It is about improving the top-level leadership, culture, staffing levels and processes that affect maternity units. In my constituency, we have local maternity units in community hospitals in Wantage and Wallingford. These are welcomed by many constituents who would otherwise have to make what is often a long journey to Oxford. Otherwise, births happen in the maternity unit at Oxford’s John Radcliffe hospital. I visited the department in September 2025 and was given a comprehensive tour, including the new bereavement ward. I thank all the staff I met, who were committed to improving the care there. The department-level leadership was receptive to feedback and acknowledged that care at the John Radcliffe hospital has at times gone wrong. That is important, given the many constituents who have contacted me about their experiences at the John Radcliffe hospital. I have met a number of constituents who have been affected by the traumatic and deeply tragic circumstances of stillbirth, complicated births that have resulted in lifelong and serious disabilities for children, post-traumatic stress disorder for mothers or a lack of support. I will tell some of those constituents’ stories; I am grateful for their consent that I do so. I met Julie Ray at a constituency surgery some months ago. Her granddaughter Harper Rose was stillborn at the John Radcliffe hospital in May 2023. Julie believes that her death could have been avoided. The mother had a high body mass index. Although it was highlighted early on in her pregnancy, the midwife-led care she received did not always appreciate the potential for serious complications at birth. She was supposed to receive consultant-led care, but that did not happen and important decisions were left to midwives. Despite the plethora of maternity guidelines provided by bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the website perinatal.org.uk, Julie was surprised that there were no more specific and binding rules that hospitals had to follow. Julie wants to see a maternity system in place, designed to prevent avoidable death and injury. She also wants coroners’ offices to be used for the post mortems of babies. Harper’s post mortem was carried out by the John Radcliffe hospital’s own pathology laboratory, which creates concerns about a lack of independence and the potential for unconscious bias. My constituent Anna lost her granddaughter Wyllow-Raine. Anna has met the noble Baroness Amos more than once and is actively engaged in the Amos review, for which all my constituents have expressed their gratitude. They have high expectations of the review. Anna’s daughter, the mother of Wyllow-Raine, wants to see real accountability being taken for mistakes. She believes that a blood sugar test should have been done on her baby, as per NICE guidelines, and if it had been, Wyllow-Raine would still be here. They question the value of guidelines if hospitals are not following them. Anna would like to see a national inquiry into the Oxford university hospitals trust and the John Radcliffe hospital specifically. My constituent Joanna was left to give birth without a midwife or pain relief, so the safe arrival of her children was essentially down to luck rather than to proper maternity care. She has raised concerns around issues of consent, as well as long waiting times after requesting her notes from the hospital. A constituent who wishes to remain anonymous had birth complications during the delivery of her son in 2019 that left him with extremely severe lifelong disabilities. He requires round-the-clock care and cannot meet any of his own needs. Engagement from the Oxford university hospitals trust has been lacking to date. Finally, Natasha and her partner tragically lost their first-born son, Arlo Huxley Harewood. After experiencing a tremendously difficult pregnancy, she was left alone in a room with the news of her loss. She felt that she was “fearmongered” when she was informed that if things turned, she would need to go for an emergency C-section under general anaesthetic with a tube down her throat: “I was being prodded and poked for blood samples, a catheter fitted, induced vaginally, given a blood transfusion, asked to sign away and deliver my passed baby boy, thankfully naturally.” Aggravatingly, a few days after the birth of her stillborn child, there was mention of HELLP syndrome when she was in the bereavement ward. She has been left with feelings of self-blame, which no grieving mother should ever have to go through. As we have heard, the petition is part of a wider campaign led by the former Conservative MP for Stafford East, Theo Clarke, and by reality TV star Louise Thompson. I join my constituents in thanking them for their work. This year, they launched this petition to appoint a maternity commissioner to improve maternity care for mums and babies. A 2024 inquiry, led by the birth trauma all-party parliamentary group and by Theo Clarke, recommended that a maternity commissioner be appointed alongside a national maternity strategy to ensure mums and babies are safe and looked after with professionalism and compassion. A maternity commissioner would oversee and introduce past recommendations. Advocates have emphasised that a maternity commissioner is necessary to restore public confidence in NHS maternity services and ensure accountability. On average, a woman gives birth every 56 seconds in the UK, yet one in three women describe their childbirth experience as traumatic. Sadly, post-traumatic stress disorder affects one in 20 mothers after giving birth. The rate of women dying during or soon after pregnancy in the UK has increased by 20% over the past decade, a trend that I am sure we are all concerned about. A 2024 Care Quality Commission report based on an inspection of 131 maternity units found that 65% of them were not safe for women to give birth in. It also found that 47% of trusts require improvement in safety and a further 18% were rated inadequate. It stated that “we are concerned about the potential normalising of serious harm in maternity.” I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats have launched a maternity rescue package to make Britain the safest country in the world to have a baby, with high-quality care wherever we live. Our package has much in common with what the petitioners are calling for, and we hope that they will be encouraged that many of us in Westminster are listening. A national maternity commissioner would oversee improved standards of care nationally, and a director of midwifery would be appointed in every maternity service alongside an extra 300 consultant midwives to drive clinical excellence. It would also see specialist doctors present on every maternity unit 24/7 and provide one-to-one midwifery care to every woman during labour. That would ensure that it is no more dangerous to give birth at night or at the weekend than at any other time. Previous research found that 73% of maternity units in England do not have a consultant present at night, despite most births taking place outside working hours. Many negligence claims for poor maternity care are linked to failings in care outside regular working hours. Too many families have been affected by birth trauma, and reform is desperately needed. Since 2015, there have been many national reviews into the safety of maternity services, as well as high-profile investigations into care at individual maternity trusts, with calls for a national inquiry into maternity care. That is why I welcome Baroness Amos’s review, which will be valuable as a centralising piece of work, but it is the latest in a string of national and local reviews or inquiries, which together have produced over 700 recommendations. I hope the Minister will enlighten us as to why this latest review will be different. The reviews show so many similar themes: failure to listen to women, lack of time for training and strengthening teamwork between staff, inadequate staffing and high levels of burnout, lack of proper assessment, poor management of risk, unsuitable estates and failure to learn when things go wrong. After so many reviews, it is clear that we need improved standards of care nationally. The recommendation for a maternity commissioner is widely supported across the parties. My constituents want to see a clear timeline for the appointment of a commissioner, if that is something the Government decide to support, so that learning and change happen this time.

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree with my hon. Friend that accountability to this House is always a critical consideration. The second concern is Palantir’s track record and motivations. I shall not repeat too much of what others have said, but its close ties with the US Government and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, as well as its background in security and surveillance more widely, are a key concern, as well as its role supporting the Israel Defence Forces in the Gaza war. My biggest concern and that of the dozens of my constituents who have written in are the geopolitical sovereignty and data protection implications. Dozens of constituents have contacted me about Palantir’s work, business practices and leadership, which raise ethical and civil liberty concerns that are not compatible with UK values around privacy, democratic accountability and the responsible use of public data. Indeed, a YouGov poll in partnership with Foxglove, a tech justice campaign group, before the contract was awarded found that almost half of adults would opt out of sharing health data with the NHS if Palantir was granted the FDP contract, and under half of NHS trusts have started using the technology due to patient and doctor opposition. There is a strong case for sovereignty over the UK’s data given that many allies in Europe also do not feel comfortable using American companies like Palantir. There are many suitable UK companies or those from trusted and reliable allies. For example, Kahootz based in my constituency provides a lot of software to Government agencies. The House has been clear in this debate about the concerns, and we all await the Minister’s response as to what will happen next.

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I commend the determined and forensic work on this topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley). The key reason I am attending and speaking today is because we love our national health service. For all its challenges and flaws, it is a key part of British society and identity, and we all want it to succeed. There is no question that improved stewardship and use of data are important, but they have to be done with public consent and trust. Palantir’s involvement in some of the critical change processes in the NHS places that at risk. My first concern is the process and governance around appointing Palantir to its UK contracts. The process by which that was done has not been clear and, as others have said, it is essential that this Government seize the opportunity to do the right thing and come clean on exactly how that contract was awarded to a company mired in controversy and with no previous healthcare specialist expertise.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

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

• 26 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 26 Mar 2026 · Pothole Repairs: Government Funding · Hansard source

  More

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

• 25 Mar 2026 · Flooding in Ladygrove, Didcot · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to present a petition, signed by 65 residents of Derwent Avenue, Thurne View and Eden Court in Didcot, relating to years of flooding on their street, and the perennial risk of flooding to their properties. I hope that Thames Water and the Government will take note. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Common urges the Government to ensure that Thames Water confirms that all possible measures will be put in place to mitigate against further sewage flood events from manhole 2201. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Derwent Avenue, Thurne View and Eden Court in Ladygrove in the constituency of Didcot and Wantage, Declares that Thames Water must take all possible measures to mitigate against repeat sewage flood occurrences from manhole 2201. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that Thames Water confirms that all possible measures will be put in place to mitigate against further sewage flood events from manhole 2201. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003180]

• 23 Mar 2026 · Financial Assistance to Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the Minister for moving the motion, which the Liberal Democrats are also minded to support. It is vital that the UK life sciences sector, which is such an important part of our economy, is supported and has the potential to thrive and compete on the global stage. That is not just for economic reasons, but so that the UK can respond, and contribute to responses, to future health emergencies and pandemics, given its focus on research and development and its manufacturing capacity in medicines, medical technology and diagnostics. The only concern we might have is based on the Competition and Markets Authority assessment of this proposal, which identifies potential downsides for small and medium-sized enterprises. I have many of those in my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage—for example, Adaptimmune, AMS Biotechnology and Bounce Biomedical on Milton Park, and Accentus Medical and the internationally respected diamond light source facility, used by academia and industry to conduct research in life and physical sciences, on the Harwell Science and Innovation Campus. It would be interesting to hear a little from the Minister about how the investment set out in the motion will benefit small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as the very large companies it is clearly most focused on.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  Councils certainly can do more to better spend the community infrastructure levy, but that partly takes account of the wildly complicated planning system and the negotiations that are needed with developers for both that and section 106. Perhaps the Minister could share what the Government are doing to learn from other countries and to look at better approaches to road design, maintenance and repair. From my travels in, for example, Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands, potholes are either unknown or very rare. If I can briefly deviate from my usual tendencies towards pessimism and cynicism, and lead my colleagues to wonder about my wellbeing, in an ideal world I wonder whether this debate shows that we should try to move away from pretending that the main issue is who, from a party perspective, runs our councils. It is far more about central Government versus local government, how our local government is structured and funded, and unsustainable local government expectations, given the funding that they are provided. We need significant reform on that, so that we can get our roads in a better place.