Olly Glover MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for introducing this very important topic. He made some important points in his speech, and he was on to a strong one when he talked about the importance of remoteness and rurality as a factor in local authority costs that should be taken into account with funding. As we have heard from several hon. Members, the Government’s changes to local government finances are going to have a hard impact on rural areas that are already struggling with this critical issue. We have heard from hon. Members from many counties today. I am going to list them all, because it illustrates the national nature of the issue, although we all have the temptation to think that it is down to which parties run local authorities and which do not. We have heard two examples each from Shropshire and Sussex; examples from Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Kent; two each from Wiltshire, Yorkshire, Somerset; and examples from Nottinghamshire, East Sussex, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, the Scottish highlands, Cambridgeshire and Cumbria. That is an enormously diverse geographical list and shows the sheer scale of the problem that we are facing. In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, I have repeated examples of major problems with roads that really drive people mad, particularly the A417 through Mellors Garage, Challow station, Stanford, and Shellingford crossroads. There are also problems on the A417 through Upton and Blewbury, and on many roads in Didcot. They are just a few examples. Many residents look to the current council for responsibility, but the reality is that this is a long-term issue and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) mentioned, it is the legacy of the previous Conservative Administration who, in Oxfordshire, implemented a “managed decline” policy in 2014. That was partly driven by national funding constraints. Today’s debate proves that this is a nationwide crisis and that we should treat it as such. Poorly lit, often narrow and fast rural roads are far more dangerous than urban ones. According to road safety charity Brake, road users are three times more likely to be killed on a rural road than an urban road. That is an indictment of the previous Conservative Government’s utter neglect of Britain’s roads, with the total maintenance backlog now standing at more than £18 billion. The 2026 annual local authority road maintenance survey estimates that 16% of the local road network in England and Wales is “in poor condition”. It is costing road users dearly, with research suggesting that UK drivers are paying, on average, more than £300 a year to repair damage caused by potholes, and rural drivers highlight worse conditions than urban areas. It is not just drivers. A 2022 survey by Cycling UK found that “21% of cyclists have been involved in an accident because of a pothole” and among those, 22% suffered a personal injury; 88% of riders reported having to take a dangerous manoeuvre to avoid a road defect, and 63% experienced bike damage due to poor road surfaces. The current road maintenance guidance focuses primarily on when defects damage motor vehicles—a criterion that fails to capture the far lower threshold at which cyclists can be catastrophically harmed. Perhaps adoption of that higher standard for repairs could also move us closer to a greater focus on prevention and preventive works. This issue relates to a wider crisis in local government finances, with the cost of social care and special educational needs provision accounting for an ever-growing proportion of local authority budgets. In that context, the Labour Government’s decision to cut Oxfordshire county council’s central Government funding by £24.1 million over three years is a grave concern. Clearly, money is a big part of the problem we face, but perhaps the Minister can share what the Government are doing to learn from other countries and to look at better approaches to road design, maintenance and repair.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Draft Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

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

• 5 Mar 2026 · Women’s Health Strategy: Endometriosis and Fibroids · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for taking time for this intervention on her passionate speech about the huge number of women who suffer from endometriosis. Given the challenges with diagnosis, and the enormous pain and suffering that she has outlined, does she agree that far more money and Government support need to go into research, so that we can better understand this condition and how to diagnose and treat it?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Environmental Protection and Biodiversity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I also praise the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for his passion for nature and the topics we are discussing. My constituency has seen some of the fastest housing growth in the country: 8,000 new houses added between 2011 and 2021. I understand the need for housing, but a major concern for local residents is how to balance the objective of more housing with the objectives of protecting our green environment and ensuring that amenities are there to protect the housing. The constituency has many wonderful and rare habitats that require protection. If we fail to do that, there will be wide-reaching, catastrophic impacts to our environment. The Letcombe Brook chalk stream is a precious habitat running from Letcombe Regis to East Hanney, providing water for local use. The Letcombe Brook project does great work protecting it. The River Thames, which also runs through my constituency, has often been subject to sewage dumping, due to the well documented issues with Thames Water. I pay tribute to local organisations that do so much to protect nature and make it accessible. I recently met members of the Earth Trust in Little Wittenham, who took me on a walk around the Wittenham Clumps. Their work is transformative, including the recent restoration of a neglected coppice in Little Wittenham wood into a thriving, biodiverse habitat, encouraging bees with new apiaries on their farm and levelling up opportunities for environmental education by removing barriers of cost and transport to resource-stretched schools. In the towns in my constituency, Sustainable Didcot, Sustainable Wantage and Sustainable Wallingford are doing fantastic work to lead community climate change action through projects on waste, transport, food, biodiversity and social justice. Finally, the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust manages nature reserves, monitors species and runs projects to support declining species such as water voles. All those organisations need Government support to ensure that they can continue to play their part in protecting nature and our environment.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Even taking into account the Lords amendments, we continue to welcome steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. I repeat the Liberal Democrat point from Second Reading that SAF is just one step in that direction; in the longer term, it needs to complement rather than detract from investment in zero-carbon flight technology. I thank the Government for their engagement in the other place and for bringing forward these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness Pidgeon for her work and advocacy to strengthen the Bill. To that end, the Liberal Democrats support all the amendments. We support Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which will help to provide revenue certainty that can relate only to UK-produced aviation fuel, and Lords amendments 4 and 5, which will simplify industry consultation requirements, while noting the way in which Lords amendment 6 will bring in an overarching consultation requirement. We support the duty placed on the Secretary of State through Lords amendment 6 to consult before making regulations under the Act, including its focus on consultation and engagement with the devolved Administrations, which, of course, is always important. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I only regret that I lack the skill of the shadow Minister in making aviation puns.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is much that is positive in the Bill. I want to touch briefly on one point that we have not discussed much so far, which is strengthening protections for staff who work on elections. They are critical to the safe and transparent delivery of our democracy. As hon. Members have said, what is missing is something that would enable a fundamental change that restored faith and fresh thinking to our politics: a change to the voting system, to make it more proportional. One party, regardless of how good or bad it is, cannot hope to represent the huge range of ideas and opinions in our society effectively. This is not Lib Dem self-interest speaking, because in 2024 we finally achieved an outcome in seats under first past the post that was comparable to our vote share. I would like proportional representation for many reasons. I would like it for the tactical voters whom I told in 2024 that I would campaign for a system in which they did not have to feel forced to vote for me. I appreciate that the Secretary of State may not be persuaded by my opinion, but perhaps he will be by an open letter about the Bill, written by over 50 leading academics, including Professors Tim Bale, Rob Ford and Vernon Bogdanor, which said: “The collision of a multi-party electorate with a voting system designed for just two parties is creating new risks for Britain. If the government wishes…to protect and enhance the integrity of British democracy…it would be wise to engage with these risks.” Many Labour Members agree with that. A majority of the 158 members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections are Labour Members. A record 60% of the public support proportional representation, up from 52% in 2023, which was itself a record at the time. While votes at 16 is to be welcomed, I note that widespread research, including from the respected More in Common firm, shows that 78% of the voting public are disillusioned with politics. Labour’s 2023 national policy paper acknowledged that widespread alienation and distrust among voters. Alas, the Bill will not address that very worrying situation. The Secretary of State, in his opening remarks, cited the German and Dutch good practice mirrored in aspects of the Bill. It is good that he did so. I hope that he will study further German and Dutch good practice; their electoral systems tend to deliver higher turnouts than ours, in a much more proportional manner. I appreciate that that is a big ask. If he wishes to prevent those 16 and 17-year-olds who will soon be able to vote from falling into the same democratic despair felt by many of us, I hope that he will start by supporting the call from the APPG for fair elections for a national commission on electoral reform.

• 26 Feb 2026 · Arts and Culture: Local Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to encourage local governments to support arts and culture.

• 26 Feb 2026 · Arts and Culture: Local Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Local councils in my Oxfordshire constituency work hard to secure public arts funding through developer contributions for our growing population. However, some existing cultural venues are struggling. The much-loved Vale and Downland Museum in Wantage is having to rely on one-off grants to plug funding gaps and has had an annual average deficit of £24,000 a year since 2020. In that context, what more can the Minister do to help our local councils to provide funding for museums and cultural venues in my part of Oxfordshire?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Eating Disorders Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Feb 2026 · Eating Disorders Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Feb 2026 · AEA Technology Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I understand what the Minister is saying about pre-1997 indexation, but that is not the primary issue. The calculations by the campaigners about the difference this makes to their losses is that it is trivial—very small. I do not have the exact percentage, but it is probably a 5% difference, or something along those lines. I am very happy to share that with the Minister. That does not address the key issue, which is that Government guidance was incorrect at the time, and that led people to make decisions on the basis of wrong information. I suggest to the Minister that pre-1997 indexation is a different issue.

• 26 Feb 2026 · AEA Technology Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Let me start by setting out some context and background to how we got to the AEA Technology pension scheme scandal. I will set out the moral case for redress, sum up some of the independent evidence supporting the pension campaigners’ cause, and address some previous comments made on the issue by the Government and some amendments relating to it that are currently going through the House of Lords. I hope that we can begin on a subject of agreement. I hope that we all recognise the vital importance of pensions as part of our financial and life planning system and the importance of having a pension system in which everybody can trust. I hope the Minister will agree that that is particularly important, given that a Money and Pensions Service survey in 2024 found that 29% of 18 to 25-year-olds in work have never contributed to a private or workplace pension. The AEA Technology pension scandal is a profound injustice that has affected thousands of individuals and families across the country. In 1996, the commercial division of the UK Atomic Energy Authority was privatised to become AEA Technology. The Government gave Parliament a number of assurances about its employees’ pensions, which led to 90% of employees transferring their pensions over. The assurances included one from Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who said in 1995 that “employees of other parts of the authority which may be divested need not be concerned about their future pension arrangements. It is the authority’s clear policy, irrespective of employment law, that employees who move to the private sector should be able to join a pension scheme which is broadly comparable with the authority pension scheme. Indeed, to do otherwise might mean that employees had a claim for constructive dismissal.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 1995; Vol. 566, c. 1289.] However, the new scheme turned out to be less favourable. While the UKAEA scheme had a specific provision that the Government would pay the benefits if the scheme did not, it turned out that the new scheme had no equivalent provision. At privatisation, the Government transferred less than half of the accrued pension contributions into the new AEAT pension scheme, underfunding it from its inception. In 2012, AEA Technology entered a pre-pack administration. The underfunded AEAT pension scheme was in deficit and was transferred into the Pension Protection Fund. The employees paid into the UKAEA scheme for pensions linked to the retail prices index, but the PPF provides no inflation protection at all for the pensions those employees earned before privatisation. They now receive about 50% of the pensions they were promised. This is particularly galling for AEAT closed section pensioners, who paid extra pension contributions—30% more than in the open section—specifically to purchase RPI indexation. At the time, the Government actuary assured people in writing that they would receive the same pension benefits from the new scheme, and specifically advised them not to consider the security of their pensions in making their decisions. Alongside this, there is strong evidence, which I am sure the campaigners would be willing to share with the Minister, that the Government transferred less than half the proper sum into the new scheme at privatisation. They kept about £200 million. Campaigners believe that had the proper sum been transferred in 1996, it is unlikely that the scheme would have been underfunded and wound up in 2012. There is a strong moral case for redress. Ultimately, for hundreds of pensioners, in my constituency and across those of my colleagues, the retirements they saved for have been blighted. I want to say a little about why this particular pension case is unique and unusual and contains factors related to actions of the state, because I am aware that many such cases come across the Minister’s desk. Both I and my colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), have heard from our constituents about the devastating effect this scandal has had on their retirements. I spoke with campaigners in my constituency just a few weeks ago, and they told me that their plans to provide for themselves and their dependants at the end of their lives were shattered. They have lost a huge fraction of their pensions, and they told me that they feel that recent Budget changes will make very little difference to them. They have spent years pushing on this issue, only to have been failed time and again by successive Governments. On top of that, it has been estimated that around 200 of the affected campaigners have died. Many independent reports have supported the pension campaigners’ cause. In 2023, a National Audit Office report clearly demonstrated that the Government Actuary’s Department failed to inform closed section pensioners about the loss of Treasury backing when transferring their benefits from the UKAEA pension scheme to the AEAT scheme. Later in 2023, a Public Accounts Committee investigation found that pensioners had not only been misled, but lost money as a result. It also found that no Government Department had taken responsibility, and that pensioners had been passed “from pillar to post”, as well as having no route for appeal. In 2023, the Work and Pensions Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), concluded that the Government should report back on how they intended to ensure an adequate means of redress for the pension scheme members. The then Under-Secretary of State for pensions, Paul Maynard, accepted the Committee’s recommendations and began to communicate with the Cabinet Office on the matter, only for that to be abandoned with a change of Government. The current Government have not accepted the findings, and have stated, without particularly clear justification: “There are no plans to offer specific redress to AEAT members.” The Government have often claimed that the matter has been “thoroughly investigated” by previous Ministers. The pension campaigners and I feel that that is not the case. Similarly, the response that I received to a letter from November requesting a meeting with the Minister to discuss this issue—I am grateful to him for making time to meet me—stated: “there are no plans to put in place a further review…the Chancellor announced at the Budget that this government will introduce pre-1997 indexation into the PPF and FAS to address this matter, and that AEAT members will benefit from this measure”. However, my constituents feel that those recent changes will make very little difference compared with what they have lost. Again, they have produced calculations to illustrate that; I am sure that they would be happy to share them, should the Minister be interested. Perhaps more concerningly, the Department for Work and Pensions and its Ministers have repeatedly insinuated that the matter has been investigated by various ombudsmen. The truth is that no ombudsman has ever investigated the information on pension options given to scheme members by the Government and their agents in 1996. The Pensions Ombudsman refused to investigate on the basis that the Government Actuary’s Department is excluded from its remit. The Financial Ombudsman Service cannot deal with defined-benefit pension schemes, so this did not fall within its remit either. The Pensions Ombudsman said that it could take action only if the PPF board had made a mistake, which it had not. As the Minister will be aware, the Pension Schemes Bill is currently being debated in the House of Lords. The noble Baroness Ros Altmann, who we can all agree is widely recognised for her expertise on pension matters, recently made a strong statement supporting the AEAT case to the Lords Committee on the Pension Schemes Bill. She proposed a solution by which schemes such as AEAT’s could leave the PPF with full compensation. The Lords Minister, the noble Baroness Sherlock, rejected that proposal. The noble Lord Palmer of Childs Hill tabled amendment 218 to the Pension Schemes Bill, which would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the pension losses incurred by former employees of AEA Technology. Numerous insinuations have been made in the House of Lords, such as those made by the noble Baroness Sherlock, claiming that the 1996 Government Actuary’s Department note highlighted the risk that the scheme might fail. For the pension campaigners, that is simply not correct: the words “risk” and “fail” were not used at the time in the Government Actuary’s Department note in connection with the AEAT scheme. In conclusion, I want to put forward three key problems to the Minister today. First, the pensioners received poor information from the Government on their pension choices at privatisation. The information that they were given was not accurate or complete, and that precluded them from making an informed choice about whether to accept the privatisation of the pension alongside their employer. Secondly, the Government retained a large proportion of the funds that should have been transferred to the new pension scheme. Thirdly, the PPF is making a large profit on the assets transferred in from the AEAT scheme, while members are receiving 50% of the benefits that they spent many decades paying for. My affected constituents, alongside campaigners from across many constituencies, have five questions for the Minister. I hope that he will be able to answer this afternoon; if that is not possible in some cases, I hope he will be willing to make a commitment to write to me with his findings. First, why has the current Pensions Minister refused to provide redress for AEAT pensioners without giving reasons why, even though a thorough investigation by the Public Accounts Committee concluded in their favour and the Pensions Minister at the time accepted that conclusion and indicated to the Work and Pensions Committee that he was keen to resolve the situation? Secondly, how are the Government to be held to account for the wrongdoing that has ruined the retirement of elderly AEAT pensioners, many of whom, very sadly, have passed away without justice, given that the previous Administration accepted the objective, non-political findings of the Public Accounts Committee? Thirdly, why do Government officials, particularly in the Department for Work and Pensions, repeatedly make insinuations to the effect that the AEAT pension situation has been thoroughly investigated by previous Ministers when the evidence does not support that assertion? Fourthly, why is the Government’s position on AEAT pensions the exact opposite of that taken by the right hon. Member for East Ham when he was Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee? Fifthly, will the Minister require or request that the Government Actuary’s Department publish its calculations —not just the assumptions underlying its calculations—of the sum transferred to the AEAT scheme at privatisation, on the basis that GAD presumably calculated what the cash equivalent transfer sum required by the Pension Schemes Act 1993 would have been? I hope we can all agree that it is vital that people invest in their pensions during the course of their working lives, so that they can have confidence in their wellbeing and livelihoods when they reach retirement. That is particularly important because of the figures I cited at the beginning of my speech, which reveal a worrying lack of investment in private or workplace pensions. This is not just about redress for the AEAT pension campaign, although that is the most important thing; this is about showing that the Government believe in the integrity of pension schemes and are committed to making sure that everybody has faith in those pension schemes. It is so important for people to invest in them.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I was not intending to intervene, but I am afraid what the hon. Member said is not correct. Tuition fees were first introduced by the Conservative Government in the early 1990s and then by the Labour Government in 1998, with top-up fees in 2004. Will he accept that and then proceed?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for introducing this debate. I would like to use my limited time to tell the stories of two of my constituents. One of them is Rebecca, a health worker who is an NHS band 6 employee. For those unfamiliar with NHS pay bands, as I am, that is between £38,600 and £46,600 a year. She has raised concerns about the impact that her student loan repayments are having on her finances and day-to-day life. She says: “It feels like a lifelong debt that’s impossible to reduce…Looking at the bigger picture is even more frustrating. Between 2019 and 2025, almost £18,000 in interest has been added to my loan, despite the fact that I’ve been working and making repayments the entire time. It feels like I’m being penalised for staying in steady employment rather than making real progress on the debt…I worry that this system will discourage people from training for essential professions like healthcare.” Another constituent, Alexandra, works at Culham Campus, a site for fusion energy research and many other industries. She says that, “completing a PhD was absolutely necessary to pursue my career in essential scientific research…As they stand, those who choose to embark on a PhD are disadvantaged further by committing to 3-6 years of time in which they will be unable to pay off student loans due to PhD stipends falling under the repayment limit, I am likely to pay significantly more towards my student loan than was originally billed before it is written off purely because as an undergraduate I came from a low income family and I received the full subsistence and fee loans.”

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a practical proposal for how an inquiry could be conducted efficiently with appropriate prioritisation, so that the most urgent matters get looked at, rather than being bogged down in something that would take much longer. We must go further. We must toughen the penalties for breaching the ministerial code. We must create an office of the whistleblower to protect, empower and encourage people with valuable information to come forward and to speak up. I support Liberal Democrat calls for an end to negative privilege protections that have prevented criticism of individuals in the royal family in this House, for the reasons set out during the debate.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that far too much in British political and wider culture relies on taking things on trust and assuming that good motives and good intentions will win the day. Very sadly, the whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair shows that we cannot necessarily rely on that and that we need strong processes, procedures and protocols to make sure that we have the highest standards in public life. We all hope that the necessary changes to prevent a repeat of the whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair, which is an abomination, and the wider Epstein disgrace can be made within the structures of our current system of constitutional monarchy. Should that prove not to be the case, then we risk calls for a change to our constitutional arrangements growing louder and more compelling.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  This motion is first and foremost about the victims of the appalling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his many associates, as well as the importance of protecting people from abuse of power. It also has significant implications for wider political culture. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) articulately outlined, this and previous Governments have been wracked by scandal of many kinds, and the whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair adds to that by making a very significant contribution to the already severe erosion of trust in our politics and institutions. That is why we are calling for a public inquiry into all aspects of UK and British citizen involvement with Jeffrey Epstein over many years. The inquiry would of course take account of police and criminal investigations, disclosure and the publication of relevant documents, but we must go further.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  A powerful illustration of my hon. Friend’s point is that oral questions to the Minister for Women and Equalities is compressed into just 30 minutes before Prime Minister’s questions every few weeks. Does she agree?