Olly Glover MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I start by thanking all the participants in this interesting and wide-ranging debate, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) in particular for his comprehensive and very thoughtful introduction. He rightly reminded us that this matter is of great importance to many people and that we should not demonise or polarise people for their views in this discussion; we should be willing to listen and discuss the topic—as indeed we have today. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) also recognised the importance of discussing this topic and highlighted his view of the country as being full, with migrants consuming public services. In relation to the Clapham omnibus—I should point out that underground trains and suburban trains are also available as public transport options in that suburb—I will perhaps encourage him to take a trip on said omnibus. He may be surprised to find that the viewpoints of residents in that area, which voted heavily to remain and is very diverse and cosmopolitan in many of its features, are rather different from those in his own constituency. The hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) talked about the need to tackle illegal migration and also recognised the long history of migrant contributions to our country. The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) also highlighted the importance of having a respectful debate on the issue and recognised that housing is under pressure for a whole range of reasons. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) highlighted how the ageing UK population drives part of the need for migrant labour in this country, and how the planning system has not been effective at meeting population increases and ensuring that infrastructure and public service provision catch up. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), who cited the failure of successive Governments, as well as making some positive comments about the Labour Government of the early 2000s and the need for UK skills investment. That was a point also very well made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. In relation to Liberal Democrats of different hues, I assure the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness that our colour has always been orange. We would, of course, welcome suggestions for any changes to our colour palette. When it comes to my own views on this issue, I think it is important to reflect on an overall philosophical point. My strong view is that, on average, people as individuals have far more in common—they have common needs—than differences, and that is far more important than where they came from. I feel this partly because I have Polish heritage: my Polish mother moved to this country in the 1970s and has spent decades always working and contributing to UK life. She has certainly fully integrated—perhaps aside from an occasional accent difference or getting her “a’s” and “the’s” mixed up. On that point, so often discussions about immigration and immigrants are softened when the debate turns away from the general and to specific individuals and personal relationships. For example, when I met local business owners at the Railway Inn pub in Culham in my Oxfordshire constituency, an initially very frustrated and hostile conversation about immigration suddenly softened somewhat when I talked about my Polish mother. Those people in the discussion talked about their own heritage and the many people they know in the area who have come from other countries, and recognised that, individually, they make a strong contribution. It is important to remember that there are many types of migrants, with very different reasons for coming here. It is therefore essential that we examine the basis and reasons for people’s major concerns about migration. On irregular migration, I think we can all agree—as we have done during this debate—that we want to stop the dangerous channel crossings. Unfortunately, the previous Conservative Government failed to tackle them and arguably made the situation worse. Human trafficking gangs responsible for those crossings continue to operate with virtual impunity. We saw barriers erected to international co-operation by the previous Government that make it harder to crack down on cross-border people smuggling. That Government’s inability to process asylum claims efficiently meant that those without a genuine right to stay were not being swiftly returned. As has been stated by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, that continues to cost the taxpayer a great deal for hotels and other forms of accommodation. It is clear that change is desperately needed, so it is right that the new Labour Government are taking steps to stop those channel crossings. Cracking down on the criminal trafficking gangs responsible will be crucial. The Liberal Democrats want to ramp up domestic enforcement against those gangs, including by establishing a new single enforcement body to crack down on modern slavery in the UK, which is how so many of those gangs make their money. We also need to look at the root causes of why migration is happening to Europe and the United Kingdom, because we are not alone in facing this challenge—it is very much a continent-wide problem. We need to work constructively and collaboratively with our European allies, particularly France, via Europol. We need to create an effective and morally appropriate deterrent, such as deportation back to home countries if applications are rejected—again, that comes back to the importance of tackling that backlog and having an efficient system for processing applications. We need to consider the varying root causes that lead people to attempt to reach Europe and the UK, including war, oppression, climate change and, yes, a lack of economic opportunity. We need to consider further what safe and legal routes may exist for people to apply for asylum and refugee status from abroad. Turning to legal migration, the Liberal Democrats agree that our country needs a fair and effective immigration system that enforces the rules on who has the right to stay in our country. Unfortunately, we saw nothing of the sort from the previous Conservative Government, with their chaotic approach of making and breaking headline-grabbing targets that has shattered public trust and left the system in a shambolic state. Net migration figures reached record highs on the Conservatives’ watch, and their inability to process asylum claims efficiently meant that those without a genuine right to stay were not being swiftly returned. It is clear that the new Government have a mammoth task ahead: rebuilding an immigration system that works for our country and economy, while fixing public trust in the process. Many speakers in today’s debate talked about the challenges with the planning system eroding the public’s trust. Certainly in my constituency—which has seen 35% population growth in the South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse districts—a system that does not match infrastructure and public services to population growth erodes public confidence in the entire system. As the hon. Member for Bristol Central said, having public services that work will be essential for regaining that trust. Over the past two years, from the data that we have, the two main reasons for immigration have been work and study. Recent years have also seen a much higher number of people arriving for humanitarian reasons than in the past, notably via the Ukraine schemes, the Afghan resettlement schemes and the holders of British national overseas status from Hong Kong, who have quite rightly been welcomed here because of the oppression of the Chinese Government. Migration is currently a source of population growth, and migrants tend to be younger on average than the general population, which can be useful when our own population is ageing. As has been said, the number of non-UK nationals in employment is greater than the 3.5 million people aged 16 to 64 who were out of work in late 2024, but who wanted to work. Of those, 1.5 million were unemployed, meaning they were actively looking for a job, while 2 million were assessed as economically inactive, meaning that they were not able to work. If we want to reduce migration and have more “British jobs for British people”, as one Prime Minister once said, we need to examine why our economy is so dependent on migrant labour in many sectors. We need to recognise the risk that a suspension of immigration for five years, as has been suggested by this petition, would likely lead to labour shortages across the UK’s labour market, harming both the private sector and public services.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention and commend him for his commitment to improving skills training when in Government, which he discussed in his speech. I think the challenge of how we get there is significant, and I will come on to discuss that in my concluding remarks. In my constituency there are examples of organisations that are intrinsically international in nature, for example the European Space Agency. I met two of its directors, one British and one French. There are many other science and high-tech employers, such as Tokamak Energy at Milton Park and Astroscale at Harwell Campus, which also rely on those specialist skills which depend on a global labour market. Our commitment to rearming and boosting the defence sector will also increase the demand for labour. That is why we need to consider the steps and programmes that will be necessary before any clampdown on legal migration. It is also important to address the balance between improving the labour supply and incentivising it through better pay and remuneration, and our collective willingness to pay higher prices as a result of increased pay and labour costs—not least for food—if we do. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his outstanding and comprehensive speech. Many people have died in this war so far, and United Nations figures suggest that at least 12,654 civilians have lost their lives and over 27,000 have been injured, with nearly 147,000 war crimes committed and 167,000 civilian buildings destroyed by Russia since the full-scale invasion began. Of course, the true death toll is likely to be far higher, as Ukraine and international bodies do not have access to Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine or areas on the frontline, most particularly the city of Mariupol, which was largely destroyed in the brutal Russian siege. This is a tragedy that cannot continue, and yet amid so much darkness, a chink of light is how this war has shown the very best of our nation: our generosity towards Ukraine and how we have welcomed refugees and worked internationally to get co-operation against Russia. In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, the Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire district councils have gone a long way to welcome and help refugees, and many families have hosted them, enabled by the Homes for Ukraine scheme. The village of North Moreton, with a population of just 350, has hosted dozens of people, earning significant media coverage for its generosity. Many families have also been hosted in the small village of Brightwell-cum-Sotwell. I want to give an example of the journey faced by one of those families. A mother and her two children, aged 17 and six when they came, had already fled Donetsk in 2014 in the first Russian aggression against Ukraine and then yet again in 2022 to the United Kingdom. The 17-year-old subsequently managed to get a place at the University of Nottingham and has started his studies. The mother took her six-year-old back to Ukraine last April, having missed her husband so much, and their UK host family are still in regular contact with her and her son. In Didcot, Stanislav of the Help Ukraine Group Support, or HUGS, has collected enormous amounts of clothing, toiletries, tools and many other items and has sent huge pallets over to Ukraine. One place that received them was the Place of Kindness shelter for displaced families in Chernivtsi, which has helped shelter over 2,000 families, 147 orphans and 72 critically ill children. The same organisation collected and donated laptops to the Reading-based Ukrainian School Lastivka to enable children to get online and gain IT literacy. I want to say a little about why I care so much about the Ukraine war, beyond the obvious reasons. I have a Polish mother, and Poland is a country that has also hugely suffered under Russian oppression in the past and retains a genuine fear of that nation to this day. This war matters to Ukraine and to Europe, but it also matters specifically to us. We hoped that Russia would stop after its 2008 invasion of Georgia—it did not. We hoped that Russia would stop after annexing Crimea in 2014—it did not. We hoped that Russia would stop after years of war in the Donbas—it did not. We hoped that Russia would stop after its brutal bombing of Syria in support of dictator Bashar al-Assad in the late 2010s—it did not. It is important that we learn from that and ensure that any peace we do have does not further embolden Russia. Where do we go from here? Well, our communities and councils need long-term support to continue hosting refugees and looking after Ukrainians. Many hon. Members have already made eloquent remarks about that. We all want peace, but it has to be on Ukraine’s terms. There is so much talk at the moment of peace guarantees. We should remember that there have been such guarantees before—under the 1994 Budapest memorandum, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for supposed guarantees of its peace—so we cannot have cheap talk of guarantees now; we need to learn why previous ones did not work. Of course, we need European defence co-operation and investment in our armed forces. Many hon. Members have been optimistic that the United States will not turn permanently away from Europe, but in case that optimism is misplaced, we need to build up our defence forces and co-operate across Europe, using frozen Russian assets, so that we have the high-quality and competent defence force that our continent needs. This war has brought huge suffering to the people of Ukraine, destroying communities, separating families and orphaning children. However, it has also shown the human spirit of justice, compassion and kindness to be a great unifying force. We must now work with our European allies to secure the freedom and prosperity of Ukraine and our continent.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Parliamentary Staff Engagement · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his answer. As he says, there are 7,000 staff working here who support 650 Members of this House and 836 in the other place. As he recognises, it is essential that the needs, wisdom and experience of the people who make the estate a success are heard and fully considered. Will he commit to continuing to run that full consultation and maximising efforts to do so in a way that will ensure the strongest attendance and the best engagement?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Parliamentary Staff Engagement · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps the client board is taking to engage with parliamentary staff on the restoration of the Palace of Westminster.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has seen a 35% population increase in the last 20 years. My constituents recognise the need for affordable housing, but the current planning system is not delivering the GP surgeries, dentists and transport options they need. Will the Prime Minister restore faith in the planning system and, as well as focusing on housing numbers, deliver the local targets for health services and wider infrastructure that growing communities need?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Local Post Offices · Hansard source

  More

  I join others in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing the debate, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for timetabling it. As many Members have pointed out, post offices form a vital part of our local communities and high streets—millions of people depend on them—but in my Oxfordshire constituency, which contains many villages, they are under threat. These post offices are community hubs which play host to a number of services that are essential to local people and small businesses, particularly in rural areas. They provide vital human contact, and offer information and support for people who might otherwise be isolated, especially given suboptimal rural transport links. Just this week Karen Forman, a postmistress in Blewbury, told me that she had not only been contacted about many postal matters, but—this is relevant to what was said by the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer)—had been contacted about a lost cat and a lost bunch of keys, and had helped someone to locate a bank card. As other Members have noted, many post offices are facing rising operating costs, and the services that they offer do not generate much revenue—an estimated 1.7p per transaction—which makes it hard to keep the lights on. We could do a great deal more to support our community branches. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), post offices can provide vital local services, but only if they are properly supported and invested in, and are staffed appropriately. Could we, for example, make more use of post office hubs? Could they help people who are digitally excluded to book medical appointments on the internet, or provide services such as printing? Of course, we also need to secure justice for the wronged postmasters—and the flawed Horizon system is still being used—as well as giving more support to the people who have been neglected as a result of that scandal. The post office network and the hard-working postmasters and postmistresses are in dire need of our support in villages such as Blewbury, and many more in my constituency and those of other Members.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  There is certainly a clear variation in the representation of parties in the House for this debate. However, I agree with other colleagues who have said that while we do not necessarily know how people will vote if they are given a more proportional voting system, that is all the more reason for us to have one, so that people can feel they can vote with their hearts and not with their heads or, indeed, on the basis of a bar chart of whatever level of accuracy— [Interruption.] I should emphasise that mine are always spot on. Thirdly, proportional representation would deliver less adversarial and more inclusive and discursive politics, which has the potential to improve policy, governance and tone—things which many people find frustrating in our current system. Parties would no longer be able to govern alone with as little as a third of the vote, and would have to do so with others. That is not a problem but a benefit of moving to a proportional system, because Governments would represent a majority of voters and would have to work together to represent the various platforms of the parties concerned. The United Kingdom is highly anomalous in retaining first past the post. Very few other European countries do so. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) made a point about coalitions. I hope he is equally condemnatory of coalitions that Labour has had with other parties—for example, the coalition with the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament in the late 1990s, and, in Wales, the need to rely on minority support from either the Liberal Democrats or Plaid Cymru at various times. As for those who scaremonger or are worried about the stability of countries with proportional representation, let us consider some examples from Europe. The hon. Member for Ilford South cited Belgium. Well, Belgium has a better GDP per capita than we do, and, if I may defend a nation that is so often mocked, the only real crime of the Belgians is preferring mayonnaise to ketchup on their chips, rather than their electoral system. Let us consider Norway, a highly prosperous nation that has made wise decisions such as creating a sovereign wealth fund from its precious oil resources, something from which this country would have benefited had we done the same. Switzerland, which also has proportional representation and regular coalition Governments, has the most punctual railway in Europe, and 100% of it is electrified compared to our derisory percentage somewhere in the 30s. Poland, a new democracy with 30 years of the fastest economic growth in Europe, also has proportional representation and coalition Governments. I put it to the House that we have very little to fear, and a great deal to gain. As I said earlier, the Liberal Democrats and the Liberal party have called for fair votes for a century, and we continue to lead the campaign for fundamental reform of the electoral system. I will go where my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove did not, and say that it is wrong to suggest that preferential and proportional systems prevent individual accountability. The single transferable vote system is highly proportional and also, critically, retains voters’ ability to vote for individual candidates or not, if they choose. I agree with Conservative Members who have described that as an important principle. Reform is needed to address the need for fair representation in politics, and to improve the engagement of members of the public. Not to take action would further erode trust in politics and politicians, and would increase the risk of people voting for more extreme options next time out of frustration with the current system.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for securing a debate on this important topic. I will endeavour not to repeat the remarks that have been made so eloquently by other Members, but I must start by also thanking the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for referring to the question that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a few weeks ago: that is perhaps as close to fame as I will get in this Chamber. He was right to observe that the Deputy Prime Minister requires persuasion on this point, although hopefully the eloquent and articulate contributions of Members on both sides of the House will help to achieve that and gain her support for the APPG’s request for a national commission on electoral reform. For me, there are three key arguments in favour of proportional representation. First, there is currently a clear gap between how people vote and the outcome—namely the Parliament that they get, and thus the Government—and they do not necessarily feel invested in the result. Let me address the point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). The 2024 general election was, probably for the first time, quite a proportional one for the Liberal Democrats in its ratio of vote share to the number of MPs we have. Indeed, if I may be perfectly candid—at the risk of incurring the wrath of my colleagues—in parts of the country where we have more proportional systems, we do not always perform quite so well, so we are certainly not campaigning for this change on the basis of self-interest. It has, in fact, been a very long-standing Liberal Democrat and, indeed, Liberal commitment, and I will say more about that shortly. Secondly, the current system is not engaging people. As has already been mentioned, turnouts are declining. In 2024, a record low of 58% voted for the two largest parties, Labour and Conservative, while one in three said that they had voted tactically for someone other than their preferred candidate or party member. Indeed, when many voters were telling me on the doorstep that they would be voting tactically for me, I pledged to commit myself wholly, so that I would not have to ask them to do that again in the future, and that is partly why I am here today.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Growing the UK Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Chief Secretary’s commitment to investing in my Oxfordshire constituency, and particularly in our science centres of Milton Park, Culham and Harwell campus. However, the commitment to the south east strategic reservoir option—SESRO—will be met with far more questions, given Thames Water’s track record. On 15 January 2025, in New Civil Engineer , a water engineer suggested that the reservoir’s £2.2 billion cost could be much better spent tackling leaks and reducing water demand and waste. Will the Chief Secretary meet me to discuss these unanswered questions about the reservoir?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Arbitration Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comprehensive history of arbitration in the United Kingdom. It has been a long time since I have considered John Locke, having studied him as part of a history of political thought paper, which feels almost as long ago as the starting point of the Minister’s survey. The Liberal Democrats welcome the reintroduction of the Bill and its wide support across the House. As the Minister said, the Arbitration Act 1996, which governs arbitration in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is more than 25 years old. As he also said, the Law Commission estimates that there are at least 5,000 arbitrations annually in England and Wales, worth at least £2.5 billion to the economy in arbitrator and legal fees alone. Arbitration is also important in supporting a whole range of business activities, as has been outlined. An effective legal and dispute resolution process is one of the underpinnings of a successful democratic and trading nation, and something of which the United Kingdom has historically been proud. The Bill will help to maintain that status, based on recommendations from the Law Commission and, as the Minister has said, particularly that of London as one of the great centres of international arbitration. The Bill implements recommendations made in a 2022-23 Law Commission review of arbitration law to support more efficient dispute resolution. The legal sector has widely supported the targeted reforms in the Bill, with positive feedback from public consultations held by the Law Commission. Two key issues were raised in Committee in the other place, which we are happy to see resolved. The first was on the subject of corruption risk. The Liberal Democrats pressed the Government to provide more information to ensure that confidential arbitration is not abused to hide corruption from public scrutiny. We thank the Minister for detailing the actions being taken by arbitral institutions to militate against the risk of arbitration being misused and we were satisfied with the reassurance given. The second concerns the right of appeal. The Liberal Democrats were glad to support the two amendments tabled by the Government to correct the drafting of clause 13, following concerns that the original clause provided a more limited access to the Court of Appeal than was established in case law. In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats are pleased to support the Bill. Given some of the other discussions in this House today, we welcome an uncontroversial contribution to the economic growth that this country needs.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Sudan and Eastern DRC · Hansard source

  More

  I join hon. Members in thanking the Foreign Secretary for bringing the statement to the House, given that these matters are so rarely discussed. The United States has often played a key role in ending such conflicts or providing humanitarian support. To support his efforts with Secretary of State Rubio, will he ask for the Prime Minister’s support to ensure that the conflict is on President Trump’s agenda, given the latter’s stated “America first” agenda?

• 27 Jan 2025 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  In Oxfordshire, the high needs of our accumulated deficit is expected to rise to £77.1 million by the end of 2025, and across England it is expected to rise to nearly £6 billion in the same period. Does the Minister agree that, in the long term, a shift towards inclusive education, early intervention and enhanced support in mainstream schools is essential to create a sustainable and effective system that meets the needs of all children and young people, and will she commit to delivering it?

• 27 Jan 2025 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps her Department is taking to improve support for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman outlined articulately how Government legislation can make a positive difference to our environment. Does he agree that as well as a relentless focus on housing targets, we should also have targets for amenities and for nature and green spaces, so that we can achieve lots of objectives and support the aims of the Bill?

• 24 Jan 2025 · Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my hon. Friend for bringing the Bill before the House and for all her work to promote charity lotteries. Does she agree that, in addition to all the organisations she has listed in her constituency, the MS Therapy Centre in Milton Park, Chilton county primary school and the Letcombe Brook Project in my Oxfordshire constituency would benefit further if the Bill progresses?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Education, Health and Care Plans · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I join my colleagues in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing a debate on this important topic. I agree that it is good to see so many people here from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches but, as they say on Radio 4, it creates a challenge of delivering my remarks in just a minute. According to Oxfordshire county council, in the last 10 years in the county of my constituency the number of EHCPs has doubled from 3,000 to 7,000. The deficit of high-needs funding in Oxfordshire is estimated at £21.3 million, but that is in the wider national context of an estimated £3.16 billion deficit in England. Although the £1 billion extra allocated by the Chancellor in the Budget is welcome, it clearly does not go far enough. I will use the example of St Blaise primary school in Milton to show the wider context of some of these problems. The school was bitterly disappointed to hear that it could not access mental health support teams, but, in an example of the postcode lottery, children just a few minutes up the A34 are able to access that support. The child and adult mental health waiting list is ever growing and feels out of reach, making it difficult to provide wider support for children. I join my colleagues in calling on the Government to tackle the crisis in SEND funding by giving local authorities extra funding. Please do that to support our children, our parents, our teachers and their assistants.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. The Local Government Association estimates that the Budget’s increases to employer national insurance contributions will cost local councils an extra £637 million per year. The Government’s funding settlement for councils in relation to that of £515 million will leave them with a gap, putting key services such as social care, pothole repairs and leisure facilities at risk. Will the Chancellor commit to fully finding that gap for local councils, rather than them having to look for savings?

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency has also seen significant population growth; it has grown by 35% in the past 20 years. New estates in Didcot, Great Western Park, Wantage, Kingsgrove, Highcroft in Wallingford and Wellington Gate in Grove have not all sought the opportunity to have solar panels on the new houses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we do not create the homes of the future now, there is a risk that we will have to retrofit them in future, at great expense, to reach our net zero targets and help residents with their bills?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. In my Oxfordshire constituency, residents are concerned about increased antisocial behaviour, particularly pickpocketing and shoplifting in our towns. Given that the last Conservative Government cut the number of police community support officers in the Thames valley area by more than half since 2015, what steps will the Minister be taking to ensure that the police are able to improve community policing in Oxfordshire towns such as Wallingford, Wantage and Didcot?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Vulnerable Road Users · Hansard source

  More

  I join others in welcoming the Secretary of State to her place. Bikeability is the world’s largest road safety programme. Recent data from the Bikeability Trust showed that in areas with higher levels of training for children, the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads decreased. Does the Minister agree that Bikeability training is an essential life skill that everyone should have access to, and will she commit to joining me on a visit to a local Oxfordshire school to see the scheme in action?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Vulnerable Road Users · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps she is taking to help improve road safety for vulnerable road users.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Given that President-elect Trump has been at best ambivalent towards maintaining current levels of US military aid to Ukraine, we must redouble European efforts to support Ukraine. What further discussions does the Minister plan with European allies to collectively strengthen the provision of arms and resources to Ukraine, including through the potential use of seized Russian Central Bank assets?

• 18 Dec 2024 · BBC: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I commend the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate. It was good to hear his support for public service broadcasting and his recognition that the licence fee is there not just for live television, but for many of the services that hon. Members have mentioned. I will start by saying why I feel strongly that we need the BBC, and why it delivers such great value. It still does so many things that the proliferation of streaming platforms do not. From the perspective of UK cultural and economic benefit, the BBC provides a critical role in education, not just through children’s programming, but through ever-informative and breathtaking nature documentaries from David Attenborough and others. Even in this age of streaming, “Line of Duty” managed to secure 13 million viewers a night; many of us were gripped and looked forward to the next episode. The BBC has brought fantastic foreign-language content to BBC 4, including the iconic “The Killing”, which astonished people by hitting 1 million viewers a week as a subtitled programme. Those of us who were alive, albeit somewhat younger, in the 1990s could always look forward to the thrill of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” at 6 pm every Wednesday. For all those reasons, a KPMG report estimates that for every £1 of economic activity generated by the BBC, £2.63 of wider economic value is created. The BBC is so much more than entertainment. Fact-based and impartial reporting, analysis and investigations are essential, particularly in this age of social media misinformation when we are all trapped in our thought bubbles. We need the forensic interviews on Radio 4’s “Today” programme, we desperately need the local political reporting and scrutiny of services such as BBC Oxford and BBC South, and we need the investigative journalism, domestic and international, that can be found across Radio 4. As the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said, the BBC World Service plays a key role in maintaining access to free and accurate sources of information in many repressive countries around the world or in countries facing humanitarian challenges, such as Syria, which he mentioned. Of course, we should recognise that the BBC is not perfect. The salaries of top presenters can be very high indeed, and scandals and crises have not always been prevented or well managed. But what other organisation would create and broadcast a documentary that looks critically at its own failings and weaknesses, as “Days That Shook the BBC” with David Dimbleby did? Value for money from current funding and potential future reforms are important, but 95% of adults still use the BBC at least once a month. The alternative funding models that have been explored to date would not necessarily create a fairer system without disadvantages, so it is important for the Government to be very clear about our desired outcomes from the BBC and public service broadcasting, and then to work out from that how we fund them. We should consider ways to spread the TV licence cost more equitably, taking people on low incomes into account. We need the quality, independence and breadth of the BBC now more than ever. It is too important to risk losing through sub-optimal or over-complex funding routes. I am pleased to see that the Government are looking hard at how to sustain the BBC’s future.