Olly Glover MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Feb 2026 · Domestic Violence: Victim Support · Hansard source

  More

  After years of enduring domestic abuse, a constituent of mine came forward to Thames Valley police. She was badly let down by process and communication failures, resulting in the perpetrator avoiding prosecution despite a positive charging decision. She is now worried for her personal safety and has a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis. I appreciate what the Minister says she is doing to help victims of domestic violence, but what more can she do to make sure they are taken seriously so that other victims do not have the same experience as my constituent?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is not our amendment.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again on the Committee, Mr Western. I will no doubt be told off for getting her title wrong, but I agree with the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for—

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, Mr Western. Thank you. Amendment proposed : 211, in clause 63, page 35, line 39, at end insert— “(3) Where Great British Railways decides not to grant access to persons to a specific part of the network to reserve capacity, Great British Railways must— (a) publish a statement (a ‘capacity reservation statement’) setting out the evidence relating to the decision; (b) consult— (i) the Office for Rail and Road, and (ii) any other persons who have sought access to that part of the network. (4) A capacity reservation statement must explain how the decision taken by Great British Railways under subsection (3) reflects the best use of GBR infrastructure for the operation of trains as set out in the infrastructure capacity plan. (5) The ORR must review a capacity reservation statement. (6) The ORR may direct Great British Railways to reconsider its assessment if it considers that the exclusion of other operators is not necessary for Great British Railways to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure.”— ( Olly Glover .) This amendment requires Great British Railways to publish a statement explaining any decision not to grant access to a specific part of the network on the basis of network capacity. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I knew the hon. Lady’s seat; it is just that I got told off the other day by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, for calling him the spokesperson instead. Carrying on, I agree with the hon. Lady’s comments on the Opposition’s amendments. I think most of them are sound and reflect the intention to strike a better balance in the Bill between GBR wanting to protect its interests and objectives, and recognising that there are valid and competing objectives elsewhere in the industry, particularly on the freight side, as well as on the open access passenger side. Let me speak briefly to our new clause 56. The hon. Lady accurately summarised our intention. The new clause does not require GBR to adopt the idea of auctioning train paths, but it does require it to examine the potential of the idea, which is used to good effect on the Italian and Spanish high-speed rail networks. This idea, basically, retains the guiding mind approach to timetable development and construction but would recognise that for routes with a high-revenue yield and limited competition, such as London to Manchester, it may well be best, in the interests of both revenue and getting more people on to trains, to auction off one of the paths—London to Manchester has three an hour—to another operator. That would help GBR to provide some competitive tension to improve its own delivery. I appreciate that the Government would probably say that Avanti West Coast is terrible and when it becomes GBR everything will be a land of milk, sweetness and honey; however, the real structural problem is that at the moment there is no realistic competition between London and Manchester. That is why—certainly from the figures that I have seen most recently—passenger numbers have recovered far less than they have on the east coast main line, where there is competition and a real spirit of customer choice. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies, Mr Western; the confusion has arisen because the selection and grouping paper lists it as an Opposition amendment. I do not wish to move it.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have a few brief thoughts on what the Conservative spokesperson has said about this clause. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we feel that a lot of the amendments ask good questions about transparency and about accountability for how the access charging regime will work. We are definitely interested to hear the Minister’s response. A couple of the Opposition amendments perhaps go a little too far, or at least questions could be asked about them. Amendment 242, on what I am calling phantom paths, addresses an interesting phenomenon in the railway at the moment. Many freight paths are in the timetable, but seldom used; they are reserved by freight operators for a variety of reasons in case they might be used. People in the industry say that they sometimes present problems for optimum timetable development or use of capacity. It will be interesting to hear from both the Minister and, perhaps, the Conservative spokesperson as to how they feel that those phantom paths can be dealt with, absent an ability by GBR to apply access charges to trains that do not run. Conservative amendment 83 attempts to remove GBR’s ability to charge higher than the normal rate, the likely revenue to be obtained by running train services does not vary significantly based on the type of railway and the type of service concerned. The most extreme example of that is that the typical fare yield for Manchester to Blackburn will obviously be a lot less than for London to Manchester. The concept of GBR applying differential access charges is not necessarily one that I would be inclined to oppose, but the criteria that it uses in doing so needs to be transparent. The amendments that we tabled earlier allude to that. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend for GBR to make that process transparent, particularly given the high judicial review bar for challenging some of those decisions. That way, hopefully, a new system can be created in which everyone might have faith.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mrs Hobhouse. Our amendment 212 relates to what the Minister said: it would remove the restriction on the ORR’s ability to impose fines on GBR for licence breaches. I am hoping that we can find some agreement or that the Minister can improve my understanding of the Bill. I entirely agree with him that we do not want wooden dollars—are we still allowed to say that?—sloshing around the system. We do not want fake money, fake economics or fake regulation. That has not been a strength of the rail industry under the current structure. The Minister said that the ORR would have the powers to tell GBR to do better and to put a legally binding notice on it. Perhaps this is an extreme thought experiment, but what would happen if GBR said, “Thank you very much, ORR, for your legally binding improvement notice, but we’re not interested—we’re not doing it.”? Is the Minister saying that the ORR could then sue GBR? What would happen next? If he covers that in his summing up, I might not move my amendment—I am sure he feels very threatened given how many Divisions we have won so far.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate? I congratulate the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), who secured it, on her powerful speech. She, like many other Members, rightly focused on the appalling human cost when road safety goes wrong. So many Members spoke powerfully with stories from their own lives or from their constituents of people who have lost their lives or been injured and the impact that has on families—that has to be where we start from—and the emergency services. On road safety, we must start with our own human shortcomings. Few of us are, generally speaking, the skilled and wise drivers and road users that we often tend to think we are. It remains to be seen whether driverless cars will save us from ourselves. In the meantime, we need to tackle a whole range of factors, as well as the fatal five factors that the hon. Member for Shipley outlined in her introduction. We need to address culture and attitudes to speeding and drinking. A number of hon. Members referred to a particular problem with how young people, in particular young males, can drive. We need to think about the design of our roads and the lack of safe walking and cycling infrastructure. In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, the A417 and A338 are very busy A-roads. They have no viable alternative for people cycling and lack cycle paths, as would be common in Germany, the Netherlands and many other places. Potholes and poor road surfaces are the bane of all road users’ lives, and there is a link there to wider policy, given that upper-tier council authorities are seeing more than half their budgets consumed by statutory requirements such as adult social care. Road safety links to a lot of other policy areas. We need to think hard about enforcement, whether that is cameras or the human interface. We need to continue to expand cycle training, particularly the Bikeability programme for young people, and we need better training and support for new drivers, particularly young ones. The recent Government announcement on pavement parking is welcome, but I hope the Minister will say something about how she intends to implement that. I note that Lord Blunkett in the other place tabled an amendment on that subject. We must, however, look to ourselves as well as to others. Pedestrians should think carefully before crossing the road at an inappropriate place, and we all need to get out of our phones and look around us. Cyclists need to be consistent in obeying rules and signals and respecting pedestrians, and drivers need to have good vehicle maintenance and be mindful of the power of their vehicle. Nobody should want to be the cause of the human harm we have heard about today, and we should all think about that the next time we attempt to behave badly on the roads.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand what the Minister is saying, but if he means that the ability to give these directions would exist only in very extreme, exceptional cases, such as pandemics or large-scale wars, would he not be open to specifying that in the Bill?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies. One recognises one’s status. We agree with the shadow Minister on the principle that it should not be about ideology between the public and private sectors. We have argued that consistently in the past. If it was so simple that nationalising train operators would lead to transformative performance improvements, Northern would be a globally inspiring example. I realised this morning that this month it reaches its half-decade anniversary of being in the public sector and, certainly for friends of mine in the north, it remains some way from being a globally leading example. That highlights the fact that public and private sector ideology is but one factor needed to give excellent rail services. I wonder whether some of the shadow Minister’s amendments are perhaps fighting yesterday’s war. Of course we should all continue to advocate for what we believe, but it seems unlikely that—in the near future at least—there will be a change in approach to the core train operating companies’ being franchised out. Perhaps, rather than relitigating that, we need to focus on other aspects of the Bill, as indeed he has done, and on how we can make the new world better—particularly by removing the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere too much. I wonder what the shadow Minister and Government Minister have to say about that.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although perhaps she is advocating another concept called gin miles, which would definitely be beyond the scope of our new clause. She makes the strong point that there have been examples along the lines of this idea in pockets of the network. The new clause would put the idea on a national footing, boost good practice and give GBR positive things to offer its customers from day one. Perhaps it would even compensate for the ghastly livery that GBR is telling us all is so wonderful.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We understand and support the intent of the Conservative amendments on veterans, but I suppose the debate will get into what should be legislated for in discount schemes, as opposed to specified in other forms. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister why the Government have opted to put certain discount schemes in the Bill and not others. Hopefully, there is some clear logic, but we shall see. Our new clause 51 would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all GBR passenger services. The context is that there is currently an agreement in place for that travel fee exemption, which is agreed by the Secretary of State and the train operating companies. The new clause would simply formalise something that already happens, but would do so in the framework of GBR and ensure long-term certainty and consistency, national coverage across the GBR network and the inclusion of a representative of a deceased service member. At present, deceased personnel are often not represented at Remembrance events if a family member cannot afford the cost of travel. The new clause addresses that inequity. The new clause places an existing informal arrangement on a statutory footing and ensures consistency and fairness. The cost implications are limited and predictable, as the travel demand is concentrated around a single annual event and largely happens on that day. The new clause recognises the importance of remembrance for bereaved families and sends a clear message of respect and recognition for service and sacrifice. On our new clause 59, I understand the shadow Minister’s points, but the intention is simply to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. This is about officers needing to use the train in the course of their duties. It is important that many of them do so, particularly those engaged in highly visible community policing. The new clause would simply reduce the red tape and bureaucracy of them needing to buy tickets, procure travel warrants and so on. It is not about travel to and from work, but about making sure they can easily use the network while on duty.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The air miles concept has been highly successful for Eurostar, and it is now time to apply the idea to the domestic market.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak briefly about the Conservative amendments. I agree with some of the shortcomings identified by the shadow Minister, but there would be a risk in setting in stone some of the current discount and fares arrangements, as amendment 61 seeks to do. On amendment 62, apart from the good points made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the existing differential discount rates, I am not sure of a particularly compelling reason for why the main discount rate of one third should be preserved in aspic—I said that I would not say “aspic” any more, but I have anyway. There may be times in the future when a higher discount, or maybe even a lower one, could make sense. I assure the shadow Minister that our new clause 13 would require the examination of the idea, rather than a commitment to do it. Our idea is based on the ubiquity of air miles as a highly valued consumer product. So many people talk about air miles in conversation, and the popularity of certain credit cards—I can probably name them, as I do not have an interest, but I will not—is explained by the accumulation of air miles. Why not rail miles? It would promote our network, reward loyal customers and be a brilliant way of promoting domestic tourism, were people able to accumulate rail miles as they currently can air miles. It would also be a good way to promote lower-carbon transport. Our new clause would simply require the examination of the idea of a rail miles programme, and the production of a report on its potential merits that the Secretary of State would lay before Parliament within 12 months of the passage of the Bill. I hope to hear the Minister’s warm words about the idea, although I would naturally be astonished if he embraced it.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I have some brief comments on the Conservative spokesperson’s amendments.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 142, in clause 39, page 21, line 19, at end insert— “(1A) The Passengers’ Council must not investigate a matter unless the matter has been considered first by Great British Railways and is subject to an appeal for further consideration.” This amendment makes Great British Railways the first stage of a complaint submitted, with the Passenger Standards Council the appellant body should the complainant not be satisfied by the response from Great British Railways.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will do the honours.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is right to say that our amendments have similar intentions to his; we may have taken slightly different avenues but we are heading in the same direction. Amendments 141 and 144 are intended to reduce the Secretary of State’s role in the passengers’ council’s abilities to set standards and go about its work. The shadow Minister is quite right to point out that there is a typo in amendment 144, which I had not spotted—the intention is to delete subsection (5) and not subsection (6). I thank him for drawing our attention to that.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hear what the Minister says. I still think that the logical wording of the clause could be ameliorated, but I shall leave that to the Government and spare the Committee a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 40 Power to obtain information

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  If the shadow Minister is talking about 235, that is one that he tabled, not me.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I can be very concise, Mrs Hobhouse. We consider the provisions on the passengers’ council to be among the stronger components of the Bill. Some sound thinking is involved. Amendment 142 is a very basic amendment that aims simply to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. All it would do is ensure that when a complaint is submitted, the first stage is for GBR to look at it. It will be a GBR issue, because GBR is going to run everything. If the appellant body is not satisfied with the response from GBR, the complaint can by all means go to the passengers’ council for investigation. If the complaint goes first to the passengers’ council, what will happen in pretty much every case is that the council will have to go to GBR to find out the facts. How else will it know them? I hope that the amendment is uncontentious, but if the Minister does not agree I am sure he will give a typically eloquent explanation.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a good point about salaries and how income levels are not necessarily a good predictor of usefulness to society and economic contribution. We have heard that point made clearly about social workers, but does he agree that in high-tech sectors such as space, biotech and robotics, we need global talent and that only by pooling that talent will we succeed, which is why we should not be putting in place these barriers to indefinite leave to remain?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?