Olly Glover MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will say two things in response. First, I hope that his Government and the Minister will support the new clause, because, given the strong state of railway safety today, there should not be the same limits on electrification expenditure that he suggests. Secondly, the problem with his point is that very few electrification schemes were authorised between 1997 and 2000, the period before the Hatfield rail disaster, which led to the period of safety recovery that he quite rightly highlighted. The direction that the Government are taking is a big concern. They have yet again cancelled the midland main line electrification, a scheme that would have happened 40 years ago in any other European country. Our stop-start progress on electrification compares very unfavourably with other countries in Europe. Germany has delivered a steady 200 km a year, or thereabouts, on average for many decades, and in so doing delivers significantly lower unit costs than our boom and bust approach to electrification. It is not just Germany. We often hear excuses about how electrification is too difficult for us because of our limited gauge clearance or our scenery, but that does not explain the fact that the entire Swiss rail network is electrified, including railways in UNESCO world heritage sites and more than 3,000 metres above sea level. With the exception of the trans-Pennine route upgrade and a couple of other very small schemes, nothing is committed at the moment. That is a real shame, because the benefits of electrification are significant. I feel that we have perhaps lost our way in this country. We have become very focused on electrification as a means of decarbonising our railways, but that is a small part of the enormous benefits of electrification. Electrification delivers more reliable, lighter trains that have far less impact on the track and are also cheaper, because pure electric multiple units are the standard off-the-shelf product across the European rolling stock market. What wouldn’t any other sector—whether it is shipping, which I know the Minister has a keen interest in, aviation or the car industry—give for the ability to provide constant electrical power to get the amazing power-to-weight ratio that electrification delivers? We constantly talk about the lack of freight on our rail network. A big part of that is that rail freight tends to be diesel hauled, which has far worse acceleration and consumes far more track capacity. On a recent journey across Germany and other parts of Europe, I did not see a single diesel-hauled freight train; they were all electric. That enables so much more to be squeezed on to the network, and would support private sector investment. For example, GB Railfreight has invested in a fleet of locomotives that can haul both diesel and electric. Having visited its Peterborough headquarters a few months ago, I know that it would like to run under electricity far more than it is currently able to because of our electrification rate. We are in a very poor state, and not just compared with western European countries; Poland and India have significantly higher percentages of electrified railways than we do. At the moment, I see no hope of that changing. Our new clause 15, requiring a rolling programme of electrification, would also significantly reduce unit costs, because the supply chain would get used to doing it, we would become experienced at structures clearance, and so on. That is not my opinion; that is what Sir Andrew Haines, former chief executive of Network Rail and now chair of DfT Operator, said before the Transport Committee.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The length and complexity of this amendment mean that hopefully I will be able to relieve hon. Members by making a very concise speech. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to a freight growth target as part of GBR. It is good that we have greater ambitions for the carriage of rail freight on our rail network, which tends to lag behind most European competitors in modal share. However, we think that the Bill has missed an opportunity by not including a comparable target for passenger growth. I have heard the argument made in front of the Select Committee and other forums that that could compromise or undermine the freight growth. I disagree with that premise. As so often in life, it is not either/or; it is both/and. Railways are useful for both passengers and freight. Freight is arguably neglected on our network and the economic and environmental benefits are absolutely enormous, especially if electrically hauled. One freight train is able to convey many containers or aggregate wagons and take dozens of lorries off the road. We therefore very much support the freight growth target, but feel that there should also be a passenger growth target. Many of our roads are plagued by congestion and many people opt to take the car who, in other circumstances, would like to take the train, but have either had negative experience of overcrowding or fear that they could be subject to overcrowding and a bad experience. Amendment 133 would require GBR to set a target for increasing passenger traffic and publish progress in relation to how it will achieve that. I think that I have said more than enough and am very interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, at end insert— “(h) complying with the provisions of the Passengers’ Charter laid under section [Passengers’ Charter]” This amendment is consequential on NC8.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct. Scotland, as a result of a longer-term commitment to electrification, has got unit costs down considerably, and has now electrified the bulk of the dense-traffic network in the lowland area and central belt. We can do the same in England and Wales should we wish to do so. I hope that the Government will change course and, in so doing, that the Minister will enable me to praise his Government and his commitment to beating the Thatcher Government’s electrification rate, liberating me from the difficult position of having to compliment the 1980s Conservative Government on their electrification progress.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to speak in favour of new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), who is the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Wales. His new clause seeks to remove rail transport from the list of powers reserved to Westminster and to require the UK Government to transfer responsibility for rail in Wales to Welsh Ministers in the Senedd within two years. In practical terms, that would mean responsibility for rail infrastructure, investment decisions and long-term strategy in Wales sitting with the Welsh Government, rather than being controlled by the UK Secretary of State or Great British Railways. It would put Wales on the same constitutional footing as Scotland, which already has those powers. The reason this matters is that, under the current arrangements, Wales has consistently lost out. Because rail is not devolved, Wales has no protection when England-only rail projects are classified in ways that deny Wales consequential funding. That has resulted in Wales missing out on billions of pounds of investment from projects such as HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and East West Rail, while the Governments in Scotland and Northern Ireland have received consequential funding to spend on their own rail projects. The new clause would align responsibility and accountability, and ensure that decisions affecting Welsh rail are made in Wales. I believe that this was a campaign backed by Welsh Labour MPs prior to the general election, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I think that absolutely was our intention. Perhaps the placement of commas, or semicolons or colons, or dashes if one prefers them—I cannot stand them personally, but some people love them—would have made that clear. The key thing that we are getting at, the thing that is critical, is the last five words of our amendment: “authority with statutory transport responsibilities.” We listed all the ones before that just because it is all so complicated and convoluted. But that was absolutely the intention. I think it is perfectly possible, if the Minister can offer an assurance that the intention is not to exclude any parts of the country that do not benefit from mayoral strategic authorities and can say a little about how he feels that the gap in clause 5 will be covered, that that will be enough to give us some assurance.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 133, in clause 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert— “(4A) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, seek to increase passenger traffic on railways. (4B) Great British Railways must set and publish targets in relation to subsection (4A).” This amendment would require Great British Railways to exercise its statutory functions with a view to increasing passenger numbers.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I wish to speak to new clause 15. In doing so, I must ask the Minister for his assistance with either a medical or a political problem—I am not entirely sure which it is, because I cannot get a GP appointment in Didcot as we do not have a GP surgery on Great Western Park, but that is an issue for another time. In the absence of a GP appointment, I really hope that the Minister will be able to save me from sullying my reputation. In speaking to this new clause, I find myself at risk of having to say something positive about the Thatcher Government, which is obviously somewhat politically embarrassing. New clause 15 proposes adding a rolling programme of electrification to the Bill. The reason that I may need to say something nice about the Thatcher Government is that according to figures that I have looked at, nearly 3,000 km of railway was electrified under that Government during the 1980s, to which the just 170 km electrified under the 1997 to 2010 Labour Government compares very unfavourably. That perhaps comes as quite a surprise, given that there was significant economic growth during that later period, at least compared with today— [ Interruption. ]

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 130 and new clause 8 constitute a Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce a 21st century update to passenger charters. I shall seek to be concise; in the unlikely event that hon. Members would like to hear more, I should say that I gave a ten-minute rule Bill speech on the subject in the House of Commons yesterday. For context, given above-inflation fare increases over many decades, which I alluded to earlier, the modern rail passenger rightly expects more than they often get. On-board amenities are generally not subject to any form of compensation provision should they not be available. Indeed, passenger charters generally make good noises about having such amenities, but they do not get the same guarantees for them as they do for delays. The issue is not necessarily about moving to this tomorrow; there are many older trains on our network that require either upgrading or replacement with modern amenities, but where the amenities exist they should be provided. It should no longer be considered a luxury to have functioning wi-fi or a mobile phone signal so that people can be productive on the train. Toilets should be reliable, a seat should not be considered a luxury—a standard class ticket does not entitle one to a seat—and there should be adequate space for luggage, pushchairs, bicycles and so on. In so doing, we will make the rail offer more attractive to the travelling public and ensure that people do not have bad experiences, as did my friend Jen from Wallingford who, after a particularly terrible journey between London and Glasgow on Avanti West Coast, has now returned to driving, even though the distance is—off the top of my head—some 350 miles. Our proposal would require the Secretary of State to lay a passenger charter before Parliament within six months of the Act’s being passed. That updated charter would look at providing value-for-money guarantees not just for delays, but for provision of other amenities, with reasonable waivers such as for journeys under 30 minutes, which can be subject to commuter-heavy loading at peak times. The whole principle of delay repay should be protected. I keep hearing rumours—I have no idea whether they are true; perhaps the Minister could give us assurances that there will not be any attacks on delay repay. We should be proud of it, as it is a much more generous compensation provision than in any other European country and it should not be diluted or reduced to save costs. Instead, we should focus on preventing delays and managing delays better so that we do not need to pay so much delay repay. That compensation provision should be extended to other onboard amenities, so that there is an incentive to create a 21st century onboard environment that enables us to retain our existing passenger base and attract far more people to our railway.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to get too carried away by the points on which we have agreed so far, because there will be plenty on which that is not the case. I also encourage Government Members not to get too excited, because I have agreed with them on plenty of things as well. Hopefully that shows that our politics can be more serious and less juvenile and we can all find things on which we agree. Before I make myself feel even more sick, I shall carry on. I understand what the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham was saying. The intention of the amendment is not to suggest that GBR should be engaging with district-level authorities by default. Once local government reorganisation is complete and coherent, there will not be any district councils, so that bit will be rendered null and void. The aim is simply to cover all our bases, because we do not know where local government reorganisation will take us. Until we get there, it is important that whatever the voices are in a given part of the country, they are heard. Local government is so complicated. It is different in so many bits of the country—even places right next to each other. My constituency covers South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse, which have district and county, and then next door in West Berkshire it is unitary. Even there, even in parts of the country that used to be part of the same county—I hope the Campaign for Historic Counties is listening; I do sometimes engage with its Facebook comments—

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am trying not to make too many interventions or to be tedious, but I cannot resist the temptation of that. Where the choice is either/or, does that not suggest that that particular route line requires an upgrade to provide sufficient capacity for both?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Rail Passengers’ Charter · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Rail Passengers’ Charter, setting out certain guarantees and targets in relation to the provision of passenger rail services; to make provision for penalties for failures to comply with the Charter; and for connected purposes. Our railway network is relied on by millions of people every day, both as passengers and as beneficiaries of rail freight. The Railways Bill currently making its way through Parliament will make the biggest change in over 30 years. It is therefore right that we seize this opportunity to bring our experience of using the railway into line with 21st-century expectations and challenges. Passenger charters are not new. I have further burnished my credentials as a dull dinner party guest by reading a few of them in recent days. Every train operating company has one, but this Bill would introduce greater consistency, cut the gap between good intentions and reality and, critically, create a charter with the teeth needed to truly put passenger experience and value for money first. All of this is not to deny that aspects of our railway have improved. The route I frequently take to travel to this place, between Didcot and London Paddington, has a far more generous off-peak train service than 30 years ago, with four fast trains per hour compared with one back then. Trains are more frequent on most routes across the country than they were, and online and digital ticketing brings convenience for many. However, problems remain. With the exception of tickets with seat reservations, standard class tickets do not come with any guarantee of a seat, many trains lack the necessary space for storage of luggage and similar bulky items, and usability of wi-fi and mobile phone signal reception is highly variable. Perhaps the gravest issue is that of overcrowding on trains and its unpredictability. Overcrowding is sometimes understandable, and perhaps even forgivable, for example if there is extreme unforeseen disruption, for a major sporting event where efforts to increase service provision have not matched demand, or for short commuter hops at peak times. However, much overcrowding in recent years seems to have been the result of a conscious decision, made not by frequently demonised private train operating companies but by central Government tightly managing post-pandemic contracts with those train operators. There are, alas, examples from Oxfordshire, home to my Didcot and Wantage constituency. My wonderful parliamentary assistant, Hayleigh, is now on maternity leave, but for many months, she commuted while she was pregnant. Such was the frequency of five-car intercity trains operated by Great Western Railway, including on long-distance routes, such as those between Swansea and Cardiff to London, even at peak times, that she frequently opted to delay her journey to work by 90 minutes, until a more suitable nine-car train was shown on websites to be running. The issue she faced on such five-car trains was not the willingness of other passengers to give up their seat for her, but the fact that she could not even get beyond the vestibule area, next to the doors, into the main saloon of the train because it was often full of people who were having to stand. The commonness of five-car trains on the GWR network is partly a result of retiring older trains in the west country without immediate replacements, leading to the fleet needing to be more thinly spread, which is now gradually being rectified. Another example is CrossCountry, which still runs a timetable well below pre-pandemic levels half a decade on from those difficult times. CrossCountry is acquiring more trains, which will reduce crowding problems, but for many years it has been common for trains of just four or five carriages to run only once per hour between Reading, Oxford, Birmingham and beyond, including at peak times. My own experience of trying to board the 17:40 from Oxford to Manchester resembled the railway version of “The Hunger Games”. Punctuality and getting a seat are core expectations, but rail passengers rightly expect more, particularly for longer-distance journeys. Intercity trains introduced this decade on the east coast main line, between London and Edinburgh, lack the dedicated vehicles of their InterCity 225 predecessors for surge luggage capacity, which is badly needed during the summer and the Edinburgh festival. Elsewhere, provision for pushchairs and bicycles is often patchy, and sometimes in competition. Space for such items is not necessarily at the cost of seats, as it often stated. I have been on trains where carriage of additional bicycles was refused due to lack of flexible storage space, despite half the seats on the train being available. Much of the network remains inaccessible to people using wheelchairs, and they find booked assistance services inconsistent and less reliable than they should be. Toilet reliability can also cause frustration, discomfort and real distress for passengers. There are train journeys of over three hours in duration, for example the South Western Railway service between London and Exeter, that lack provision of any on-board refreshments. That might sound like a trivial issue, and stations often have much in the way of a retail offer, but if, for one reason or another, people are held up on the way to the station, whether because of traffic or a last-minute delay on the tube, and they run out of time to get something to eat or drink, in the case of SWR on that route they are stuffed. On-board wi-fi or the ability to receive a decent mobile phone signal suitable for modern working methods is often lacking, as my colleague Ruth experiences on her journeys between Northumberland and London. To some, these may sound like minor inconveniences and mere whingeing trifles. Indeed, despite the valiant efforts of many of those who work on the railway, it can seem that railway passengers are almost viewed as hostages, with no viable alternative, which reduces the focus on tackling these problems. However, we live in changing times. Not only does public transport continue to compete with the car’s convenient, connection-free journey from A to B, the economics and operation of cars are changing rapidly. To what degree is the public transport of the 2020s ready for a possible future of widespread driverless and electric cars? An example of the changing economics of long-distance travel is that of my friends Mark and Kev, who live in Newton-le-Willows, halfway between Manchester and Liverpool. Their electric car now makes the journey to London significantly cheaper than it would be by train, and some suboptimal experiences of Avanti West Coast’s train service further push them in the car direction. Critics of public transport may ask, well, if the car is becoming greener and cheaper, does it matter if the passenger railway gets left behind? It is my strong contention that it does indeed matter, as it is far from certain that the electric and driverless car revolution will benefit everyone. Nothing can match the train for its ability to convey large numbers of people efficiently, particularly in urban areas, or to offer an on-board environment conducive to work, sleep, rest, eating or listening to music, although in the case of the latter I would ask that everybody uses earphones. High-quality and reliable public transport is essential for social and economic inclusion, so how can a 21st-century refresh of the railway passengers’ charter contribute to a better future? First, we must protect charter arrangements already in place, which principally take the form of delay repay. Perhaps because the UK’s delay compensation arrangements are more generous than elsewhere in Europe, I keep hearing murmurs about ideas to water it down. That would be the wrong approach. The best way to reduce delay repay costs is, of course, to prevent and reduce delays in the first place. Secondly, a refreshed passengers’ charter should be used to learn from past mistakes, regarding design and specification of trains. It was an error on the part of the Government and the public sector, not the private sector, not to specify fold-down tables, comfortable seats, device-charging sockets or wi-fi for the class 700 Thameslink fleet, ordered in the early 2010s. Given that trains have a lifespan of 30 to 40 years, it is important that we get them right from the beginning, so let us now get this right, with a clear set of minimum and consistent standards for commuter, rural, regional and express passenger trains. Once train fleets consistently have the amenities the modern passenger expects, charters should be expanded to include the principle that what is offered on a given train fleet, whether that is seats, toilets or wi-fi, should be working. The existing delay repay partial refund concept should be expanded to cover such amenities, with appropriate exclusions, such as the entitlement to a seat waived for journeys of under 30 minutes or during major disruption or special events. The advancement of the charter concept brings with it the hope of a truly 21st-century railway, which will attract the patronage needed for the railway’s financial sustainability: a train service that even commuters may look forward to using, because instead of a daily grind, it will be a chance for a relaxed transition between home and workplace, and a long-distance train service that is less of a distress purchase, and more a comfortable, relaxing or productive alternative to a car, whether self-driven or otherwise. Our railway recently celebrated its 250th anniversary, so what better time to reset our ambition and ensure that we will feel even more proud of our railway’s achievements at the 300th anniversary, in 2074? Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Olly Glover, Edward Morello, Mr Will Forster, Helen Morgan, Steff Aquarone, Helen Maguire, Zöe Franklin, Daisy Cooper, Ian Roome, Martin Wrigley, Charlotte Cane and Liz Jarvis present the Bill. Olly Glover accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 370 ).

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr McDonald, it is an interesting that the extent of rail devolution in Wales and Scotland is at rather different levels; perhaps I can put it that way. The Welsh Government have long called for greater devolution of rail policy. Does the Bill, and all that comes with it, give you hope for progressing that ambition? Peter McDonald: It certainly does not take us further away, if I can put it that way. In technical terms, I would say that the Bill is neutral for the devolution settlement. It does not adjust the fundamental constitutional arrangement in Wales, just as it does not change the fundamental constitutional arrangement of Scotland. I think the Bill makes the current settlement more operable and better; I will not comment on the Scottish case—I will leave that for Bill. Certainly, the Welsh Government support track-train integration. I appreciate that I came at your question from a negative direction, but the Bill definitely advances us in terms of making the settlement more operable and efficient.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mayors, you have made some really good points about the need for clearer accountability and for more responsiveness and understanding of what is going on in your areas. Mayor Burnham, I think your point about Everton is important, in that where there are strong mayoral areas quite close to each other, it is also important to have a regional cross-border overview. Does GBR do enough to strike the balance between strategic mayoral authorities’ having control in their areas and making sure that that is regionally joined up, maybe through subnational transport bodies? Do you think it does enough to provide that regional overview? Jason Prince: I think the Bill needs strengthening in the relationship between MSAs; I will put that on record. We are working very positively with officials to see how we can strengthen the Bill to ensure that it reflects that. We are on a journey of devolution where local government reform is making sure that mayors will be the conduit, broadly, across the UK. The Bill does set a framework for how that engagement will take place. From a technical point of view, I think what would be beneficial, which is not necessarily something you will cover in line-by-line scrutiny but which needs to be looked at in the guidance issued, is to look at how will this work in practice—your specific question—when you look at how railway under a national structure will work between different areas. When you look at areas like the West Midlands, for example, and the West Midlands Rail Executive, their geography is bigger than an MSA. At the minute the Bill does not acknowledge things like that, so I think there is something that needs to be looked at. Guidance accompanying what is in the legislation would probably give some clarity, and there is an opportunity to bring that through that process.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do others have any thoughts? Andy Burnham: This is a really important point. Giving city regions the ability, either individually or together, to manage events better with the railways, and a role over that, is really important. The Everton stadium example is probably most relevant with rugby league, where England played Australia. There was just an utter meltdown of the TransPennine timetable, and chaos at stations. That affects the country’s reputation when it is a major event. We have the Euros coming in 2028. Manchester and Liverpool will be hosting games. You just want to have a grip on the system. At the moment, we do not feel that we have that with rail, but we do with trams and buses. We have a control room for Transport for Greater Manchester. We manage these things really closely. Oasis played in the summer—you may have noticed that—and we handled major numbers coming through the city on five consecutive nights really well. Obviously, there were some issues, but really well. The railway does not quite live in that world with us, and that is an issue. It is reputational for the country. The railway has been living in its own world a bit too much. That has got to change. I realise some of that is culture change rather than the structures that we lay out in the Bill, but the railway does have to come through this re-emerging as a public service again—people putting a bit more into the railway than they are required to, because they care, and we all care about the reputation of our places and our country. It feels to me like that has been lost, as I look at where the railway has got to in recent times. We need to use this Bill to get it back. It is not a trivial point to say that the bee on the side of trains creates a sense of civic pride again. This is about us and the places where we live. It is a softer point perhaps, but it should not be missed. Tracy Brabin: On events, we have seen a 10% uplift in passenger numbers on rail. There is still a feeling post covid that rail passengers are in decline, because of the change in the 9 to 5, Monday to Friday and so on. Actually, we are seeing an uplift in passenger numbers. Particularly Sundays are rammed. I can give one example of the lack of connectivity. I was a participant in the Abbey Dash in Leeds. There were thousands of people coming into Leeds, then there was a signal failure and the whole of Leeds station closed down. On Trainline on your phone, the app was suggesting the trains were all running. I enquired and they said, “Well, that is a private company. They are not connected to us, so they don’t know.” People were coming to the station assuming that the trains were still running. We have to have that local accountability and the connected nature of the ebbs and flows of the network. If you build it, they will come. If we have more carriages—more than two on CrossCountry—you will get more passengers because people will enjoy the journey and feel it is value for money, rather than being rammed in like cattle. Standing at London Bridge station, you see Southern trains with 13 carriages. I dream about 13 carriages. We have trains that are two and three carriages that are absolutely rammed because we have such an uplift in footfall.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You have both been very clear, and so has Lord Hendy, that a key intention of the Bill and the creation of GBR is to better integrate infrastructure and train operation. If that is the case, why has funding for passenger services been excluded from the periodic review process of GBR’s infrastructure costs? Does separating those funding streams undermine the goal of a truly integrated railway? Keir Mather: That is a really important point. I hope that you feel that the human side of the equation, in terms of furthering the interests of passengers through the duties, is embedded in clause 18, but I take your point about the funding envelope, and the way that passenger services are funded via the spending review period set by the Secretary of State, as opposed to infrastructure more broadly. The reason for that in the immediate term is that the procurement and delivery of passenger services is a far more complex and changeable process to work through than the delivery of long-term infrastructure, or other functions that sit under GBR. In the future, we can certainly get into a debate about whether passenger services should be funded in a similar way to other aspects of GBR’s operation, but for the moment, and after GBR is stood up, which let us remember is in quite short order after the passage of the Bill, in around 12 months’ time, the Secretary of State needs to be able to determine that passenger services offer value for money. It is therefore right that she retains more control over the funding envelope for those services at that stage. We can certainly take the debate on how that should change in the future forward as part of this Committee. I would be very keen to explore it further.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  You may enjoy a ten-minute rule Bill speech that I am making tomorrow. Tracy Brabin: I shall set my timer to make sure I watch it.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You have made some really good points about the complexity of rail and the criticality of the relationship between renewals, electrification, signalling and rolling stock, and all the interfaces and dependencies between them. At risk of putting words in your mouth—hopefully I am reflecting back what you said—would you agree that some of those interfaces and the decisions around them have been, historically, a bit suboptimal? In that context, do you think there is enough in the Bill that recognises that and gets us to a better future? In particular, should the Bill explicitly state that there is a need for a rolling stock strategy? I know the Department for Transport says that it is making one, but it is not specifically in there. Do you have any thoughts about how the Bill deals with all those issues? Darren Caplan: I think the question was about whether it is suboptimal at the moment. Yes, it is. We have a control period that lasts for five years and looks at operations, maintenance and renewal. That does not include enhancements. That was taken out in 2018, 2019, so enhancements have been reduced. It did not include major projects; we are very supportive of the announcements on East West Rail and Northern Powerhouse Rail, but that is not part of the overall plan. There is no rolling stock pipeline or strategy—we have called for that, but we are still waiting to hear back. There is nothing about decarbonising the network, or having an electrified network—when you have that, it is stop-start and boom-or-bust. This is an opportunity to get it together. Back in 2024, we called for a long-term strategy for rail, and we are positive that it is in the GBR plans, so we support the long-term strategy and reviews. I totally agree with these guys that we need to bring more than just ORR work into that pipeline and have a 30-year purview. However, there is quite a lot of work to do on it, and the Bill does not quite capture that yet, but it is a start. Rob Morris: From my perspective, I totally agree that it is currently sub-optimal. Decisions have been made in the past where things have been switched on and then switched off—electrification is a good example. With GBR, we now have a great opportunity to look at the whole system as a fully integrated system, so that we can manage the risks and the performance all together. That suggests that there will now be an opportunity for greater clarity of thinking, reduction in costs and much more efficient execution of the whole system. The important thing is that we have a review of the long-term strategy in regular periods to make it transparent—perhaps every five years, so that the supply chain can set itself up for the next five years. What has happened in the past is that, when there has been a change of approach, it has not been communicated and it has created a vacuum. When there is a vacuum, there is uncertainty and we will not invest in those sorts of things. Then, when we restart things such as an electrification programme, it costs significantly more than if you had a steady-state approach to it. Malcolm Brown: I agree that it has been sub-optimal. I think the clue is in the title; it is a rail system, and therefore a system has a number of components that we require to work as one. For example, I will invest £1 billion in new trains that we have made in Derby, and then those trains are getting maintained. These are state-of-the-art trains—they are absolutely brand new—but they are being maintained in sheds that were built in the Victorian era. That is not how I would like to look after my assets. I would like a holistic, full-system approach that takes these things into account. It cannot be perfect, but there is a lot more that we can do. The one word of caution I would give is this: be careful we don’t try to boil the ocean. We cannot have answers to everything, and nor should we expect the long-term rail strategy to have them. Lastly, it is a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, and if it comes through, that is a major step forward. There is no point in devising electric trains with pantographs and batteries if we do not have the infrastructure to support that, either in maintenance or passenger service. Those two combined are utterly critical, and it is certainly in the title. Rob Morris: May I add one comment to what Malcolm said? That old-system thinking with GBR opens up opportunities for the supply chain—ROSCOs and OEMs like ourselves. We can provide the optimum infrastructural rolling stock solution that also does the best in net zero outcomes for carbon, such as the battery bi-mode trains and discontinuous electrification of new technology that manufacturers like ourselves provide.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Bowker, you lived through an interesting time—I hope you do not mind me describing it like that—when you ran the Strategic Rail Authority. The industry was recovering from the chaos and meltdown of the Hatfield disaster and everything that followed. According to some, there were tensions at the time between the SRA and the ORR and other bodies. Given that there appear to be superficial similarities, to some extent at least, between the structure proposed by the Bill and what existed then, what lessons and insights from that time will help us to get this right? Richard Bowker: There were tensions, some of which were actually quite healthy in a way, because if somebody is basically in charge of everything and has no checks and balances, I am not sure that is a good thing. What is described here, and the way the Bill works, is a far better set of circumstances than I had to deal with 20 years ago. Why? Because, as I said in answer to another question, the SRA was responsible for strategy and for franchising, while the rail regulator was responsible for the network, regulating Network Rail and who could go on the network, ultimately. Those two things did not interface well at times. They did in many ways, and we got a lot done, but it was not perfect. I think the Bill helps significantly in terms of providing clarity and a directing mind. What is key to all this, though, is not necessarily what is written here; it is about how it is then implemented in practice. You have some good building blocks, but the real test will be when real people try to make this work.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Emma, further to your previous comments, will you say a little more about the current general duty in the Bill to promote the needs of disabled passengers being vague and unenforceable? Do you have any further suggestions for how it could be strengthened, perhaps using examples from other sectors? I am interested to hear what the rest of the panel has to say about that as well. Emma Vogelmann: In the Bill now, the power is very much centralised with the Secretary of State. We feel that there is already a lack of sufficient safeguards in place to make sure that accessibility does not become beholden to political will and the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Bill as drafted depends too heavily on discretion, future strategies and changeable licences. We want to make sure that the accessibility considerations and requirements are meaningful and enforceable and do not leave disabled people politically vulnerable. Michael Roberts: For my part, rather reiterating my earlier comments, what is important is the expression of what GBR wants to achieve in accessibility, which is not necessarily to be written on the face of the Bill but should be part of the long-term rail strategy or the business plan. Alongside a duty, however it is expressed in the legislation, there must be some clear milestones and outcomes to which GBR aspires—for example, a milestone for the proportion of stations that should have step-free access by a certain point in time, as the Mayor of London and TfL currently have in the capital, or aspirations for the quality of provision of passenger assistance. There has been a rapid increase in the demand for that sort of service by mobility-impaired passengers, but the level of resource has woefully fallen behind the need. Expressing the stepping stones to a truly more accessible railway in strategic documents needs to go alongside the duty, however it is expressed. Alex Robertson: I agree with Michael about the important milestones. We need to see real shifts in the ambition on accessibility. One of the other things that has been mentioned is that we will have the ability to set the consumer standards for accessibility. Alongside taking over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman, I want to see a really good, strong set of standards on which we would consult and engage with disabled passengers. If they were not complied with, they would be passed to the ORR for enforcement. On complaint handling, at the moment, if you have a failed passenger assist, it is possible for some of the train operating companies to refund you only the price of your ticket, and not compensate for the distress and inconvenience that caused you. That is completely wrong. We would be in a position where that could be looked at properly and changed, so we could take an individual’s complaint and get better redress for them, but also use it to identify systemic issues that might be affecting other people as well. It puts us in a stronger position to do all those things. Ben Plowden: It is not clear to us that the Bill gives GBR a sufficiently strong incentive to increase accessibility over time, in the same way that it does not give an incentive to increase passenger use over time. One issue might be whether you could amend the Bill to require an increase in accessibility over time to be determined through the other documents that the Government and GBR will produce. Michael Roberts: I want to pick up a point that Transport for All made separately on the public sector equality duty, which GBR will be obliged to fulfil. The observation from Transport for All is that the impact of that duty is felt retrospectively and depends on disabled members of the travelling public challenging a failure in service when they find it. There might be some merit in the industry—GBR, ORR—co-creating a definition of what the exercise of that duty feels like in practice. That should be up front, as part of the strategic documents against which GBR will be held to account, with the passenger watchdog monitoring and the ORR enforcing.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Both of your reviews highlighted an issue of short-term thinking, or a lack of longer-term vision, on the railway. Are you satisfied with the way that the long-term rail strategy is set out in the Bill, and that it will restore a bit more long-term thinking and vision? Do you think it is a problem that “long term” is not defined in the Bill—are we talking about five, 10, 20 or 30 years? Richard Brown: I think the Bill talks about a 30-year strategy and the Secretary of State having responsibility for producing that. There will be a degree of evolution, because when you are running an organisation, you need to be the person who is, if you like, giving birth to the strategy, in very close collaboration with your shareholder—if this was a business. The Secretary of State’s strategy will set the long-term objectives about what the Government wish to see the industry do, and then it will be up to GBR to produce the business plans, whether you call them business plans or more detailed strategies, about how it is going to deliver that. I am quite sure that, putting everything together, there are plenty of people in the industry who desperately want to produce a longer-term strategy for rolling stock procurement, electrification and reducing carbon impact, and they are frustrated that it is very difficult to do it now because of the range of parties involved. Keith Williams: I come from the airline world, and the problem there is that you buy an aeroplane and it lasts for the next 30 years. Rail is very similar: you operate the rolling stock, and that is a long-term decision. I was surprised that decisions were set over five-year periods, because the decisions that you make today partially define the future for a much longer period than five years. Again, a problem of running an airline is that you order the aeroplanes and unfortunately the market declines because of economic factors, commercial factors or whatever. You are therefore taking long-term decisions—that is not wrong—but within those you sometimes have to change direction because of the situation that exists at the time. The classic example of that in rail is franchising: franchising worked while the railway was growing, but once it went ex-growth, franchising came under pressure, and then obviously more pressure when covid arrived.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Official Development Assistance · Hansard source

  More

  10. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on planned levels of spending on official development assistance.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Official Development Assistance · Hansard source

  More

  The United States Government have cut funding for research and development on lifesaving health solutions that help the world’s poorest people. In that context, the UK has the opportunity to embrace world-leading scientists who are no longer welcome elsewhere. Will the Government seize the opportunity to both continue progress on life expectancy in the global south and boost the UK’s economy by increasing their spending on global health research and development?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for her passionate speech and for securing the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for giving time to this topic. As many hon. Members have said, covid feels like a distant memory to so many of us, but it continues to have severe, long-lasting effects, including those we are discussing today. I will talk about a couple of constituents who have been affected by the issue of covid-19 financial support exclusion. Fiona and her husband, Bill Bruty, ran a training and consultancy business called Fundraising Training from their bedroom. It helped charities, both here and abroad, to raise money by running training courses. Fiona and Bill were affected by the fact that no financial support was given to business owners whose income principally derived from dividends. Although they eventually received £2,000 from South Oxfordshire district council, they went through tremendous stress and financial struggles. In their words: “Nobody has understood what happened and the mental anguish it caused to so many of us who had paid taxes and did not have business premises.” For Fiona and Bill, face-to-face training has never recovered from the pandemic. Bill has suddenly had to put everything online, which has ultimately been good for them, as they have learned to adapt to our increasingly online lives, but that is an effect that we have seen in many other small businesses. Rob is a limited company director who felt that he and other limited company directors were badly treated, as it was deemed too hard for HMRC to check where dividends came from. Limited company employees were also denied the right to earn income from other sources. Where do we go from here? First, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what redress he thinks should be considered, given the campaign that ExcludedUK has mounted. Secondly, it is important that we learn for the future. Of course, we all hope that the scientists are wrong, but many of them fear that it is only a matter of time before another pandemic, for a variety of reasons. Indeed, there may be other forms of economic hardship, which means that we will need to consider these matters again and come up with better processes in future. This debate points to the fact that politics in this country has perhaps been more focused on larger companies, rather than on those who run their own businesses and are self-employed. That is something that we in this House should all think about. The issues that small businesses have raised with me more recently—many of them suffered during the pandemic—are a big concern, because they are being impacted by current decisions on business rates, alcohol duty and other taxation policies. I am proud that the Liberal Democrats were one of the first parties to call for support for self-employed people during the pandemic, and we secured an urgent question on the topic on 24 March 2020. It is so important that we recognise the contribution that small businesses and the self-employed make to our economy. As well as learning the lessons of the pandemic, we really need to think about how we can support them so that they are better prepared in case of a future economic disaster like the one we all lived through between 2020 and 2022.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I stand to speak in favour of various Lib Dem amendments and in particular new clause 7. Farmers in this country continue to be hammered, as they were under the previous Government, by the current one. From poor funding of rural public services to botched trade deals that undercut British farmers, rural communities have been left behind, despite the industry being vital to delivering our food supply and a key pillar in our fight against climate change. Food is not some luxury or niche commodity but an essential, and an important part of our heritage and culture. In an increasingly volatile world, it is important that we recognise the value of domestic production. Many speakers this evening have discussed problems with the Labour Government’s changes to agricultural and business property tax relief, and it is welcome that the Government have to some extent listened to that. However, in my constituency, the key thing I hear when speaking with farmers is that the proposed changes, in their original form, were the final straw for them on top of so many other challenges and headwinds. That is why the reaction has been so strong. They face the uncertainty and impact of Brexit; trade deals based on proving the so-called benefits of Brexit, no matter the impact on our farmers; constantly changing Government incentive and payment regimes; the impact of recent worldwide inflation on fertiliser prices and equipment costs; labour shortages, also partly as a result of Brexit; and the dominance of large supermarkets seeking ever lower prices. Our farmers also face rural crime, which, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) rightly stated, has a significant impact on their mental health and wellbeing. Even with Thames Valley police’s best efforts, farms’ remoteness makes them easy targets for theft or hare coursing. Flooding has also affected many farms across my constituency, such as George Gale’s Manor farm in Appleford or Paul Cauldwell’s Dropshort farm in Drayton. Increased rainfall and a lack of river maintenance are both contributing factors to wider flooding incidents, plus run-off from new developments. The National Farmers’ Union hustings were by far the toughest of the general election campaign, but I have also been warmly welcomed by farmers who have been very patient and generous in explaining their trade to someone who could not have less of an agricultural background. They include Matt Lane of Grange farm, David Christensen of Lockinge estate and Alan and Richard Binnings, who put so much work into Truckfest, which, as well as being an amazing concert experience on their land, raises tens of thousands of pounds for local charities each year. I want to talk in particular about Ben Smith from Manor Road farm near Wantage. When I met him last winter to hear his challenges, he explained that he is a third-generation arable farmer. At that time, his mother was 90 years of age. She owns the farm. Ben’s big concern was that when she dies, he and his family will be significantly hit by the inheritance tax, with revenues from their arable farming barely able to cover the liabilities. At that time, his mother was saying that she would rather die than leave Ben and his sister to deal with the situation later. Ben wants his son and daughter to have the farm, but he will be in a financial mess. He might need to lose six or seven staff, some of whom have worked for him for between 10 and 45 years. Inheritance tax is a big worry to him, but he has also been hit by other increases in tax and national insurance. All the farmers I have met have been welcoming, tolerant of my agricultural ignorance, forgiving of my vegetarianism, patient in educating me about their work and profoundly passionate about what they do. I have been surprised to find parallels between my experience of working in railways before coming to this place and farming. Both are subject to the stop-and-start whims of Government policy and the decisions of people who have little knowledge or experience of the sectors concerned and often do not take the time to listen and learn. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats are proud of our advocacy for farmers and are calling for the farming budget to be raised by £1 billion, for a renegotiation of trade agreements to protect British farmers in line with our objectives for health, environmental and animal welfare standards, and for strengthening of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to ensure that farmers can keep farming in fair circumstances. It is welcome that the Government have started to listen, but we must always remember that we need food, we need countryside and our farmers do so much to look after both. They deserve our support.