Olly Glover MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his eloquent introduction of this important topic. Over a million people have signed the petition, and 4,929 of them are constituents of mine in Didcot and Wantage in Oxfordshire. I want to start by summarising some of the reasons they gave for asking for a general election and, indeed, this debate when they wrote to me. Some people feel that the Government’s impact on small businesses and economic growth is too much to bear—for example, a small business owner who is considering having to close his business as a consequence. For other people, it is more about international matters, including concerns about the Government’s approach to the Gaza situation. Others felt that working-class people have been disregarded and betrayed by the Government, given what was promised before the general election. For other people, there was an overriding feeling of dissatisfaction and general incompetence. Some people, particularly those who send their children with special educational needs to private institutions, were concerned about the impact of VAT on school fees. Although I am no fan of the Government and agree with some of those criticisms, I am afraid I must politely disagree with my constituents, because I do not think we should have a general election, for three reasons. First, there are no straightforward criteria for assessing when it is time for a Government’s time in office to end early, because under our first-past-the-post system a Government almost never earns more than 50% of support in the first place. We could end up with an endless revolving door of elections and brand-new Government chaos. The period in the late 2010s, when we saw frequent general elections, did not lead to a general increase in satisfaction with the political system, or to a feeling that the economic or general outcomes for the country had improved. To be fair, Governments deserve time to learn the ropes and get things right, albeit this Government have not necessarily used their time so far very well. But we must hear and understand the underlying reasons that have led to the petition and the call for a general election. There are lots of things that we need to change about our politics, which we need to make relevant and responsive again. Notwithstanding the very good opening remarks by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, I am afraid the exchange we heard during the previous speech perhaps shows what is wrong with our politics at the moment and why it puts people off: relitigating the arguments of 10 or 15 years ago, with a lot of “he said”, “she said” or “they said” between representatives of the two main parties, which between them have been running our country for the overwhelming majority of the last 100 years or more. Instead, I offer some better ways to address the discontent and boost engagement with politics. At the risk of sounding naive and full of optimism about the future—my Liberal Democrat colleagues know I never do that, as I am yet to understand the philosophical or intellectual basis of optimism, but I will put that to one side—what we really need in our politics is more listening to each other and more sharing of political ideas, not just as parties but as 650 people who all have different backgrounds, and who bring those different backgrounds and life experiences to this place. We need to do that to achieve better representation for our constituents, because none of us individually can hope to represent directly, or have the lived experience of, all of our tens of thousands of constituents. That would be impossible. We can only listen to them, learn from them and reflect on that.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to have to launch a cyber-security inquiry, because the hon. Gentleman has clearly hacked my notes. [ Laughter. ] I entirely agree with him and pay tribute to him, because he is a consistent and passionate advocate for proportional representation, as am I. That is something on which we can agree. Actually, some people said they signed the petition because they would like to see proportional representation, because they feel the current Government do not represent the views of the country. Of course, many people meant that critically, but it also reflects the simple numerical fact that we have a voting system that gave a majority to a party that won 33.7% of the vote on the lowest turnout in 24 years. It would of course be unrealistic to even hope that such a Government could represent the views of the country, because they are so far below representing what at least 50% of people think. Absent our changing the culture of this place so that we have more listening and sharing of ideas, I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) that we need proportional representation to create a structure to enable that. We could have a long debate about what forms proportional representation could take, but I think people would find that even more dull than anything else. However, proportional representation would enshrine the idea of more than one party having to co-operate, compromise, listen and engage in order to form a broad-based and more representative Government. I also feel that we need to get back to the idea of fixed-term Parliaments. It was perhaps a matter of regret or irony that the time when we did have fixed-term Parliaments was one of some of the greatest political turmoil that this country has had, but that does not mean that the idea is not sound. It is not right that a Prime Minister of whatever party affiliation should be able to treat the country like a political casino, choosing on a whim when to have a general election. That does not help serious policy or long-term thinking over those four or five years. Instead, a fixed-term Parliament would give everybody clarity on how long a Government are in—absent some particularly drastic circumstances, obviously. It would be good for the economy, good for the markets and good for that Government themselves. It would certainly be good for the civil servants and people who have to enact the instructions of that Government. We also need reform to political finances. Thankfully, we are a long way from the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in every special election in the United States, but it is still important that large financial interests are not able to have a disproportionate influence on our politics—or at least not without proper transparency and declarations. More is therefore needed to strengthen the role of the Electoral Commission. We also need a media landscape that is fuelled by facts and respectful discussion of views, rather than misinformation and the screaming that happens between people of different views on social media. That is also important, and comes through creating better politics. While I agree with a lot of the criticisms of the Government that have led to my constituents signing this petition, instead of a general election now, I hope that the Government will reflect—and I hope to hear from the Minister on this—on what else we can do to restore or build up people’s faith in politics, and have a much more broad-based political system. Who knows? Maybe, this afternoon, the Minister will have a damascene conversion to proportional representation. I look forward to finding out.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement and for the strategy. We welcome it, having called for an updated road safety strategy for some time, following years of neglect of our roads by the previous Conservative Government. The strategy shows serious intent, and I commend the thought and research that has gone into it and the breadth of thinking on display. It is welcome that it is largely substance rather than gimmicks, which could have been the case. In particular, I welcome the fact that the Ryan’s law campaign on penalties for hit and run, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), is incorporated into the strategy. Our concern is that much of the strategy is based on a commitment to undertake consultations. I hope the Minister agrees that we would not want to see a repeat of the time it has taken to undertake a pavement-parking consultation—admittedly one initiated by the previous Government—with a wait of five years until the welcome announcement of something today. Consultations need to be meaningful, but they also need to be time-bound and then translated into action. A number of areas need focus. We need to consider the significant impact on some groups in society that these measures will have, right though they are for advancing road safety. The first group is older people. The older generation have grown up in an age of decades-worth of Government policy promoting travel by car, so this runs the risk of having a significant impact on them. As I know from constituency casework, they also suffer from DVLA administration failures in processing medical changes and so on. This underlines the importance of improving public transport to reduce car dependency—in particular, the development of demand-responsive transport in rural areas, which the Transport Committee has looked at in detail. These measures also run the risk of placing further pressure on the rural economy. Our pubs and farming communities are already under real pressure from increased alcohol taxation, business rates and inflation and poor international trade arrangements, which makes it even more important that they are properly supported and that the Government listen, including to Liberal Democrat calls for a 5% cut to VAT for hospitality. It is welcome that the strategy mentions potholes, which drive all our constituents mad—particularly mine on the A4130 between Didcot and Wallingford and the Milton interchange in Queensway. Most importantly, we need to support young drivers. More is needed, given that the Government have twice moved the deadline for reducing the wait for tests to seven weeks. The six-month wait is understandable, but it is important that we support young people.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Across the country, people enjoy traffic-free walking, cycling and wheeling on disused railways such as the Tissington trail in Derbyshire, the Mawddach trail in Gwynedd or the Deeside way in Aberdeenshire. What steps will the Secretary of State take to make it easier for local government and communities to gain access to the 8,000 miles of disused railway that we still have, which creates such a good opportunity for family-friendly cycling trails, as part of a national network?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Passenger Rail Services · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to embrace our 10-year-long campaign for a rail fares freeze. However, I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that passengers have had to bear above-inflation fare increases for two decades prior to that, yet experience trains that are late and overcrowded, and lack the right onboard amenities such as luggage storage, functioning toilets and effective wi-fi. Does the Secretary of State support the idea of a 21st-century railway passenger charter that would guarantee the better passenger experience our passengers deserve?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. Space Solar, based on Harwell campus in my Oxfordshire constituency, plans to deliver commercial space-based solar energy by 2032. Given what we have heard today about the Government’s commitment to artificial intelligence growth zones and the very high cost of industrial electricity, does the Secretary of State recognise the potential of space-based solar, and will he support British excellence and leadership in this emerging field?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I commend my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for introducing the debate so eloquently. As she said, there is no question but that climate change and population growth are placing increasing strain on our water resources, and that we need the right infrastructure to accommodate a growing population. That is why, despite some aspects being controversial, I support new housing and road projects in my constituency. Concern about some of Thames Water’s plans is widespread and impossible to ignore, because of Thames Water’s performance and track record. It is impossible to ignore the fact that Thames Water currently loses more than 600 million litres of water—nearly a quarter of the water in its network—to leaks every day. The ongoing failure to deal with those losses is one of the principal reasons why my constituents do not have faith in Thames Water’s enthusiasm for what it is now calling the White Horse reservoir. Thames Water’s record of financial mismanagement and poor operational delivery is well documented and has badly eroded public trust. Against that background, it is extraordinary, but really ought not to surprise us, that the estimated cost of the proposed reservoir near Abingdon has risen from £2.2 billion to as much as £7.5 billion. That is no marginal increase: it is a threefold rise. At the same time, the size of the proposed reservoir has increased by 50% compared with what was once consulted on. Despite the scale of the financial risk, it is bill payers—my constituents—not investors who are expected to foot the bill. This is not a fair allocation of risk, particularly when the company’s past decisions have contributed to its current financial fragility. We therefore urgently need an independent review and proper consideration of alternatives, such as the Severn-to-Thames transfer scheme, before irreversible commitments are made. Bill payers in Oxfordshire, and indeed across the region, deserve a proper solution that is effective, proportionate and fair. That means an urgent independent review of the south-east strategic reservoir option proposal, full transparency over costs, and serious consideration of alternatives, including leakage control, before any irreversible commitments are made. Is the Minister really comfortable with the proposal landing on her desk in its current form, with such significant unanswered questions about cost, transparency and value for money? Is it right that bill payers will bear all the risk? It is interesting that Thames Water has decided to start calling it the White Horse reservoir, because there is a real risk that it will end up being the white elephant reservoir—and nobody wants that.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Grassroots Cricket Clubs · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a good point about the growing diversity in cricket. My constituency is home to Challow and Childrey cricket club, as well as to Didcot cricket club, at which there is a junior division, one of Oxfordshire’s largest disability cricket associations, and a women and girls division. Didcot cricket club is also very diverse. Does he agree that cricket, and sport in general, can bring communities closer together and therefore need more central Government support?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Small and Medium-sized Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Love Beer Brewery in Milton in my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage supplies fantastic ale for events and a number of local pubs. However, its viability is threatened by the freeze of income tax thresholds and the increase in beer duty. Its monthly beer duty costs are now between £1,500 and £2,000, and if its owner did not have a day job, it probably would not be able to survive. In that context, will the Minister say a bit more about what else the Government can do to support small businesses and small breweries such as Love Beer in Milton?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Small and Medium-sized Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps he is taking to support small and medium-sized businesses.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I shall have to ask my office to initiate an investigation into the leak of my speech—I will go on to say why we do indeed need a rolling electrification programme, which is something that has hitherto been missing under Governments of all colours. Nevertheless, we Liberal Democrats have some concerns about the Bill in its current form. First of all, though, we certainly welcome the Government’s recent embrace of a seven-year Lib Dem call for a freeze on rail fares. It is very welcome, but it would be entirely wrong to suggest—to be fair, the Secretary of State has not yet done so—that GBR is needed for such things. This is all about influence and persuasion with the Treasury and making sure we make coherent choices about fares and the cost of motoring, so that we encourage the transport choices we wish to see. The legislation as drafted will not in and of itself bring better value for money for customers in the form of affordability, reliability and improved access to the network. It is not just me who thinks that; the Secretary of State herself stated in May that she could not promise lower fares under renationalisation. One of my biggest concerns is that GBR currently sounds like a railways version of NHS England—something that the Government themselves have decided to abolish—rather than an organisation given real autonomy, following a clear vision and long-term plan for the industry, that is likely to create customer focus and commercial flair, which is what our railways really need. What they do not need is even more state control and micromanagement, which, to date, has not produced good outcomes. The capacity duty for GBR laid out in the Bill is another big concern here; in just three short paragraphs, it sets out a very broad and draconian basis for rejecting applications to access the network that are not GBR. Let me give some examples of how state control and micromanagement has hurt us to date. It was the Department for Transport, not any failing train operator, that specified the inter-city trains currently in service with LNER and GWR, which, as I am sure the Secretary of State will know from her own travels, have been replete with problems and concerns about suboptimal internal comfort and design. Indeed, the current significant rolling stock shortages—a result of problems that GWR is facing with those trains—were confounded by a DFT decision to withdraw high-speed train rolling stock from the west country after the pandemic without a replacement, which has led to frequent overcrowding on trains serving my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, partly because five-car inter-city trains designed for journeys such as London to Bristol and London to Penzance are currently operating stopping services in Devon and Cornwall. It was a Department for Transport decision to appoint Chiltern Railways to operate East West Rail phase 1 between Oxford and Milton Keynes. The new railway has been ready for more than a year and we still have no passenger services running on that line. We have had 20 years of Department for Transport-specified timetables, with relatively little improvement to connections between trains and non-London journey times. When I used to work at Southern, the timetable specification document given to us by the Department for Transport had 200 pages of detail as to exactly what should be followed. There is a real lack of clarity on how open access passenger and freight will be effectively regulated and protected in the new structure. That is especially important for freight, which the Government have decided not to nationalise. There is no requirement in the Bill to set a target for passenger growth, which may suggest a lack of ambition. The Bill is very vague on the criteria for calculating things such as network access charges. The Bill gives GBR the power to apply discounted or elevated track charges, but it is totally unclear as to what criteria will be applied in deciding the charges. It is also unclear how the ORR will be able to police and enforce that effectively, given its reduced powers. The Bill seems to imply that appeals against GBR access decisions will require judicial review-level criteria, making them very inaccessible to most parties that may wish to make those challenges. We hope that some of those concerns will be addressed through further scrutiny on the Bill Committee—in the miraculous event that the Bill passes later today. We hope that, with an open-minded approach from the Government, we will be able to set a specific time definition for “long-term rail strategy”. The Liberal Democrats believe that it should be 30 years rather than a short period of 10 years or 15 years. We hope to see a clearer definition and some bounds put in for the many references to the Secretary of State’s powers to override, and we want to see greater ambition for both freight and passenger growth. We need more recognition of the importance of competition and open access for both freight and long-distance passengers. Rail freight remains in the private sector and therefore needs protections, given the Government’s clear preference for state ownership and operation. Open access has driven up ridership and customer satisfaction on the east coast main line but is now at risk. The real question for the Government is whether something as innovative as Hull Trains, which has transformed the inter-city passenger offer between Hull and London, would even be possible under GBR? We desperately need competition on the west coast main line, given Avanti West Coast’s outrageous fares and performance. There is no guarantee that when Avanti returns to the public sector those fares will come down. There are many positive examples of private sector tendering and operation—particularly the Spanish high-speed network, the original LGV Sud-Est in France, which is the busiest high-speed line in Europe, and French and German operating contracts procured by regional governments. Although the Passenger Standards Authority is welcome, we need an even stronger and louder passenger voice on it. What would the Lib Dems do instead or additionally? [ Laughter. ] Well, I am going to address that in case anybody wanted to accuse us of being negative without articulating our positive vision. We need to make sure that as well as making the structural changes it intends to, the Bill, and whatever follows, addresses the real problems on our network. Successive Governments have failed to set out a clear, long-term vision and set of objectives for the railway that cover passenger and freight growth, customer satisfaction and punctuality. They have failed to accompany that with a long-term funding settlement and infrastructure plan, which should include incentives and rewards for contractors and suppliers for hitting quality, time and cost objectives when it comes to enhancements to the network. They should be based on a vision for a regional or national timetable designed around convenient and reliable connections between trains at well-designed major interchange stations, as is the case in Switzerland. The Bill should limit future fare increases to no more than the rate of inflation, which would deal with the arbitrary approach that has been taken up until now. We need value for money and quality guarantees for passengers given the high fares we have. In particular, the Bill does not guarantee that my Oxfordshire constituency will get the improvements that we really want to see, such as electrification between Didcot and Oxford. The equivalent part of railway to Cambridge was electrified in 1986 under that hardly well-known pro-rail Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. We need a clear, long-term rolling programme for rolling stock. We need accessibility improvements at stations, including Cholsey, and new stations such as one to serve Grove and Wantage. I am desperate to see that for my constituents.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank those who have put so much work into the Bill, which has had a long gestation, with its roots in the multiple timetable change meltdowns across the network in May 2018. They and the Government are right to recognise that our railways need change. That should be our starting point. I will start with the reasons why we need that change. Unfortunately, the British Railways Act 1994 framework introduced by the Conservative Government of that era has certainly been full of problems, and previous Conservative Governments have presided over above-inflation fare increases, overcrowded trains and frankly incomprehensible and totally baffling contract extensions awarded to failing train operators such as CrossCountry and Avanti West Coast. I think we can all agree in this House that the current structure and system is not putting passengers or freight users first, but we should also recognise that meddling and interference from central Government has increased since the pandemic and is at the heart of some of our problems—more of which anon. Let us start with what is good about the Bill. It is certainly an honest and serious attempt to simplify the current convoluted industry structure and processes. It is quite right to focus on the need for accessibility improvements, and it is welcome that it introduces the idea of a long-term rail strategy, although the usefulness of that will depend on how “long-term” is defined. The creation of a passenger standards authority to build on the work of Transport Focus is welcome to ensure that the passenger really is put first.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that some of the more sparsely populated parts of our country have been neglected in their rail offer. It is important that the spending recognises that and does not just follow large towns or cities or inter-city routes.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman might find that the Bill is also rather lacking in detail on how future rail improvements will be funded. However, he is right in the sense that we need to get costs down. That is why a rolling programme of electrification, new stations, rolling stock and so on would get costs down. It is not just me who thinks so; Andrew Haines, the former chief executive of Network Rail, said in testimony to the Transport Committee that the evidence is “incontrovertible” that a rolling programme of electrification would reduce costs. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) that we need a greater voice not just for combined authorities but for local authorities. Only with those changes will we see a railway that is innovative, ambitious and aligned with the needs of our economy, passengers and freight end users. For now, the Bill, despite its good intentions, needs further work before it can move forward. Therefore, with some sadness, Liberal Democrat Members cannot support it.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T10. The Government created the National Wealth Fund to encourage investment in innovation in critical sectors, such as clean energy and sustainable aviation fuel. How will the Chancellor make sure that the wealth fund uses different, and maybe even better, risk criteria than commercial banks and financial entities?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome that the Government have tabled these amendments to strengthen the Pension Protection Fund arrangements. However, that will be of little use to those such as the AEA Technology pension campaigners, about whom I have met the Minister. Despite many Select Committee reports and National Audit Office findings, they were badly advised by past Governments and have not been given a route to redress. I invite the Minister to reconsider his past decision and consider new clause 1.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I think everybody in this Chamber and in this House can agree that we need economic growth, but many question whether the Budget will really help with that. It prolongs Conservative underhand tactics, such as tax threshold freezes, which will have a comparable impact to more honest and up-front tax rises. Small businesses in my constituency, including Love Beer Brewery in Milton, Ridgeway Cycles and the Vaults in Wantage, the Crown in Chilton and the George at Upton, are extremely worried, in some cases existentially so, about the impact of poorly thought-through business rate changes, which come on top of growing energy costs. As a result, the Liberal Democrats’ proposed 5% VAT cut for pubs and restaurants is badly needed. The Budget is largely silent on some of the big picture strategic themes we need. A key one is change to the planning system. I know the Government agree, but we need far more real and meaningful changes that go beyond scapegoating newts and bats. Instead, we need a planning system that delivers social and genuinely affordable housing—not just blunt housing targets irrespective of how affordable those houses will be—primary healthcare that people can actually access and which will help more people to get jobs, and investment in transport to boost mobility and reduce congestion. It is not just me who says that about the need for genuinely affordable housing. Didcot B power station in my constituency cites the cost of housing as the biggest barrier it faces in retaining staff. In my constituency, we have the tedious, multi-decade saga—it will not be a Netflix hit any time soon—of trying to get a GP surgery built in the new housing estate of Didcot Great Western Park. There is a comparable risk of a similar saga affecting a Wallingford GP surgery’s plans to expand. Didcot and Wallingford have both seen significant housing and population growth. Despite similar population growth in Wantage and Grove, there is as yet no clear Government support for a new railway station serving it on the nearby Great Western main line, and Cholsey station continues to lack accessibility improvements. Constituents understandably clamour for more large-scale leisure facilities, such as swimming pools and leisure centres, which are very difficult to fund using section 106 contributions alone. The Government’s getting moving on social care reform, rather than yet another review, which will last the entire Parliament, would help with productivity. My Oxfordshire constituency has a lot of potential to build on its strengths, particularly with so much exciting space, fusion, biotech, and many other science and technology contributions to the local and national economy, such as at Harwell campus, Milton Park and Culham. Many of those have already been slowed down by the consequences of Brexit, and businesses are concerned about some of the Government’s rhetoric on migration, which they feel could affect their ability to attract the vital international talent they need to succeed. Overall, this Budget has injected despair rather than optimism. My constituents and their businesses need the Government to do better.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Alaa Abd el-Fattah · Hansard source

  More

  9. What recent progress she has made on helping Alaa Abd el-Fattah to return to the UK.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Alaa Abd el-Fattah · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming Alaa’s recent release from detention in Egypt, and in thanking the many people who have campaign for and helped secure that over the years. This week, Alaa will miss the 14th birthday of his son Khaled, because the Egyptian authorities are not letting him travel. It is good to hear about the engagement that the Minister describes, but what further steps can he and the Prime Minister take to ensure that Alaa is able to return to the UK to spend Christmas with his family?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Young People not in Education, Employment or Training · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this debate and the powerful points that she made, especially about how young people are often lazily demonised as being an idle generation. That view fails to take into account how much has changed since many of us here were young—which was more recently in some cases than in others, but let us move on from that quickly. In my Oxfordshire constituency, despite having perhaps the highest levels of house building in the country, housing costs remain completely out of reach for people on low incomes, and particularly young people. There is a real shortage of affordable housing, particularly for one and two-person households, with many houses having four, five or even six bedrooms. Transport costs are also very high. The world of skills is changing. I have a lot of high-tech, scientific industries in my constituency—space, biotech, fusion and so on—and we need to help young people to acquire these skills. As has been mentioned, NHS waiting lists can be a barrier to people entering the workplace, and I have many people in my constituency who are young carers. I am pleased that Be Free Young Carers supports them. I am not alone in my concern about this issue: Didcot B power station in my constituency cites housing costs as the biggest barrier to retaining talented people. As a result, therefore, many young people continue to live at home with their parents. In some cases, I am sure they love that, but in others, it could be a barrier to expressing their freedom and creativity as a young person. I am really pleased that Oxfordshire county council has an education, employment and training service supporting any young person in year 12 or 13 who is NEET or at risk of being NEET. I know the Government have a lot of ideas and good intentions on this, and I would be very keen to hear what the Minister will do to help young people not in employment, education or training in my constituency.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Transport System: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  For decades, rail fares have been subject to above-inflation increases, and many people feel that prices such as £7,780 for an annual season ticket from Didcot to the London travelcard area do not represent good value for money and hinder the railways’ potential to reduce congestion and contribute to economic growth. Does the Secretary of State support the idea of a rail fares freeze? If she does, what representations has she made to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The new railway between Oxford, Bicester and Milton Keynes has been open for more than a year, successfully running freight and charter trains, but passenger trains have yet to start. When will passenger services begin, and what does the Secretary of State feel are the lessons for her Department as to what has gone wrong?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Parkinson’s Disease · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the importance of mental health support for people suffering from Parkinson’s disease. Will she join me in paying tribute to my constituent Peter Cook, who is doing great work as a trustee of the Parkinsons.Me charity, and also to Paul Mayhew-Archer MBE, who, as well as having written “The Vicar of Dibley,” is now doing fantastic work campaigning for people suffering from Parkinson’s disease?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulation 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I put on the record very briefly the Liberal Democrats’ support for the proposed updating and expansion of maritime regulations.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I join other hon. Members in commending the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for bringing this very important topic to Westminster Hall and, indeed, for his impressive efforts in getting media coverage before the debate had even occurred—I might ask him later for his tips on that, if he might be so generous, because hitherto I have not had quite such success, but it is very good to see. He is quite right to talk about the fear of driving at night that this issue instils and offers some good tips for mitigating the effects. My hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) talked about the economic impact of reduced night driving and the problem of automated light dimming—I shall return to that subject, because I have some very strong views about it. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) joined other hon. Members in talking about the rural context and how important night-time driving is for people who live in rural areas and for the rural economy. It was once again great to hear the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) bring his professional optometrist’s experience to the debate and quite rightly highlight the impact of the issue on elderly people’s mobility, as well as the safety aspects of those who continue driving even though their eyesight may be compromised. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) gave us an excellent summary of his very strong and robust campaigning on this issue, which this debate will hopefully accelerate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was very articulate about the need to strengthen MOT requirements and the fact that the data under-represents the problem at hand, a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). Following a petition with more than 14,000 signatures, the previous Government committed to commissioning research into headlight glare, a project that was taken up by the current Labour Government, with the results eagerly expected. While LED headlights improve driver visibility and energy efficiency, they can cause discomfort or temporary blindness to oncoming drivers. An RAC survey in December 2024 found that 95% of drivers believe some headlights are too bright, with 53% reporting being temporarily blinded and 25% avoiding night driving altogether because of glare. Research shows that glare particularly affects people with cataracts or other vision issues. Headlight alignment and condition are checked during the MOT test, yet overly bright lights can still pass if technically compliant. There are concerns about poorly aligned or aftermarket LED conversions sold online; police reports list dazzling headlights as a factor in around 200 to 300 collisions annually in Great Britain. However, as hon. Members have suggested, that is almost certainly an underestimate. The UK raised the issue at the UN Economic Commission for Europe, which agreed to tighten rules on headlamp alignment and to make automatic levelling systems mandatory by 2027. Ongoing Government-funded research by the Transport Research Laboratory will include real-world glare assessments across different road types. This issue is close to my heart, because my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has many rural components, and my main method of transport around the constituency is a bicycle. I assure the hon. Member for Crawley that I certainly do not use a flashing light outside street-lit areas, nor am I one of those covered in dark clothing who is invisible. However, despite wearing high-vis clothing with retroreflective strips and having panniers with retroreflective elements, a front light, a rear light and loads of reflectors, I encounter a growing problem of car drivers taking too long to dip their headlights. Often it is so bad, particularly on roads that do not have a white line, that I just have to stop until the offending vehicle has gone—perhaps after some creative hand gestures in front of my light, as a last-minute attempt to make sure that they see me. Some people dip their headlights and others do not, so it seems unlikely that it is to do with my visibility. I therefore wonder whether the automation that some hon. Members have mentioned is the factor; possibly some drivers rely on that, whereas others are observant, keeping a close eye and dipping as soon as they can. I can say from my experience as a cyclist that this is a real safety issue: if somebody is behind me when I have to stop suddenly, they will not be expecting to have to stop too. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Department for Transport’s decision to commission an independent review into headlight glare and we urge the Government to develop an updated road strategy including vehicle design, including lighting, within its scope. I know that that is something they are working on. We are deeply concerned about increasing reports of overly bright or poorly aligned LED headlights causing discomfort, temporary blindness and heightened safety risks for other road users, including drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. For all those reasons, this debate is very welcome and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to it.