Olly Glover MP: speeches 2026

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.