Olly Glover MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2026 · Vaccination Rates: England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker, on the second consecutive day. I thank the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), who set out his case so well that I fear my contribution will add very little to his. Nevertheless, I want to add my voice in support of this very important topic. The issue of vaccination rates is critical to public health. Even small drops in uptake below the 95% World Health Organisation target can erode the collective benefit of vaccination and create the potential for more outbreaks, such as the measles outbreaks in recent years. In Oxfordshire, where my constituency is located, we are below the target for all five of the main early years vaccination categories. For four of the five, we are in the 85% to 95% range, and for the pre-school booster for tetanus, diphtheria and polio, we are in the 90% to 95% range. The figures are too low and really need to be improved. The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip set out articulately the sort of coherent and integrated NHS and Government plan that we need to tackle this issue; I will focus on the challenges of misinformation and disinformation. We need a proactive NHS and Government plan, because spending on vaccination is a really good illustration of the principle that prevention is better than subsequent treatment and hospitalisation. Improving our vaccination rates is a really good way of relieving pressure on other parts of the health service, and saving money from up-front investment as well as saving lives. Vaccination is one of many areas of health where individual decisions can cause harm to a wider community. There will be plenty of parents and people who might have concerns about vaccination, whether legitimate or because of things they have seen on social media, but as far as possible—we had a lot of debate about this during the covid pandemic—we must try to think not just of ourselves and our families, but of our neighbours, friends and work colleagues when making decisions about vaccination. We know that misinformation and disinformation are both rising, and that has been made easier, alas, by social media. Sustained action will be needed to tackle that. We definitely need tougher regulation of social media companies. We perhaps may need to introduce a verification requirement for any social media account claiming to be that of a medical professional. I would like to see the compulsory labelling and annotation of all posts about vaccination and vaccines with verified scientific facts by the relevant public health or national body. We need to show leadership as politicians. Perhaps the Government could consider taking the lead on a national campaign in which we all show our support for vaccinations, maybe even sometimes when we take them. As adults, we do not need them quite so often, but we might for certain types of travel—because of my love of walking in the Alps, I have occasionally chosen to have a tick-borne encephalitis vaccine to reduce my risk of infection. We can all do a lot more, be symbols of progress and practise what we preach, as many politicians do for blood donation, for example. Perhaps the new Prime Minister could make one of his famous TikTok videos videos—although, of course, he has a long list of topics to tackle. We can also engage with social media influencers, who have the credibility on social media that those of us who are hopeless at it lack. They can be ambassadors for vaccination as well. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said, we need community outreach programmes. We need the health service to be properly supported, because this is yet another thing to add to the long list of things we expect of GPs. We need to go to the people and reach areas and communities that perhaps do not have as much access to or interaction with the health service as others. We need to build dialogue and trust. We need to create easy-to-access and visible vaccination opportunities, including at times of the day convenient for those communities, not just for health and medical organisations. Only teamwork and determined action can avert us from our current path of falling vaccination rates. If we do not reverse the trend, we will, alas, see more illness and, ultimately, death. I hope to hear from the Minister what we can do to prevent that.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Barker, after a bit of a break since the last time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for setting out so well the funding challenges facing upper-tier councils. She quite correctly articulated the challenges in relation to special educational needs provision, to which I could add home-to-school transport and, in the case of Oxfordshire, a population that is not just ageing but growing. Social care accounted for 52% of Oxfordshire county council’s budget in 2024-25. I want to focus my remarks on perhaps the most visible public service that councils provide, which is highways. For the current financial year, Oxfordshire’s Government allocation for highway maintenance is £33.5 million. This funding must maintain all highway assets in Oxfordshire, including 3,009 miles of carriageway, nearly 2,000 miles of footways and cycleways, 3,500 bridges and public right-of-way structures, 168,000 drainage assets and 124,000 electrical assets, such as street lighting, traffic signals and safety infrastructure. Oxfordshire county council was graded “Green” in the spend category of the Department for Transport’s recent exercise in respect of the Government’s local road maintenance ratings. That means the council invests “significantly” in maintaining its roads and goes beyond what the Government funds. Independent modelling shows that in Oxfordshire around £50 million per year is needed simply to maintain the network in its current condition, which means the Government funding falls short by around £16 million per year. Ideally, the county council would want to go even further and improve the condition of the roads rather than just maintaining them in a steady state; the amount of funds needed would then be even higher, at £60 million per year. Oxfordshire consistently spends significantly more than it receives from the Government for highway maintenance, but it is still a long way off the amount required. The council estimates that there is a maintenance funding backlog of over £700 million across the county’s highway network, part of which is to do with the previous Conservative administration and its stated policy of managed decline. The situation will only worsen with prolonged underfunding from central Government. This is a national issue. There are Members present from throughout the country, as we see whenever we discuss the subject of road surfaces. Without sustained funding, local authorities remain locked into a reactive cycle, whereby potholes re-emerge faster than they can be eliminated. Despite such challenges, Oxfordshire county council is trying to do things differently and get on to a proactive and preventive footing in relation to highways maintenance. It has significantly improved its programme of gully clearance and delivered the largest programme of surface dressing in at least 20 years, investing £14.5 million and treating around 2 million square metres of carriageway to prevent potholes from forming in the first place. In the past year alone, the council repaired more than 57,000 defects, including 37,000 potholes. It is spending £8 million this calendar year on a new surface dressing programme to tackle long-term road maintenance issues and prevent the formation of potholes. Between April and June, 87 roads across the county were treated, covering more than 1 million square metres of carriageway across 62 towns and villages in Oxfordshire. Amid these challenges, the changes to Government funding formulae will mean a cut to Oxfordshire county council’s budget of £24.1 million over three years, further undermining its ability to do more preventive work. If the Government continue to make unwise decisions, the council is, like so many others, at risk of seeing a vicious spiral of cuts and deterioration to highways and wider services. It is important that we do not pit different parts of the country with different geographies and demographics against one another. Every part of the country has a need in one form or another. Of course, our new Prime Minister has said so himself with the idea of “good growth in every postcode.” —[ Official Report , 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 27.] The Government have certainly talked about that a lot in respect of Oxfordshire, with the Oxford-to-Cambridge growth corridor being so pivotal to scientific research and to accommodating housing targets. A new funding formula is needed that clearly cannot be based on the number of people alone. There are different challenges in urban and rural areas and, indeed, in those that fall between the two, as much of my constituency does. There remains a question of how we can work together to properly design, build and proactively maintain our roads and highways. Individual councils acting alone cannot hope to solve that problem by doing their own thing in isolation. Oxfordshire county council will soon cease to exist, thanks to the local government reorganisation. The question remains: what of the future? I conclude by emphasising that the Oxford-to-Cambridge growth corridor aspirations will certainly not be achieved if our councils are starved of funding and our highways further deteriorate.

• 16 Jul 2026 · National Planning Policy Framework · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing a debate on this important topic very much in the spirit of end-of-term relaxation. I want to start with some of the positives of the new draft NPPF. My district councils locally have welcomed its structure, usability and the good aim, at least, of a more streamlined planning system and reduction of duplication. They also welcome the separation of plan making and decision-making guidance. Overall, the aim of speeding up the plan-making process to 13 months is welcome. Local plans take many years to be produced and involve a huge amount of resource. I am certainly interested to hear from the Minister whether he feels that the Planning Inspectorate has the resources to cope with an increase in the number of plans to examine and assess. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a very important point about the implications of local government reorganisation. Significant concerns remain about how the Government seem to be moving away from local decision making and community empowerment. As this new scheme of delegation will reduce the input of elected councillors in planning decisions, involving communities and needs specific to local geography become even more important, yet there are concerns that spatial development strategies will be agreed to far away from communities. More could be done to clarify the planning system and permissions for houses in multiple occupation. Such properties are often associated with parking and waste issues and, unlike larger HMOs, they may not be subject to requirements on parking provision, room sizes or amenity space, potentially resulting in poorer living conditions. Requiring planning permission for all HMOs for a single use class could help address those issues by ensuring consistent standards. The environment is a big concern. The NPPF has insufficient focus on our climate and environmental obligations, and certainly not enough on flood and extreme temperature resilience and standards for homes. As highlighted by Wildlife and Countryside Link, the draft NPPF would limit local ambition and powers by preventing local planning authorities from requiring biodiversity net gain above the statutory 10% minimum. That seems like a retrograde step. Finally, my biggest concern is one I have raised with the Minister many times and in many different forums: the Government’s ambitious housing targets are not being supported by the same focus on the infrastructure and public services that will be needed, which makes it harder to get local communities invested in the importance of more housing. In Oxfordshire, where the rate of housing growth has been extremely fast, the challenge is ensuring that infrastructure such as doctors, schools, public transport and affordable housing is available to support our growing population. Development should remain plan-led and be guided by evidence of local need, not by market forces alone. That is my biggest concern about both Government policy in general and the NPPF in particular. I hope the Minister will add to his previous comments on what the Government will do to ensure that our house building targets and population growth are supported by infra- structure and public services.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I recognise that a lot of work has gone into the proposals by a lot of people, but many of the details add to an existing impression of chaos. We are finally getting sight of the detail just 9.5 months before many affected areas have elections. Councils have been forced into putting time and resources into coming up with proposals, many of which have been ignored. Councillors and officers have been uncertain about their future for the nearly two years it has taken to get to this point. Many communities will feel done to, not done with. The lack of notice and opportunity to scrutinise the Department’s decisions is also a huge concern. The Secretary of State’s suggestion that local identities are being considered will come as a huge surprise to my constituents in Culham and Clifton Hampden, which, although many miles from Oxford city centre and surrounded by countryside, will be incorporated into Greater Oxford. Many communities and council wards in Oxfordshire will also now be arbitrarily divided between the new unitary councils. Colleagues in Devon worry that rural communities have been ignored at the expense of new unitaries designed to benefit the needs of cities. There were endless changes of mind about Sussex elections and boundaries, and now, the fact that a decision has not been made about West Sussex has been met with disbelief. The Government promised to work in partnership with local authorities and rebuild the trust that was shattered over the past decade. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the long- term financial viability of the proposed unitary structures, given that several of the councils being merged risk being financially unviable?