Olly Glover MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for setting out the case so well. I also thank my constituents for signing this petition; my constituency is ranked 10th for the number of constituents who signed it, with 866 signatures. Before I get into the usual damning of Thames Water, I want to put something on the record. However corporately dysfunctional Thames Water is, there are a lot of good people who work for it. I thank the frontline teams and their managers, who have engaged on issues such as the flooding on Ladygrove in Didcot and restoring Wallingford’s Mill brook, and who attended a flooding summit at East Hanney last year Corporately, however, Thames Water is not working, and that lets down its customers and workers. Last year, it discharged sewage into our rivers and lakes for more than 107,000 hours—yet another example of Thames Water failing its customers and the environment, and of the regulator, Ofwat, failing the British public. Despite serving 16 million people with a vital public service, Thames Water is operating with £23 billion of assets in urgent need of repair and close to £20 billion of debt, which it has said it cannot repay—a third of customers’ bills are spent servicing that debt. In that context, it is unclear how Thames Water is the right organisation to be responsible for delivering the proposed White Horse reservoir, the estimated costs for which have already increased from £2.2 billion to £7.5 billion. Certainly, special administration is the right thing for Thames Water, but the subject of the e-petition is public ownership. We assume that nationalising organisations automatically leads to good delivery, but the evidence on this is mixed at best. It would come as a surprise to users of train services in the north of England, delivered by Network Rail, which was nationalised nearly a quarter of a century ago, and Northern Rail, which was nationalised more than half a decade ago, to learn that nationalisation automatically leads to brilliance. That is why, instead of nationalisation, the Liberal Democrats are calling for water companies to become mutually owned public benefit corporations—owned by customers, professionally managed and not driven by shareholder profit—with effective regulation. On the proposed delivery mechanism, a referendum, I still personally have PTSD from the 2016 one. Instead, we should add this to the Prime Minister’s list of things on which he needs to forge a cross-party consensus.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Water Management · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is showing his usual erudition on these topics. He mentions SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—which can be an important part of the solutions he outlines. However, many homeowners in my constituency find that those sustainable drainage systems do not work as intended because they are not properly designed and maintained. We have unenacted legislation that means developers are not being held to account. Does he agree that we need to do more to make sustainable drainage systems work effectively?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I start by joining the Secretary of State in thanking the House of Lords for its work in developing the Bill, and I pay particular thanks to the Liberal Democrat peer team led by the noble Baroness Grender. I also note at the start that it has been a season of reshuffles, and I congratulate the Secretary of State, the Minister with responsibility for aviation, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), and indeed the shadow Secretary of State on their reconfirmed appointments in recent reshuffles. It remains to be seen whether I survive the next Liberal Democrat one. There is much to be encouraged by in the Bill. It necessarily fills in some gaps in our aviation regulation resulting from our leaving the European Union, it brings potential for improving passenger rights, and it enables modernisation of our airspace, which has not been done for decades, including air traffic control, landing slots and optimising main routes to and from airports. Of course, the point about air traffic control is timely following yesterday’s NATS Holdings air traffic control disruption, which is a fresh reminder of the need for reliability. Perhaps the one thing I would agree with in the shadow Secretary of State’s speech is that a Second Reading debate on new legislation is a somewhat unorthodox way for the Government to be held accountable, and it is a matter of regret that the Government have not decided to make a statement to the House on that important disruption yesterday. However, we do have some concerns about the Bill. As drafted, it relies far too heavily on delegated powers and secondary legislation. By leaving critical details to future ministerial regulation, the Government are bypassing meaningful parliamentary oversight and leaving passengers and local communities without robust statutory safeguards. The Bill, as it stands, also grants sweeping powers to the Civil Aviation Authority. Consequently, the Bill could be used to support more flights at any cost. We will be looking to the Government to engage positively with amendments that would make all changes to airspace utilisation subject to strict caps on noise, carbon emissions and night operations, and to accompanying improved transport services to and from airports to reduce their road congestion impact. I note the assurances given by the Secretary of State that airport expansion is not connected to this Bill, but we will fight to ensure that the new powers in the Bill cannot be used to facilitate airport expansion through the back door, and that Parliament is properly involved in any future proposals that impact our environment. The Liberal Democrats will also be calling for the Bill to go much further by adopting a genuinely passenger-first approach, with a focus on passengers with disabilities, who are so often let down by their experience of aviation travel. Critically, we want to see a statutory air passengers charter written on to the face of the Bill to enshrine these rights in law, tackling issues such as inconsistent luggage rules, airport drop-off charges, and disruption and compensation arrangements. At this stage, we support the premise of the Bill, as modernisation is clearly needed. However, our support at further stages will be conditional on positive engagement with our proposals for putting passengers first and for environmental safeguards. Specifically, modernisation must be used to make the most of what we have, rather than increase the noise, carbon emissions, night-time and ground road congestion impacts of aviation. Only if the Government give assurances in subsequent stages that the Bill will do this, and that they will properly commit to advancing passenger rights and protections, will it retain our support.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the seriousness of this issue. Does she agree that a great way for the Government to show they understand that seriousness would be to publish the report in full and agree to a national broadcast and a national emergency briefing?

• 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.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Extreme Heat: Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher, and I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing a debate on this very important topic. His wide-ranging speech highlighted the worsening climate outlook that we face; the impacts on physical health, mental health and sleep of the extreme heatwaves we have recently been suffering; and important issues about water storage. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) rightly highlighted the impact that extreme heatwaves have on people with lower incomes, who may not be able to go and buy air-conditioning units and so on. As well as highlighting the mitigation of putting ice lollies in the freezer, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the impact on the elderly population in older, rural properties. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) added to her comments in last night’s Adjournment debate about the importance of embodied carbon in buildings. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) joined a number of hon. Members in highlighting the failures of water companies—South West Water’s failings in her case—and the need to improve the reliability of water supply. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) highlighted the fact that Department for Education guidance has focused on open windows. I will come on to whether opening windows helps, after some experimentation that I have done in my own house as to how to deal with this. The hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) rightly highlighted the fact we have had long-term knowledge of climate change and we have collectively, as a human species, failed to take decisive action thus far. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) talked about the impact of learning. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) talked with her customary passion and expertise on this topic. She said that the impact of climate change is here today and that it should be considered a national security issue. We Liberal Democrats share the concerns of hon. Members in this Chamber. We are acutely aware of the serious public health threat posed by heatwaves, particularly to those with underlying health conditions, residents of care homes and people living in temporary accommodation. Back in summer 2023, an estimated 2,295 deaths were associated with five periods of heat. This year so far, more than 2,700 people may have died from heat-related causes in England and Wales, as suggested by expert estimates. We have also seen wildfires. Very tragically, a wildfire led to the deaths of British citizens in Almeria in Spain, but I have also had fires locally in the Astons and West Challow in my constituency, although thankfully they have not led to fatalities. My constituency has also faced the challenge of hot school buildings. At recent school visits, I have felt this for myself—for example, at the Stanford in the Vale Church of England primary school but also at Aureus secondary school, despite that building not even being a decade old. That shows how we continue to not get these things right. I have attended a community national emergency briefing in Wallingford, and there has also been one in Didcot. That shows there is rising popular concern about these topics and that we need to take more action. Let us think about this issue through three categories. First, what can we do to prevent the root cause? Secondly, what can we do to mitigate it? Thirdly, what coping measures do we have in place? On prevention, I feel very strongly, as do several other hon. Members, that we cannot keep shunting carbon emission reductions down the road. We have made progress in a number of areas in the United Kingdom but there is a lot more to be done. Globally, the same issue applies: when we are confronted with a choice between making further and faster progress on reducing carbon emissions and other factors, it is often the other factors that win out. Progress has been pretty stagnant on introducing electric vehicles and adapting our infrastructure, and the UK’s hopeless record on rail electrification, including under this Government, and on industrial production needs lots of attention. That is before we even think about rainforest loss and the destruction of nature both here and elsewhere. That is why we, as politicians who care about these topics, must tackle net zero scepticism head on. We are directly seeing the impacts of climate change now, and we will spend far more money if we focus solely on mitigation—which, alas, we need to do because of our lack of progress—rather than on tackling the root causes of carbon emissions. The second theme is mitigation. Building design is important. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire made embodied carbon in buildings the focus of her Adjournment debate last night, and we can also learn how to design our buildings better so that they are resilient for the future. We know from some of the buildings here on the parliamentary estate what a long way we have to go: elements of the Palace can be very cool, but Portcullis House is hardly a triumph of modern building design, given that the atrium—and frankly every room in that place—is a greenhouse. I am personally delighted not to have won a room in Portcullis House in the ballot. I am happy to be in Derby Gate where the air-con actually works—for half of it anyway, but that is another story. It is not right that so many people are left to endure dangerously high temperatures in poorly insulated homes and buildings. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, beginning with free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households, while ensuring that all new homes are built to zero-carbon standards. That builds on our recent success of getting the Government to commit to putting rooftop solar on all new builds, which was encouraged by the sunshine Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). When we are dealing with heat pump scepticism, it is important to remember that heat pumps have the capability to provide air-con in summer. Successive Governments have comprehensively failed to take climate adaptation measures seriously, guaranteeing misery for people and communities affected by heat stress, as well as flooding and wildfires. That is why we would prioritise protecting communities by implementing a comprehensive UK adaptation strategy, embedding climate resilience into decision making across all Government Departments and agencies—rather than the current siloed approach—to prevent problems before they happen. We would deliver adequate funding to local communities to empower them to combat flooding, drought and heatwaves, including through nature-based flood management, sustainable drainage, water supply enhancement, building retrofits and urban greening, backed by stronger planning and regulatory frameworks. People continue to ignore the evidence that even simple solutions, such as more trees and more shade in urban areas, can make an enormous difference to our ability to withstand heatwaves. The Liberal Democrats would develop resilience standards for the energy, water, transport and telecommunications sectors, and support homeowners to install proactive adaptation measures against flooding and overheating. We also believe that no one should be expected to work in unacceptably high temperatures, and we support the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation to introduce a statutory maximum workplace temperature. The third theme is coping measures, and cool hubs are our policy solution. They would be rather like warm hubs with areas of heating, which are popular in Ukraine in winter when Russia attacks infrastructure, but they are the summer equivalent. Community spaces with air-conditioning, such as gyms, leisure centres and libraries, could provide much-needed respite from soaring temperatures in summer months, following similar “cool bank” schemes in other countries. We need to do more to make our transport networks resilient. We need to consider whether our current rail stress temperatures need to be increased, given a much wider range of temperatures and much hotter summers. The more modern railway electrification that we have in this country is much more resilient than older equipment installed in past decades. Melting tarmac can be an issue for roads and aviation. Public health advice and information will be more and more important. We need to ensure that people understand good practice for keeping houses cool. I have realised from contributions to the Didcot community Facebook group that I have been doing this all wrong and that, actually, having the windows open often does not help. Somebody said, “You’re such idiots for opening your windows. Keep them closed when it’s hot.” I have tried that and, I have to say, it is a lot better. Perhaps that exposes my embarrassing lack of understanding of science, but it shows that we can do a lot more to help people to reach the best conclusions for their own houses. Finally, we need a public information campaign on what we can all do to prevent fires and reduce the risk, particularly in the countryside where we should not be smoking, vaping or having barbecues in areas that have been subject to drought and are at much higher risk. This is clearly a very challenging topic, and one that needs action across Government Departments. For that reason, I look forward to the Minister’s comments.