Olly Glover MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Astronomy and Space Science: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps her Department is taking to maintain levels of funding for astronomy and space science.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Astronomy and Space Science: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer. My Oxfordshire constituency is home to Harwell campus, the UK’s largest concentration of space and science organisations. Despite what the Minister said about the budget, the need for £162 million of savings by 2030 that was imposed on the Science and Technology Facilities Council risks jobs and critical research equipment, undermining our global science leadership. Does the Minister share those concerns, and what steps will he take to protect scientific jobs and facilities?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Following an attack that led to long-term mental and physical health difficulties, a constituent got a disappointing offer of compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, after a two-and-a-half-year delay. It took an appeal and my intervention for her to finally be offered fair compensation. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that victims of crime receive a good service when applying for criminal injury compensation?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Ports and Port Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. No doubt, given what I am about to say, everybody will wish I was confined to four or five minutes rather than 10, but there we go. I commend the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for securing a debate on this vital topic. We have seen so many parts of the country represented in the debate, demonstrating that the UK is a proud maritime country with a strong history in global trade, and that maritime is critical to our future. She talked about that maritime history and the key role of ports and our coast for defence, offshore wind and the wider economic impact. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the benefits of the cruise ship sector to his constituency and the impact of the Windsor framework and Brexit on trade. The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) talked about the sad demise of Ramsgate as a port, and the importance of coastal regeneration and a wider coastal economic strategy. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) rightly talked about the critical role that Immingham port plays in so many freight imports, particularly bulk cargo, and how we need to invest in gauge clearance and rail freight. I will be saying a lot more on that. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) talked about the critical importance of engaging local communities and doing what we can to reduce the impact of the vast number of lorries that serve our ports on local roads. Finally, the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) belatedly started a contest for best port in the country, but alas, we would have to rerun the debate to find out which would win. Our ports are central to economic growth. They are our domestic industry’s gateway to the global trade network. Ports contribute billions annually to our economy and support thousands of jobs across coastal communities both directly and indirectly. Our ports should be viewed as hubs: the entry point into an effective, joined-up transport system spanning out across the country. They should be supporting British business, not hindering it. The United Kingdom has 51 major ports. Our port ecosystem handled 423 million tonnes in 2024. Around 86% of our international freight by weight is transported by sea, but still, 70% of freight to and from our ports moves by road, compared with around 10% by rail and 20% by coastal shipping. Roads carry over 300 million tonnes of port freight nationally. The national policy statement for ports provides the planning framework for major infrastructure projects, and the revised 2025 NPS set out aims to support expansion of port capacity, streamline planning decisions, align with decarbonisation and energy goals and integrate with national transport planning. The Transport Committee’s scrutiny of the NPS found aspects of it unclear or incomplete, particularly its intention to streamline planning decisions for major port developments. The Committee recommended that ports be designed as critical national priority infrastructure, which would help to speed up planning decisions. It also found the NPS to be weak on port connectivity, with insufficient emphasis on rail freight and integration with wider transport networks—a key theme of this debate. Too often, the onward connectivity from ports around our country is not up to scratch, as the rail line or, more often than not, the road directly linking ports is the weak link in the system. A key barrier to getting more freight on rail is the ongoing lack of electrification. That is not particularly for decarbonisation reasons but simply because freight hauled by an electric locomotive accelerates much faster, which can help to accommodate freight trains amid passenger trains far more easily. There are many examples of short bits of railway that could be electrified to realise some of those benefits. The three miles of the London Gateway branch that are not electrified are one of the best examples. Many freight operators run freight trains using diesel locomotives for hundreds of miles underneath electrified lines simply because those three miles are not electrified. DP World has offered to pay half of the estimated £20 million cost of electrifying those three miles. There has been a scepticism in this Government and previous Governments about railway electrification because previous schemes have gone over budget. But Sir Andrew Haines, former chief executive of Network Rail and current chairman of DFT Operator, gave testimony to the Transport Committee that the best way to bring electrification costs down is by committing to a rolling programme so that the supply chain gains maturity. What better way to kick off that rolling programme than with a commitment to doing the three miles of London Gateway? The three miles have relatively little in the way of bridges and tunnels; it is a great opportunity for the supply chain to get started. Who knows? Perhaps the Minister, in his speech, will give that commitment to spend £10 million, matching DP World’s £10 million, make a great name for himself and start a railway electrification revolution in this country that would also benefit Felixstowe, Immingham, Southampton, Middlesbrough, Seaforth container terminal and many other ports. I look forward to hearing that in his speech. If we want to support business and boost the stagnant economic growth that plagues the country, we must invest not only in our ports but in the roads, railways and networks that connect them to the rest of the country. The private sector is willing to do that: I have outlined DP World’s offer but another good example is GB Railfreight, which has invested £150 million in bi-mode—meaning they can run on diesel or electric—Class 99 locomotives. GB Railfreight has said to me that it would like to run those locomotives on electric power far more than it will be able to when they enter service this summer because of the lack of electrification of our network. Our approach to this issue contrasts very unfavourably with that of other countries. The Netherlands built the Betuweroute—a dedicated freight-only railway serving the port of Rotterdam—both to boost rail freight capacity and to take freight trains off the existing network, enabling the Netherlands to run its very high frequency passenger services. Another big benefit of moving freight off the roads is that it reduces the need to invest in some very expensive and disruptive road schemes. The A34 through my constituency, in Oxfordshire, is becoming more and more congested. There are lots of reasons for that but high lorry volumes are a significant factor, notwithstanding the good progress—highlighted by the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen—that DP World has made in getting more traffic from Southampton off the road and on to rail. Of course, transport is not the only thing holding back our ports. We all saw images of miles of lorries queuing outside Dover. Earlier this year, transport businesses were still describing the ongoing “pure hell” of Brexit paperwork in evidence to the Business and Trade Committee. We need to cut the Brexit bureaucracy and red tape to enable our port sector to really thrive. The Public Accounts Committee found a “Clear increase in costs, paperwork and border delays” for UK businesses after Brexit. The National Audit Office similarly concluded that businesses face “additional costs and administrative burdens” due to new border processes. At least £4.7 billion has been spent implementing border arrangements, and around 39 million customs declarations have been required annually, adding significant friction. UK ports handled around 10% less cargo in 2024 compared with 2019, the last full year before Brexit. That decline has been attributed to Brexit and wider economic factors. We need to make importing and exporting more efficient, cutting the time and money wasted at ports on unnecessary forms, checks and mountains of paperwork. To do that, we need closer ties with Europe. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a bold new partnership with the European Union, including joining the single market and customs union. That would tear down barriers for businesses and boost trade with Britain’s biggest market. Labour may have hemmed itself in with its current red lines on Europe, and who knows what the new Prime Minister—whoever that may be—will do, but we believe we have a significant part of the answer to resolving the country’s stagnant growth. Our ports would be free again to fulfil their potential, removing the bureaucracy and getting Britain trading again. It would also reverse the disastrous series of policy blunders that have put a boot on the necks of businesses, including the rise in employer national insurance contributions. Our ports should be not the Brexit bottlenecks they are today, but the engines at the heart of economic growth, as so many hon. Members have eloquently articulated. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

• 25 Jun 2026 · National Lung Cancer Screening Programme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this debate, and on his tireless campaigning both on lung cancer and on cancer more widely. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his passionate contribution to the debate. Lung cancer is a devastating disease that has caused suffering in every single community in our country. The symptoms are horrific, aggressive and deadly. Although treatments for lung cancer and understanding of its causes have improved, lung cancer still accounts for more deaths in the UK than any other type of cancer. It is the third most common type of cancer and kills 35,000 people a year in Britain. Identifying lung cancer early through screening saves lives, and the current targeted screening programme in the UK has been world leading. Screening is the single biggest intervention we can make to improve lung cancer survival rates. Of course we were all delighted when my hon. Friend’s campaigning helped to ensure that the national cancer plan came into being, including a commitment to complete the roll-out of the lung cancer screening programme by 2030. The screening programme is welcome and it is already delivering results. However, there is not enough clarity about how it will be funded going forward. Funding will be central to any success on the ground, so perhaps the Minister can address that issue when he responds to the debate. Equally, we need to support the devolved nations in implementing lung cancer screening to help them to catch up with England’s programme, which is already world leading. The devolved nations are lagging behind, and that must be addressed as the roll-out of the screening programme ramps up. Charities have also raised concerns that the current reorganisation of the national health service and the abolition of NHS England could disrupt the focus on the roll-out and even hinder its progress. Shockingly, 79% of cases of lung cancer are preventable, with the vast majority of all cases being the direct result of smoking. However, a decade of cuts to public health hobbled smoking cessation services, with massive implications for lung cancer rates. Despite the generational ban in the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, there are still plenty of smokers around and there will continue to be for years to come. That is why the Liberal Democrats have been advocating a return to 2015 spending levels on public health, which would boost smoking cessation services and help all those people who want to quit smoking to do so. We must also put an end to the tragedy of people losing their lives because their cancer treatment took too long to start. Nobody should be unable to receive treatment because there is not enough equipment, and no one should suffer because there are not enough staff to support them properly. The Government’s target in the national cancer plan to meet all cancer wait-time standards by 2029 is a good one. However, if they really want to hit that target, they must be far bolder. The national cancer plan includes a commitment for 28 new radiotherapy machines. However, that is not enough, especially for such a cost-effective and successful treatment. The Government should go further and provide funding for at least 200 more radiotherapy machines, which are needed to address the backlogs that exist. We Lib Dems are also proud that the national cancer plan incorporates our calls for every patient to have a designated specialist cancer nurse. However, the Government have yet to state how many more nurses they will provide to deliver that specialised care. Cancer nurses are already overworked and overstretched; if the Government aim to provide every patient with a designated cancer nurse, as we all want, they must be bolder in addressing the issues in the nursing workforce. In 2023, a national targeted screening programme for lung cancer in England was announced for people aged between 55 and 74 with a history of smoking. More than 1.5 million people have attended a lung health check and more than 9,000 people have been diagnosed with lung cancer; 76% of those were diagnosed at stage 1 or 2, compared with just 30% of lung cancer sufferers outside the programme. Although the programme is targeted, it has proved to be a powerful tool, reducing by a quarter the overall gap in early cancer diagnosis between the richest and poorest areas, or from a gap of 8.2 percentage points in 2019 to 6.2 percentage points in the year to September 2025. In the national cancer plan, the Government committed to completing the roll-out of the targeted national lung cancer screening programme by 2030, and it is expected that this roll-out will offer screenings to more than 6 million people by 2035. It has the potential to diagnose 23,000 lung cancers earlier than otherwise would be the case. In addition to all that, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cancer policy to reflect the fact that speed and quality of treatment are central to improvement of lung cancer survival rates. We would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients will be able to start treatment within 60 days of urgent referral. We would replace ageing radiotherapy machines and increase the total number of such machines, so that no one has to travel too far for treatment. We would also recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment, and halve the time for new treatments to reach patients by expanding the capability of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. To make the UK a world leader in cancer research, we would also look to pass a cancer survival research Act, which would require the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into those cancers with the lowest survival rates, including brain cancer. We would also start a fellowship programme for US cancer scientists who have seen their funding gutted by the Trump Government, waiving burdensome fees and bureaucracy for international researchers as a whole. Global talent visas for top researchers cost £6,000 per person for a five-year visa—that is £18,000 for a family of three. That is much more expensive that most of our competitor countries, where it is typically £200 or £300 per person. The cost of visas for Cancer Research UK alone is £900,000 a year, the equivalent of setting up two new cancer research labs every year. The fellowship scheme would also deliver more funding for salary and research costs for researchers by expanding the share of GDP going on research and development to 3.5%. That would unlock hundreds of millions of pounds a year for cancer research and billions more for our life sciences sector generally. We would deliver that through a decade-long programme of public investment in research and development. I am moving towards my conclusion, Sir Alec, so I would like to tell the happy story of my constituent John, who has been the direct beneficiary of the early lung cancer screening programme. Without any obvious symptoms, in late January John received an invitation to participate in the Oxford University hospital early lung cancer detection screening programme, with an initial telephone appointment already planned for 10 February. Having established a sufficient risk score, a very low dose CT scan of the lungs was offered as part of the evaluation process just a week later. The scan revealed a nodule on John’s lung that required further tests. In March, referral was made to the respiratory early diagnosis service, with further tests and a PET-CT scan following shortly thereafter. On 20 March, the results were shared with John, following a multidisciplinary team discussion. A minimal solid component not suitable for biopsy had the appearance of adenocarcinoma and surgical referral was recommended. By the end of March, he had his pre-assessment appointment at John Radcliffe following an appointment with a thoracic surgeon at the Churchill hospital. On 17 April, an operation to remove 30% of his left lung—a 5.5-hour operation—took place. He was discharged home two days later, with a multidisciplinary team discussion at the end of May. On 2 June, the out-patient appointment for John at the Churchill hospital confirmed the removal of a 22-millimetre adenocarcinoma, with no tumour spread. It was therefore a huge success for John, for which he is enormously grateful, going from detection to successful treatment in six months. He will now be subject to a scan in six months and follow-up for five years. John’s story is a great example of the potential of this early cancer screening programme. We all hope that a further roll-out will be a success.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Elections: First Past the Post · Hansard source

  More

  Given the hon. Gentleman’s faith in the first-past-the-post system, does he have any theories as to why turnout in our elections tends to be significantly lower than in comparable western European countries?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Elections: First Past the Post · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate, for her passionate opening remarks and for her courage and nobility in potentially being willing to sacrifice the North Korean-esque majorities that our party achieved in the recent local elections. I fear that, given the heat, there would be frayed tempers if I made my speech about the relative merits or otherwise of alternatives to first past the post. Instead, I shall make the case for how change could make a major contribution to fixing our politics, because so much of what is holding our country back is one party or another—it does not really matter which one—having undiluted power, and not having other parties in government to be the voice of conscience, alternative ideas and challenge. That is one of the reasons why we have yet to make progress on social care, despite innumerable reviews and commissions on how we should resolve that very challenging issue. As other hon. Members have said, first past the post has not succeeded in delivering political stability over the last decade, because we have had seven Prime Ministers in 10 years. We also see the phenomenon manifesting in other ways: stop-start decisions on transport or various Governments enthusiastically advocating for different devolution models, rather than as many of us as possible uniting on one. When researching for this debate, I wondered what fuels our apparent fear of moving away from first past the post. Nearly all the other countries in the world that have that voting system are former parts of the British empire. That shows a positive thing about Britain in the sense that the empire and its legacy have helped to introduce democracy, or at least forms of it, to large parts of the world. However, some former members of the empire have found themselves able to make progress and move on. Australia and New Zealand are two countries that we greatly admire, and they have decided to ditch first past the post in favour of something else. In the meantime, we have to ask ourselves whether proportional representation is really so bad. We seem to think it is not in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so what is it about introducing a proportional voting system that has England trembling in fear and terror at the very idea? It is almost as if we think civilisation would end if England were to embrace some of these concepts. We are already seeing how parties can work together when there are fractured election results, as recent English council elections have shown that we have the capability to have multi-party negotiations and multi-party local governments. We should embrace that maturity and hope to have it in this place one day as well. The current Prime Minister’s love of first past the post was shown in a remarkably clear answer when I asked him recently whether he thought it can still deliver strong and stable government. He gave me a three-word answer: “Yes, I do.” I suppose it remains to be seen whether the next Prime Minister, whoever they may be, will agree with him. Looking to the future, as well as the prospect of a new Prime Minister and perhaps a new way of thinking on these topics, we do not need to debate which voting system to choose to replace first past the post. That is not the next best step; a national commission for electoral reform could properly look at the pros and cons of the options and think through the matter. We saw the support for that in the 143 signatories to an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel): 81 Labour signatures, 48 from the Liberal Democrats and the rest from many other parties, though interestingly none from Reform UK, despite its past commitment to proportional representation. That might be another issue where it finds itself embracing establishment thinking, despite telling us that it is the radical saviour of our future. For now, it is over to the Labour party, which is commanding a remarkable 18% support in opinion polls, to determine our future. [ Interruption. ] That is the polling average, I say to the hon. Gentleman speaking from a sedentary position. We should only look at polling averages, never individual ones. I conclude with a direct appeal to whoever is the next Prime Minister. There seems to be a lot of reporting on who that is likely to be but, as I have not notified that individual, I shall avoid naming them. Let us hope that the expectation and hype around the possible next Prime Minister are justified, because this is about changing our politics for the better and for good. It is about embracing the most meaningful change for transforming our political culture: proportional representation. We need that for social care, political stability and empowering our region.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Turner—I am in a state of astonishment at being called first. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again. I thank the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for his articulate opening speech. Most of what I am going to say follows a recent farm visit and farmers’ roundtable. I thank the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association for arranging that, the 20 attendees who gave their time, and Robert Clayton for having us at Mill Farm in West Hendred. Three key challenges face farmers in my constituency and across the country. The first is the question of regulation and costs, with the impact of the Iran war a major concern on top of existing Brexit-related challenges, with red diesel and fertiliser subject to major inflation, and electricity standing charges for farmers having risen by 44% to 91%. Secondly, prices incentives and food culture need to change. We need to strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It is welcome to finally see a Government response to the Minette Batters profitability review today, but fundamentally what farmers raise is a lack of Government understanding and listening to farmers about the challenges that they face. Thirdly, we need more investment and funding for our farmers. Food security should be thought of in the same way as wider national and defence security. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for investing £1 billion extra in environment land management schemes, so that we can properly support our farmers and make sure they contribute to a resilient food supply chain.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. On a recent visit to Stanford in the Vale pre-school, I saw the great service that it provides to children and parents. However, it faces rising demand without adequate funding and resources. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to support early years education providers in meeting demand for the free-hours childcare scheme?

• 22 Jun 2026 · East Midlands Railway Collision · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement? I wholly associate myself with her remarks. Our thoughts have to be with the driver who lost his life and the many passengers who were injured, particularly those still in hospital, and all their families. From my past railway management experience, I know that the railway family as a whole will be in a state of shock. I pay tribute to the on-train staff, signalling centre staff and control centre staff in Network Rail and East Midlands Railway for their excellent initial response. That led to emergency services being on the scene within 10 minutes. I also pay tribute to the emergency services for their work and to investigatory staff, station staff, customer service personnel along the line of route, the community organisations and the Salvation Army, as the Secretary of State referenced. I do not have a question for the Secretary of State; I think her statement was spot on, and I just want to reiterate what she said. It is so important that we do not succumb to the temptation to speculate, however well-intentioned that may be. We must give the investigatory teams and the site recovery teams the time and space that they need. I never had to deal with anything as horrible as this in in my railway career, but I know from that time that speculation is the most unhelpful thing that can be done.

• 18 Jun 2026 · BBC Funding · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she is taking to help ensure the sustainability of the BBC’s long-term funding.

• 18 Jun 2026 · BBC Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, as part of £500 million cuts, the BBC announced the scrapping of BBC Radio 4’s “The World Tonight” programme after 56 years, among others. It is very welcome to hear the Secretary of State’s support for the BBC, but can she say a little more about what she is going to do to protect the future of the BBC, following the end of the BBC charter consultation in March?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have been very clear in their support for Thames Water’s proposed £5.7 billion White Horse reservoir in Oxfordshire. Given that Thames Water may run out of money in months, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the risk that a collapse could lead to the Government having to bear the cost of the reservoir?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Passenger Rail Services · Hansard source

  More

  Young people in Oxford, Bicester, Winslow, Bletchley and Milton Keynes are sitting their exams, but they continue to not be able to use a train to get to school or for leisure, despite this phase of East West Rail opening 18 months ago. I have a little exam question for the Minister. What timescale will the Government commit to for the start of regular passenger services: Andy Burnham returning to the House of Commons, a change of Prime Minister, the formal creation of Great British Railways, or the next general election?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The current cycling and walking investment strategy includes a target for 55% of trips to be walked, wheeled or cycled by 2035. Is the Secretary of State confident that there is a realistic plan with sufficient funding to achieve that target?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to thank the Minister here and Lord Hendy for engaging with my hon. Friend’s amendment to better enable members of our armed forces, veterans and their families to travel to services on Remembrance Sunday. New clauses 6 and 2 and amendments 2 and 3 would require GBR to deliver meaningful fares reform and innovation, such as tap-in and tap-out contactless payment, as is currently available in the entirety of the Netherlands, and other forms of convenient digital payment, as well as our rail miles scheme, which would extend the concept of air miles and promote domestic tourism by making journeys on our railways as valuable a commodity as air miles are today. New clause 9 would reduce the ability of the Department for Transport and the Treasury to meddle in the affairs of GBR, because interference and micromanagement by those organisations has caused a lot of the issues afflicting our railways today. To that end, amendments 7 and 6 would align track and train budgets, putting right what I feel is a detailed and structural flaw in the Bill. The Bill’s current intention to have infrastructure subject to five-year funding cycles, but funding for passenger services and train operation subject to spending review timescales, undermines the ability to achieve a “whole railway” way of thinking, planning and funding. Amendments 8 and 9 are intended to deliver stronger accountability and transparency for GBR in relation to capacity allocation and network access fees, powers and decisions, particularly given that freight will remain in the private sector and as an open access endeavour. Amendment 5 and new clause 3 counter the Bill’s poverty of ambition for the railways’ potential to further tackle road congestion, improve access to work and productivity, and cut carbon emissions, as shown by the Government’s repeated and, frankly, bizarre and incomprehensible refusal to include a requirement for a passenger growth target in the Bill. This is an area on which Liberal Democrats, Greens and Conservatives all tabled similar amendments in Committee—how often does that happen? Not very often, in my experience. Myriad stakeholder organisations have made the same point, as indeed has the Transport Committee. Perhaps the noble Lord Hendy’s recent comments to the Transport Committee partially give the game away. When I asked him about summer service cuts to Avanti West Coast services, he said: “It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to reduce train services in the short term when there is less demand for them.” On one level that is an understandable view, but where there is lower demand for train services, we need to look at the reasons for that, and perhaps Avanti West Coast’s outrageous fares and poor track record are part of that, or it may be less attractive because of the lack of open access on the west coast main line compared with the east coast.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we need new clause 1 to provide a railway passengers’ charter fit for the 21st century. With rail fares as high as they are, things like functioning wi-fi or phone signal, enough space for luggage, functioning toilets or even a seat should no longer be seen as indulgent luxuries. I note that the Government have recently announced some serious intentions to improve wi-fi and phone signal, and I wish them all the best with that endeavour. The new clauses and amendments I mentioned could deliver significant improvements to passenger safety and security at stations and on trains, and they would require higher standards for those, if adopted.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The county of Norfolk suffered particularly from the Beeching cuts of the 1960s, so that needs to be looked at. That is a good example of the potential for rail to improve rural connectivity. I would not mind so much that the Government are so keen to reduce train service where there is less demand if they or the rail industry appeared to have a comparable appetite for increasing services when there is very clearly high demand, as there was recently on the 10.30 from Reading to Penzance. Who could have anticipated that at the start of a bank holiday weekend, during half term, with extremely warm weather forecast, there would be high demand? That train was, to use a technical term, “rammed.” That is why we need a passenger growth target, to ensure that we are not just amending the timetable for a bit of penny-pinching, but to match customer demand. We must ensure that people who take the train to the west country do so again because they have a good experience.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Without boring the House with a re-litigation of the debate we had in Committee, I will just say that the idea that passenger and freight are mutually exclusive and that there must be a choice between them is not correct. The Westbahn upgrade in Austria is a really good example of how investment has delivered an increase in both speed and frequency of passenger trains, and just as much freight, if not more, than before. We do not need to choose between them; we can have both if we so wish.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my hon. Friend for her industry in the number of amendments she has tabled to the Bill. I hope the Government will listen and consider new clause 37, as they did with her new clause 36 regarding veterans. New clauses 7 and 8 would make more explicit commitments for GBR to have greater environmental and carbon emissions reduction obligations than those currently drafted. Our amendments as a whole would increase GBR’s potential to avoid making the mistakes of the past. They would encourage it to take bold new steps on electrification and deliver truly joined-up journeys and integrated transport and timetables. They would encourage it to have a real, ambitious rail devolution agenda to bring decision making far closer to communities than is currently the case with Whitehall’s domination. Our amendments would also avoid the total mess of projects led by the Department for Transport, such as the ongoing situation of having no trains between Oxford and Milton Keynes on East West Rail, despite the railway being commissioned 18 months ago. We have HS2—it goes without saying what a mess that is, and that has not been an endeavour led by the private sector. We also have the inter-city express programme for GWR and LNER, which was wildly expensive. Let me move towards my conclusion. The key test is this: do the Railways Bill and the proposed creation of GBR make my key constituency asks more or less likely to happen? Simpler and better value fares on GWR, particularly during peak times; an end to five-car, overcrowded inter-city operations; a new station at Grove; full electrification between Didcot and Oxford, bringing Oxford into equality with Cambridge, which benefited from such electrification in 1986; an hourly service for Culham; accessibility improvements to Cholsey; and East West Rail actually happening, as I mentioned—only with our amendments do I feel that those things are likely to be within reach. Although the Government are right about the need to better align track and train and to tackle the current dysfunctional industry structure, the Bill has too many flaws. Do not take that from me—the Transport Committee reached a similar conclusion, with most of the recommendations of its inquiry being rejected by the Government. Absent the Government embracing at least some of the Lib Dem amendments that I have spoken to, we risk creating a GBR that is mired in bureaucracy and overseen by a Department for Transport that is distracted by dubious GBR train colour schemes and somewhat gimmicky social media videos, rather than adopting good practices from other countries and truly transforming our railway. Absent the Government embracing some of our amendments or the House voting on them, the Bill is not fit to go forward.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As we said on Second Reading and in Committee, the Bill has the right goals: sorting out the convoluted and byzantine structure of our rail industry, and better aligning infrastructure with train operation. But the question before us is whether the Bill, as currently drafted, will achieve those very valid aims. The Minister gave the impression in Committee that the Bill was beyond any possible reproach or improvement, on the basis that he rejected all Opposition amendments, but we have learned this afternoon that it is possible to improve it, of course, because the Government have tabled their own amendments. If I may begin in the spirit of generosity, I welcome Government amendments 106, 107 and 108, since, as I understand them, they seemingly clarify that GBR will not have powers to seek to take over privately owned infrastructure, such as freight. That will provide some reassurance to the sector, which is welcome. However, the Bill remains flawed in many ways, so the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments in the spirit of wishing to remove some of those flaws. I will group our amendments by theme. New clauses 1 and 46 and amendment 1 are intended to provide much better value for the customer and focus on the customer’s journey experience.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, so I say this with some trepidation, given how well he has done in the private Member’s Bill ballot this time round. Something that could unite people with differing views in this Chamber would be significant House of Lords reform and meaningful reform of the private Member’s Bill process.

• 4 Jun 2026 · High Street Businesses: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for high street businesses. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. For decades, centuries and even millennia, towns and their high streets have been the focus of commercial and community activity—not just for the towns themselves, but for surrounding villages and rural communities. Whether it is for market day, celebrating great events such as VE Day, essential services such as banking and laundrettes, or spending time eating and drinking with friends and family, high streets and urban centres have long offered so much. However, across the country, our high streets and their businesses are struggling as never before. Too many, sadly, are falling into disrepair, with empty shops, cracked pavements, antisocial behaviour and crime, and streets strewn with waste. Such issues are seen across the country. The 2025 Simply Business “SME Insights Report” on small and medium-sized enterprises found that more than half, or 63%, of small businesses believed that the high street as we know it will be obsolete in the next 10 years. This debate is an important opportunity to set out why central Government support is essential for high street businesses to thrive. My constituency has three towns. I will say a little about the challenges and opportunities that they each face, before covering three key themes on the support that they and other high streets and businesses need. Didcot is the largest town in my constituency. It has seen huge housing growth in recent years, a trend that continues with the ongoing development of Valley Park. The town centre does not have a single focus, such as a traditional market square. Instead, it has two key areas: an older high street called the Broadway and a new retail park called the Orchard Centre. Both the Broadway and the Orchard Centre face the challenges of antisocial behaviour and shoplifting; far more co-ordination between police, local authorities and businesses is needed. Didcot Broadway contains a range of shops, cafés, takeaways and restaurants. I thank Little India for the fantastic paneer jalfrezi that I got for a takeaway on Monday evening. Broadway also has the wonderful Mulberry pub at its western end. The Broadway forms the centre of the town, but businesses face many challenges, including the presence of the popular Orchard Centre retail park close by. Amer Siddique, owner of Snack@Teas, formed a group of local business owners and is a passionate advocate for investment in the Broadway and town centre. I shall explore a number of those business owners’ concerns in my speech. Didcot’s last bank closed this year, despite the town’s population having grown to more than 32,000. It remains to be seen how well a proposed banking hub will fill that void. Parking in the town is a big concern as well, as a result of the rising population, although I am pleased that the Orchard Centre listened to vociferous local concerns and changed its mind on introducing car-parking charges. In the east of my constituency, Wallingford is the smallest of the three towns, but more than makes up for that with its history, which goes back to Anglo-Saxon times. Its town centre high streets have a range of small businesses, full of character, such as the independent Wallingford Bookshop and Le Clos, a wine bar also offering amazing food, including tarte flambée with a range of toppings—baked flatbreads originating in the Alsace region of France. A key challenge for an ancient town is how to accommodate car traffic and parking to maintain visitor levels, given the large towns and cities fairly nearby. There is also frustration in Wallingford that NHS criteria seemingly prevent more than one pharmacy being able to serve the town. Finally, Wantage is the second largest town in my constituency and the birthplace of King Alfred. In Wantage, the great Market Place is lined with independent shops, cafés and restaurants, with a retail park in the town centre, too. Wantage’s Argos store has been shut for two years, and New Look has now closed its doors as well, so vacant premises are a concern and many existing businesses highlight the crippling impact of significantly increased business rates—including the Vaults bar and pizza restaurant, the Kings Arms pub and the Bear Hotel, the last of which reports a doubling of its business rate charges. Consultation and debate are ongoing about how to further improve Wantage Market Place, which is dominated by car parking and bus stops. Special events that see Market Place closed to traffic, including the annual Dickensian evening, are popular and see the place filled with visitors. The three towns, and their high street businesses, have three themes at the heart of their challenges and concerns, the first of which is the growing burden of business taxation and costs. Local businesses are feeling hammered by rising costs and barriers to their growth and hiring people; they feel there is an unfair playing field, given that online businesses are not taxed in the same ways and to the same degree. They feel that business rates are a flawed tax that is not directly related to either income or profit. Businesses in my constituency feel that recent Government changes to business rates have done little to ease the difficult situations they face, and certainly fall well short of the radicalism that was at least implied in Labour’s 2024 manifesto.

• 4 Jun 2026 · High Street Businesses: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that such a VAT cut would help, because it is not just business rates that small businesses on high streets are facing. On top of business rate increases and the burden of value-added tax, they are also paying for increased labour and payroll costs, including the higher national living wage and increased employer national insurance contributions. Some of those measures are understandable, and they will of course be welcomed by some, but the story I hear from my high street businesses is that the cumulative impact of all these things in a small space of time is creating challenges. Many businesses are also still servicing debts from the covid-19 pandemic, such as repaying bounce back loans, which further restricts their finances to ride out the current challenges or invest in the future. Electricity, wage costs, business rates and general taxation are adding up to a perfect storm when combined with ongoing cost of living pressures for consumers, which affect demand. Constrained finances in high street businesses have a knock-on effect on their capacity, meaning that owners are particularly reluctant to hire entry-level or younger workers. That is exacerbated by the recent compression of the wage floor with changes to national insurance contributions and the national living wage. While recognising the benefits of such changes for workers, businesses raised concerns in Alan Milburn’s interim report, “Young people and work”, saying that these pressures make them consider reducing staffing altogether, or hiring fewer, more experienced workers. This affects the flexibility of the businesses to staff correctly against fluctuating footfall, and reduces opportunities for entry-level workers. Labour is effectively one of the few remaining adjustable cost bases within owners’ control, and it is suffering accordingly. High street retailers continue to adjust to the changing nature of consumer behaviour, such as online competition and destination shopping. There is a lack of consistent support available to high street businesses at a local level to support retailers through these challenges, and I will come on to say a little bit more about that. The second key theme is transport and access, which is a key challenge as a result of population growth and central Government housing targets. A growing amount of car traffic, competing for a constrained amount of car parking in town centres, creates real challenges, particularly in older towns such as Wallingford. That is why the reality is that more must be done to help those who can, and would like to, walk and cycle by providing them with safer and better options for doing so. For example, cycle parking can reassure them that their bicycle will be safe. At this point, I should say that when we get into a debate about transport, it is often presented as an either/or between cars and public transport, walking and cycling. However, those things are not mutually exclusive. The Netherlands does not just have a globally leading cycling infrastructure and culture; it has the most comprehensive motorway in Europe, as well as a fully electrified mainline railway network. Public transport, walking and cycling are complementary to cars—we need both. Even small increases in the use rates of public transport, walking and cycling can help to ease congestion and free up parking spaces for those who need them. Investment in roads, pavements and general town centre infrastructure is also a concern. Poorly maintained pavements can be a barrier for older residents and those with mobility issues, increasing the risk of falls and discouraging visits to the town centre. Improving accessibility would help to attract more visitors and support local businesses. The third theme is local government funding pressures. Of course, many small businesses in my constituency, entirely understandably, look to local councils to help them with their high street and business challenges. I want to explain why local councils are too affected by central Government policy and face reduced budgets amidst growing costs. With their origins in European Union funding streams, South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse district councils have, until now, benefited from allocations from two funds: the UK shared prosperity fund and the rural England prosperity fund. Between them, those funding streams have supported more than 130 local projects across the councils so far. Projects were hugely varied, but they included grants to support businesses and community groups with a transition to more efficient and affordable energy use—pubs and cafés, for example. They also included providing capital investment into equipment that supports productivity gains, funding a huge range of business and skills support programmes, often targeting those most at need; developing a visitor economy support programme to support our market towns; and making several small-scale improvements to the public realm across the two districts. Unfortunately, this Labour Government have decided to scrap those funds, and their replacements, Pride in Place and the local growth fund, are principally targeted at city regions and areas of high deprivation. The impact of the abolition of the two funds is not trivial. In 2025-26, the allocations from the two funds across the Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire districts were £1 million; in 2024-25, the total was £2.4 million. At the same time, changes to local government funding formulae mean that Oxfordshire county council will lose £24 million in funding over the next three years. Those changes affect all three councils’ abilities to invest in high streets and support local businesses. They also make it harder for them to explore new ideas, such the ones requested by the town councils of the three towns I mentioned: grants to town and parish councils to invest in civic pride, such as floral planting, hanging baskets, more street cleaning and more ways to promote local shopping; or funding to employ town centre managers to link the town council with retail centres and independent traders. I want to set out my key asks of central Government. Once again, the Government need to go much further in reforming business rates—a form of taxation that bears little resemblance to a business’s earnings. Does the Minister recognise that evidence submitted to Alan Milburn’s interim report into young people not in education, employment or training identified labour costs as a key concern? The Government, to their credit, have announced serious intentions in relation to energy prices, but what should be done in the meantime, particularly with no sign—very sadly—of war in the middle east abating? Once again, will the Minister heed Liberal Democrat calls for a 5% cut to VAT for hospitality? Does he agree that taxation arrangements need modernisation, given the rising threat to physical businesses posed by online retail? Given rising demand and the same amount of space for car parking, do the Government agree that greater investment in public transport and walking and cycling infrastructure is needed to make it easier for people who need to drive to have the road space and car parking to do so? What fresh, new ideas do the Government have to help our high streets? I have a few examples to consider. National “buy local” schemes would incentivise and reward people for spending their money locally. A “high streets back home” scheme would give people a clear route to invest in their own community, whether by restoring heritage building, supporting local enterprise or helping to secure community assets. The Government could give councils the power to designate independent shop zones, protecting and championing small locally owned businesses against the tide of chains and empty units. Does the Minister accept that, for councils not benefiting from Pride in Place funding, including in Oxfordshire, the end of the UK shared prosperity and rural England prosperity funds constitute a cut to local government funding? That undermines their ability to invest in staff and initiatives to help small businesses improve town centres, and to award grants to businesses and community organisations to help them reduce their energy bills or upgrade their equipment. Our high streets and local businesses are critical to the successes of our towns and surrounding communities, and I call on the Government to give them the support that they deserve.

• 4 Jun 2026 · High Street Businesses: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who have attended the debate. I hope I will not get in too much trouble for suggesting that this is a bit of a graveyard slot, so in that context I welcome that hon. Members from four parties and from many geographical parts of the UK have given their time to attend. I will briefly bring out some of the wide range of important themes that other hon. Members raised during our discussion. On the important issue of illicit businesses on the high street, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) cited good practice in the Netherlands—as did I, for different reasons—on tackling illicit and suspicious businesses. It really is a remarkable country in terms of how much good practice there is to be found there. The issue of an EU youth mobility scheme remains important for helping with labour shortages and boosting opportunities. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) definitely deserves a mention, given his experience of wrestling shoplifters personally. It is important that we have people in this House who can bring such real-world experience to bear here. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), mentioned the critical issue of pub closures, the huge issues that pubs face and the very valuable role that they play in the rural economy. I thank the Minister for his remarks. From what he said, I could hear that he very much recognises the importance of high street businesses. I shall read with interest the small business and high streets strategies, although I hope I am not being too cynical in noting that history is paved with the paper of Government strategies that have not always translated into action. He mentioned the Post Office community model; he will be receiving a parliamentary petition about East Hagbourne post office in his ministerial inbox. My concern is that, while the community model may be suitable in some locations, the Post Office as an organisation may be a bit too keen to foist it on areas for which it is less suitable. The Minister’s comments did not address the impact of the scrapping of the UK shared prosperity fund and the rural England prosperity fund, perhaps as it is an issue more for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Perhaps he will be so good as to take that point to his colleagues. I thank everybody for attending and giving their time. Let us hope that all of us across this House can work together to ensure that we continue to have thriving high streets, with thriving businesses on them. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for high street businesses.