Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Let me say at the outset what a pleasure it is to see my good friend, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), in her place replying to this debate. The whole House was delighted to see her promotion in the recent reshuffle. It was long overdue, and I look forward to how she replies to this debate to work out the benchmark for her appearances on future occasions.

The weight of documentation that I hold in my hands will give the House some indication of the weight of the problem that the organisation of retirement property management companies presents to many of our constituents across the country. My remarks are principally motivated by the lamentable behaviour of a company called Cognatum Estates, which runs three facilities in North Dorset: Home Farm in Iwerne Minster, Castle Gardens in Shaftesbury and Walpole Court in Puddletown. I have had constituents from those three facilities come to see me on many occasions, as well as write and email, with a growing list of concerns that seem to go absolutely ignored.

Those constituents should not take it particularly personally, because Cognatum has been presenting problems in other constituencies too. The hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and I met Cognatum representatives some little while ago to talk through the concerns that our constituents were sharing with us. They met, they listened and then they wrote to us to say, “Thank you very much indeed. We will never meet you again. Everything in the garden is rosy. We don’t recognise the evidence that you have given us.” There is a real problem here, and the Government need to act.

Unfortunately, I think I may be correct in highlighting a point raised by my constituent Jean Wilkinson, a resident of one of the Cognatum properties. She wrote to me as follows:

“It is also important to highlight that a significant number of residents are elderly and in poor health. As a result, many do not feel able to raise concerns or advocate for themselves. This creates a situation where important issues risk being overlooked and where residents feel they do not have a sufficient voice.”

I have had a number of emails from across the country and from other constituents that effectively mirror and echo that point. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you too have had issues in your constituency, albeit with a different company—we were talking about it earlier in the day.

Too many property management companies view their residents as elderly cash cows. They are people who have worked and saved hard, want to be independent in their older years, and do not want a huge amount of fuss and bother—they just want a quiet, peaceful, dignified, sensible, grown-up sort of a life. As one gets older, I am certain that one becomes a little less bullish in challenging and questioning authority. Anything for a quiet life: “If the service or management charges go up and I am not given a particularly clear explanation or cogent argument to support it, well, I’ll just write the cheque and pay, because it is the line of least resistance.” I am absolutely convinced that that is now a deep-set and ingrained way in which a lot of those companies operate.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is setting out a compelling case for how providers of retirement homes and accommodation are letting people down, and the absence of redress that a lot of residents have. Does he agree that this is an area in which we desperately need more regulation and oversight, and that the Government need to take action to that effect?

[Simon Hoare]

I agree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to that matter in a moment, because there are two very specific areas that I think require attention.

Cognatum does not get off scot-free because of one doggedly determined constituent, Peter Wintle, who lives in Home Farm of Iwerne Minster. He has cogently and sensibly asked questions over the years of Cognatum, only to be met with very little in reply. The issues that Peter has raised with me on behalf of those residents, which are echoed by others, is the absence of management transparency—a key and important thing—and accountability of the companies involved, as well as a lack of clear communication that sets out in easily digestible form information that residents require and openness on finance, explaining why service charges go up and why repairs or maintenance are being done in a certain way. There is a lackadaisical and tardy attitude in responding to issues and complaints raised by residents—all things that should not be expected. The complaints system is not worthy of the name. In the case of Cognatum, because of the way it organises itself, there are also unaudited accounts, which make it incredibly hard for anybody to follow the line on the balance sheet.

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, without whom no Adjournment debate would be complete.

Oral Answers to Questions

Olly Glover Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

We need more housing in all parts of the country. We do have a brownfield-first approach, and we do want to see infrastructure delivered in a timely manner alongside housing developments, but it is absolutely right that we focus development within reasonable walking distance of train stations within settlements, or well connected stations outside settlements, including those in the green belt. As I have said, these are some of the most sustainable locations for new housing in the country. We have defined well connected stations by the 80 travel-to-work areas of the country, and we have also linked minimum density requirements to service frequency. There is a link between the number of trains that a station receives per hour and the amount of development that we want to see. However, I am more than happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman about the particular issues in his constituency.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

Last Thursday marked the two-year anniversary of the publication of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report. We remain committed to ensuring that the Grenfell tragedy is not forgotten and never happens again, and we will continue to work closely with the community and the building industry as we deliver lasting change.

[Olly Glover]

Some constituents are facing exorbitant service charges for retirement properties inherited from a family member that are proving impossible to sell. One of my constituents is paying £770 a month in service charges for an empty one-bedroom flat, after inheriting the home from their late mother. What steps will the Government take to regulate the sector and stop these companies ripping people off?

[Angela Rayner]

I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member says, and the Housing Minister has just indicated that he would be happy to meet him. That is something that we want to tackle. We have been very clear on service charges and fleecehold, and we will make sure that we bring forward legislation that protects people from unfair charges.

Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

Olly Glover Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

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.

National Planning Policy Framework

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

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.

Local Government Reorganisation

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

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?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Long-term financial viability is one of the main reasons why the process is taking place. It was one of the key criteria on which the final decisions have been taken. He will find the details in the written ministerial statement.

Of course it is necessary to consult, and of course that means that areas will put forward proposals. Today, the Government are responding to those proposals. In the cases of Oxford and Devon, and in the other cases he has referred to, the selected option was chosen because it is the best for economic growth. Right at the start of my statement, I pointed out that despite us having the second-richest economy in Europe, we have seven of the 10 poorest regions in northern Europe. We cannot allow that to continue. We need economic growth. That is how we put more money in people’s pockets, and that is what this Government are focused on.

In the case of West Sussex, where we had a re-consultation, we have received an awful lot of additional information, and I think it is only right to consider that information carefully before coming to a final decision. We owe that respect to the parties, councils and residents’ groups that took the trouble to provide responses.

Embodied Carbon: Buildings

Olly Glover Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Chowns]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point from a position of great expertise. That is precisely what this debate is about: we need to recognise that we should be reusing buildings as much as possible. We should be reducing the destruction caused by a failure to reuse. We should ensure that regulations are put in place that enable those who are developing, as well as those who have sites and responsibility for them, to take account of the whole life-cycle carbon assessment in deciding how to deal with a building. Let us take the waste hierarchy—reduce, reuse, recycle—into account in the construction sector, which is such a critical part of our nation’s carbon emissions.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making a very compelling speech about the importance of thinking on a whole-life basis about the carbon in buildings. Does she agree that we should think about the whole-life carbon impact of new buildings, and does her argument support the view that we have an opportunity to design buildings properly, so that they are cool in summer and warm in winter? Aureus school in my constituency is only 10 years old, but is incredibly hot in the summer.

[Dr Chowns]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Since I entered this place, I have been campaigning for homes and buildings that are truly fit for the future. We need to take this issue into account when we build and design buildings. We do not want to have to retrofit buildings at huge expense later on. We need to recognise that there are so many opportunities to deal with this at the design stage. The materials that we use in construction play a crucial role in reducing the need for active heating and cooling; they can allow us to incorporate passive elements. Measures to address the embodied carbon of buildings can also play a role in reducing the operational carbon impact of buildings. That is an excellent point, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it.

It is clear that the construction industry has a huge impact on both climate change and biodiversity loss. We rightly spend time discussing how efficiently buildings operate once they are occupied, but we spend remarkably little time discussing the emissions that occur before anybody even walks through the front door of a new building. Those emissions are known as embodied carbon—that is, the greenhouse gases emitted when we extract raw materials, process them into building materials and use them for construction.

According to the UK Green Building Council, embodied carbon accounts for around 20% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions and is expected to account for fully half of the built environment’s emissions by 2035. Bizarrely, though, it has so far been ignored by central Government policy. Building regulations only set limits on a subset of operational emissions. The Government’s new future homes standard ignores embodied carbon and only tackles energy use in new homes, which is a small fraction of the total emissions from the built environment. The standard is silent on material use, construction processes and embodied carbon. These are not marginal omissions—they are large gaps in UK climate policy. The Environmental Audit Committee pointed this out several years ago, as have experts for years and years.

The huge irony is that the construction sector is crying out for UK Government leadership in this area. We know that we have a housing crisis in this country. We need to build more houses—the right houses, in the right place, at the right price—and it is crucial to ensure that when we build, we do so in a way that is genuinely fit for the future, as we have discussed. That means using a whole-life carbon assessment to minimise both operational and embodied carbon emissions. The hugely frustrating thing for the construction sector is that the absence of national regulation in this area is creating more bureaucracy, not less. As a result of the Government failing to provide national direction, local planning authorities are increasingly stepping into the vacuum themselves. Recent research led by the University of Sheffield found that 61% of local planning authorities now reference embodied carbon in their planning policies, and 7% are moving to mandate assessments.

I commend those councils for their ambition—they recognise the urgency of climate action and are taking real, tangible action. However, the consequence is fragmentation. Different authorities are adopting different reporting templates, different thresholds, different assessment requirements and different policy wording. As such, national house builders and developers are being forced to navigate an increasingly complex patchwork of local rules. They have to learn a new set of rules every time they build in a different local authority. Planning officials are duplicating work, and local authorities are developing parallel systems. Everyone is investing time and money in solving the same problem dozens of times over. The Government would not leave local authorities to tackle other aspects that are fundamental to building design, such as fire safety or equality. Those areas have national minimum standards that authorities can build on, so why are carbon emissions not treated the same? Do we not take climate breakdown as seriously as safety or equality?

Elections: First Past the Post

Olly Glover Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

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.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Thank you for the entertaining contribution, Mr Morrison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on our voting system. She and I do not always agree. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that we more often than not disagree vocally, although in good spirit, I hope. Although I do not share her views on electoral reform, I recognise and respect the sincerity with which she holds them. Her persistence in bringing the issue before the House reflects her commitment to the causes that she champions. She beat me in another forum on Times Radio’s “It’s a Constituency Knockout” for the good people of Richmond Park. And I lost a battle on her private Member’s Bill, but we will see about round three.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is my only ally in this debate, barring what the Minister might say. I am happy to have him as an ally, because he is one of the most respectful Members of this House. He is a braver man than me, as he is surrounded by my old Bill Committee adversaries.

We can all agree on one thing, though: electoral systems shape our politics. It is important that the method we use for catapulting representatives into high office is robust and secure, easily understood by voters, and provides strong local accountability. I believe, as my party has always believed, that the first-past-the-post system achieves that better than any other.

I do not often pay compliments to my Liberal Democrat colleagues, so they are in for a shock this afternoon, but one of their skills is mobilising voters to go to the polls. I have seen that myself on my home patch, much to my and my councillors’ annoyance. One of the clearest criticisms of first past the post is the impact that it has on eroding voter confidence in the electoral system and therefore suppressing turnout. However, I do not believe that that is the case. Voter turnout has been on the decline for generations, but not consistently. It is fair to say that we are unlikely to see the levels of the 80% turnouts of the 1940s and 1950s. Growing voter apathy is a problem, but I do not think that the electoral system is to blame per se. The blame is with us as politicians—all of us. I sincerely believe that if we inspire, we make others aspire. We can all raise our game in this House and as political parties.

I find it slightly bizarre to keep revisiting a debate that the British public have made clear they do not support. First past the post has proven to be the fairest and most effective way to elect representatives, ensuring clear accountability, stable governance—I will come back to that—and a direct link between elected officials and their constituents. We want a system that forms a single alternative Government rather than the more fragmented alternative often seen under proportional representation systems. I think that is not just a theoretical point.

In countries where proportional representation is used, we can see the consequences of fragmentation very clearly. For example, in Belgium, proportional representation has contributed to fragmented Parliaments and lengthy coalition negotiations where no single party is able to present itself clearly as a Government in waiting. Clarity of outcome is an important feature in our democratic system.

As Members of Parliament, first and foremost our roles are to represent our constituents and our constituencies here in Parliament. First past the post creates a clear and direct link between Members of Parliament and the people we represent. It provides the voter with clarity over who represents them, whose surgery they can go to, who they can hold to account and, importantly, who they can remove at a general election. Such clarity is a democratic strength and a crucial part of maintaining voter trust.

Why would we adopt a system that weakens the direct link between voters and their representatives? Proportional voting systems where members are elected from long party lists make that relationship less direct and less clear. That direct constituency link is not only a practical strength of the system, but part of a much longer tradition in our parliamentary democracy. I think many advocates for an alternative voting system overlook the historical significance of first past the post. It has been in place since medieval England, and it is the bedrock of our democracy. Changing the way we elect Members of this House is not a minor administrative matter. It is not a decision that should be taken lightly, nor should it be driven by dissatisfaction with a particular electoral outcome.

[Olly Glover]

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?

[Paul Holmes]

I believe I have already addressed that point: it is because of us, as politicians. I absolutely agree with many of the comments that Members across the House have made today about trust in politicians and the level of discourse, but we need to improve our game. I do not believe that there is a direct correlation between the voting system and turnouts at general elections; I genuinely think that it is normally about whether a voter feels good or not. If the hon. Gentleman’s only issue is voter turnouts and he wants to have a conversation about compulsory voting, then I am up for that debate, but I do not believe that we should move to another system without looking at whether voting should be compulsory or by choice.

It is worth recalling, as I lightly touched on, that the British public have previously been asked whether they wish to move away from the existing voting system for Westminster elections. That was in 2011, and it was a condition of the Liberal Democrats being in government from 2010 to 2015. A clear majority voted to retain first past the post rather than adopt an alternative system. In fact, only 2% of local counting areas wanted rid of first past the post.

Representation of the People Bill

Olly Glover Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

There is much that is positive in the Bill. I want to touch briefly on one point that we have not discussed much so far, which is strengthening protections for staff who work on elections. They are critical to the safe and transparent delivery of our democracy. As hon. Members have said, what is missing is something that would enable a fundamental change that restored faith and fresh thinking to our politics: a change to the voting system, to make it more proportional. One party, regardless of how good or bad it is, cannot hope to represent the huge range of ideas and opinions in our society effectively. This is not Lib Dem self-interest speaking, because in 2024 we finally achieved an outcome in seats under first past the post that was comparable to our vote share.

I would like proportional representation for many reasons. I would like it for the tactical voters whom I told in 2024 that I would campaign for a system in which they did not have to feel forced to vote for me. I appreciate that the Secretary of State may not be persuaded by my opinion, but perhaps he will be by an open letter about the Bill, written by over 50 leading academics, including Professors Tim Bale, Rob Ford and Vernon Bogdanor, which said:

“The collision of a multi-party electorate with a voting system designed for just two parties is creating new risks for Britain. If the government wishes…to protect and enhance the integrity of British democracy…it would be wise to engage with these risks.”

Many Labour Members agree with that. A majority of the 158 members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections are Labour Members. A record 60% of the public support proportional representation, up from 52% in 2023, which was itself a record at the time.

While votes at 16 is to be welcomed, I note that widespread research, including from the respected More in Common firm, shows that 78% of the voting public are disillusioned with politics. Labour’s 2023 national policy paper acknowledged that widespread alienation and distrust among voters. Alas, the Bill will not address that very worrying situation.

The Secretary of State, in his opening remarks, cited the German and Dutch good practice mirrored in aspects of the Bill. It is good that he did so. I hope that he will study further German and Dutch good practice; their electoral systems tend to deliver higher turnouts than ours, in a much more proportional manner. I appreciate that that is a big ask. If he wishes to prevent those 16 and 17-year-olds who will soon be able to vote from falling into the same democratic despair felt by many of us, I hope that he will start by supporting the call from the APPG for fair elections for a national commission on electoral reform.

Draft Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025

Olly Glover Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 General Committees

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and I welcome the Minister to her place. The Liberal Democrats do not intend to divide the Committee either. Along with the Opposition spokesperson, we welcome the seriousness with which the Government are taking the matter and their positive steps to deal with the fact that thousands of people in our country still live in buildings with dangerous cladding, getting on for 10 years after the terrible 2017 Grenfell tragedy. We are pleased that the Government have thought hard about exempting certain types of social and affordable housing, as well as hospices and care homes. We therefore support what is being proposed.

We have a bit of concern about whether the proposed levy will provide sufficient funding for all the necessary remediation. We would welcome hearing a bit more from the Minister about the financial appraisal of how much money needs to be raised, whether that will be adequate and, if not, what other avenues are being looked at to ensure that we have all the funding we need to deal with these risks for ever more, so that we have no more Grenfells.

[The Chair]

I call Chris Vince.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Yes, until 5 pm, but if we can get through the new clauses before then it would be helpful.

New Clause 10

New car parks to include solar panels

“(1) No local planning authority may approve an application for the building of an above-ground car park which does not make the required provision of solar panels.

(2) The required provision of solar panels is an amount equivalent to 50% of the surface area of the car park.”—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause would require solar panels to be provided with all new car parks.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss

New clause 31—Incentives for installing solar panels—

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a scheme under which specified parties who install or incorporate fitted solar panels on a specified property, whether as permitted development or following a grant of planning permission, receive financial benefits or rewards.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

‘specified parties’ means homeowners and the owners of car parks;

‘specified properties’ means the home of the homeowner or the owner’s car park.”

This new clause would create a new scheme to provide financial incentive to homeowners and carpark owners who install solar panels on their properties.

[Olly Glover]

Once again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.

I have moved new clause 10 and will speak to new clause 31, both tabled by the Liberal Democrats. New clause 10 would require solar panels to be provided on all new car parks and new clause 31 would create a scheme to provide financial incentives to homeowners and car park owners who install solar panels on their properties.

Clearly, the main driver of the new clauses is the climate change challenge that we face but, as I said previously in Committee, it is not just a challenge, but an opportunity: embracing more solar power generation enables us to become more self-sufficient in energy generation, and homeowners and others to reduce their energy bills. That is a good example of something that helps people, planet and economy.

New and existing car parks could provide 11.4 GW of solar capacity, which would go a long way towards reaching the Government target of 70 GW of solar by 2035. If land is already being used for a car park, why not make more use of that land and generate renewable energy? Generating energy close to where it is used means fewer energy losses, which is more efficient and makes the energy cheaper to the end user. That is an example of the sort of local electricity grids that we need to move towards in the 21st century of power generation.

Existing and new car parks, and non-domestic roofs between 50 kW and 1,000 kW, have costs comparable to solar farms, and so could be similarly economically attractive. Solar farms are predominantly rural and can require extensive planning permission and additional construction costs due to location, such as long-length cables and large transformers. Car parks also provide the opportunity to use the energy generated directly to charge electric vehicles, thereby relieving pressure on the grid and making driving electric vehicles more attractive. The Government have been clear about their aspiration for us to move to electric vehicles as standard.

In 2022, France introduced similar legislation to that which we are proposing, and it took effect in 2023. The French Government calculated that the measure will result in a capacity of between 6.75 GW and 11.25 GW. For context, Drax, the UK’s largest power station, has a capacity of between a quarter and a half of that, at just 2.6 GW. If not mandated, incentivising such schemes should be the minimum requirement. We are not using car parking space to its full potential, so I hope that the Minister will seize the opportunity to change that by supporting the new clause.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I have missed our Wednesday “Politics Scotland” soirées, so it is nice to be with you again. I will begin by speaking to new clause 10. I was going to speak to new clause 31 as well, but I do not know whether anyone intends to move it.

New clause 10, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would require the provision of solar panels on at least 50% of the surface area of above-ground car parks. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is proposing, and we share his ambition. Indeed, in the “Clean Power 2030 Action Plan”, which we published just before Christmas, we outlined the pathway to achieving a clean power system. Solar photovoltaic deployment is a key component of that, and through the plan we hope to increase solar output from 18 GW to between 45 GW and 47 GW by 2030.

We were very clear in the plan that we saw solar PV as a real opportunity, but we also stated our intention to gather evidence on the potential of putting solar canopies on car parks. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage pointed out, although that principle seems entirely sensible and something that I would entirely agree with, there are some details that we would want to work out on how it could be delivered and the economics of it. That is why we are consulting right now. Our call for evidence is open on the potential for mandatory installation of solar canopies on new car parks, and indeed on increasing the potential for solar on current car parks. It is important that we properly engage with industry on this question, particularly on the economics of how it could be delivered because we want to be really clear on the impact that it could have on car parks and of course on the users of car parks if costs are passed on.

I assure both hon. Members that we are in favour of the idea. Fundamentally, we want solar to be part of our pathway to clean power. If it can be deployed on the rooftops of industrial buildings, car parks, warehouses or any rooftop we can use, that clearly is the best and easiest way to do it, but we want an adequate evidence base before we do that. For that reason, we will not support the new clause, but I hope the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage appreciates that we broadly agree with the general direction that he is proposing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I thank the Minister for his thoughtful comments. We understand that there will be some technical details to look into, although of course that is the case for many aspects of the Bill overall. We wish to press the new clause to a vote, because we think this is a very important topic and that this is an opportunity to be progressed.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to conduct an annual review of the capacity of local planning authorities. The Bill’s passage appears likely, given the size of the Government’s majority, but it will impose a number of additional duties and responsibilities on local planning authorities, and meeting the proposals for housing growth will also stretch their capacity. Our new clause would require a review of their capacity and resources, as well as the impact of issues, such as lack of capacity in the construction sector or supply chains, on achieving some of the housing goals that are being put forward.

While this Government have an ambition to build lots of homes, it is important that we pay attention to how that happens. We know that local authorities are already under-resourced. I am sure that the Government appreciate the need to support local authorities in delivering housing and all the accompanying infrastructure, and we feel that this new clause would go some way towards doing that. At the risk of anticipating that the Minister is unlikely to support the new clause, we look forward to hearing what alternative solutions he may have to these challenges in planning capacity.

[David Simmonds]

I briefly draw the Committee’s attention to the Planning Advisory Service. As a result of a long-standing arrangement with the Local Government Association, through a funding set-up whereby local authorities and Government provide resources, both peer-support services and these activities are already provided in partnership with local authorities. For that reason, I would be reluctant to seek a legislative method of delivering something that is already, in practice, working well on a voluntary basis. There will always be a debate about whether local authorities feel that their resources are sufficient, but in supporting them to undertake the capacity assessment and build their capacity by working with their peers, that arrangement has been in place and working well for several decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome that clarification from the shadow Minister and thank him for his comments. He highlighted the important role that the Planning Advisory Service plays.

Skilled planners are essential to delivering efficient, proactive planning services and ensuring that new development supports growth and high-quality design of places and homes. The Government recognise the mounting pressures on local planning authorities as they adapt to significant reforms, both in how we want to reform the house building system and in boosting housing supply. That is why we have legislated in the Bill to allow all local planning authorities to set their own planning fees in order to increase resources in a way that responds to the individual needs of each authority and, as we have debated at length on previous clauses, ensure those fees are ringfenced.

Furthermore, the Chancellor announced—I have said this before, but it is worth my pointing to the Government’s good efforts in this area at every opportunity—a £46 million investment for 2025–26 at the Budget last year, supporting planning capacity and capability, including the recruitment and training of at least 300 graduate and apprentice planners. Funding is also being used to support implementation of the revised national planning policy framework. For example, we allocated substantial funds to local planning authorities to assist them with green belt reviews.

Alongside that, our planning capacity and capability programme works with sector partners to build long-term skills, modernise local plans and speed up decision making, using innovation and digital tools. Importantly, we are closely tracking the impact of those interventions through an embedded research and evaluation team. A national survey conducted in 2023 informs our approach; a further survey, now concluding, will build on that baseline. Given the robust programme of support and evaluation already in place, we are of the view that the new clause is not necessary, and I hope that with those reassurances he might be minded to withdraw it.

[Olly Glover]

I thank the Minister for his comments, and I welcome his overview of the Government’s endeavours in tackling the issue of local planning authority capacity. I also note the comments from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I understand his point, but nevertheless, there are still considerable challenges in this area that need to be tackled. Notwithstanding that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 32

Register of planning applications from political donors

“(1) A local planning authority must maintain and publish a register of planning applications in its area where—

(a) a determination has been made by the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning, and

(b) the applicant has made a donation to the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning within the period of ten years prior to the application being made.

(2) A register maintained under this section must be published at least once each year.”—(Gideon Amos.)

This new clause would require a local planning authority to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where that Secretary of State has received a donation from the applicant.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 32 would require local planning authorities to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where the Secretary of State had received a donation from the applicant. We are fortunate to live in a country where the planning system is, generally, free of corruption. The United Kingdom is ranked by the Corruption Perceptions Index as among the least corrupt countries in the world. It is in the top 20 alongside Japan and other countries, but perceptions, as in that perceptions index, matter. It is important that justice is not only done, but seen to be done.

We believe there is a need for better control of situations where donations have been made to Ministers, and those Ministers have themselves then made decisions. I will not name any individual, but there has been a well-known scheme involving the Isle of Dogs in which that occurred. I do not allege any corruption in that instance, but, as I say, it is important that justice is not only done but seen to be done. The new clause would be an important contribution to ensuring that our planning system remains as free of undue influence as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 58 would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute to targets set out in the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008. The Environment Act is the UK’s framework for environmental protection. It was particularly important after the UK left the European Union to maintain rules on nature protection, water quality, clean air and other environmental protections that were at risk. The Climate Change Act established a legally binding framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, making the UK the first country to do so. It set a target of net zero emissions by 2050 and established the Climate Change Committee.

The activities of local authorities inherently have an impact on carbon emissions, and UK100 has estimated that it amounts to between 4% and 9% of the UK’s total carbon emissions, which is of course a non-trivial impact. As we know, and as I believe we largely agree on this Committee, climate change is one of the biggest issues facing us today and has wide-reaching consequences. It is right that any organisation should take reasonable steps to reduce its carbon footprint, and local authorities are no exception.

New clause 58 would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps in relation to Environment Act and Climate Change Act targets, as they do not have such a statutory duty today. As the Committee has discussed, that presents opportunities as well as challenges for councils and our communities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman has just made clear, new clause 58 would place a statutory duty on local planning authorities to contribute to targets set under the Environment Act, the Climate Change Act and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, and to contribute to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act.

Many local authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, including air quality. In our view, it is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring. Local authorities already have statutory duties to improve air quality in their areas. Thanks to the combined efforts of local and central Government, air quality in the UK is improving, although we accept that there is more to do. The Government will continue to work with local authorities to reduce air pollution and its harmful effects.

Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies, which we have discussed, and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which was strengthened by the Environment Act 2021. The latter requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy and any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.

On climate adaptation, the Government already work closely with local authorities, a number of which are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October, the Government launched the local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts. The Government also ran the first adaptation reporting power trial for local authorities last year, providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their functions and services.

The Government also provide a range of net zero support to local authorities. This includes funding five local net zero hubs, which support local authorities to develop net zero projects and attract commercial investment, and funding the local net zero accelerator pilot programme to test how to support local places to leverage commercial investment at scale to accelerate the move to net zero.

Given such existing support, and the fact that many local authorities are already taking great strides in tackling the combined issues of environmental decline and climate change impacts, we do not think a statutory duty for local authorities to contribute to environmental, net zero or air quality targets, or towards the Climate Change Act’s programme for climate adaptation, is necessary. For that reason, I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the new clause.

[Olly Glover]

I thank the Minister for his response, and we note his comments. Yes, many local authorities are making significant contributions, but I am sure he would agree that it is patchy and inconsistent at the moment. Nevertheless, we will not press the new clause to a Division, but we will observe local authority progress and Government support in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 75

Requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development.

(2) The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”—(David Simmonds.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.