Oral Answers to Questions

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

9. What fiscal steps she is taking to support the hospitality sector.

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

10. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to business rates on the hospitality sector.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

14. What fiscal steps she is taking to support small businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I do not think that Mr Speaker would like me to pre-empt the announcements that will be made later, but the right hon. Member has given me the opportunity to reiterate that at the Budget we implemented for the first time differential rates of tax—differential multipliers—meaning that the largest businesses now pay 33% more than the smallest high street businesses. That is a big differential that was not there before but which now exists because of the big reforms that we made at the Budget.

[Olly Glover]

In my Oxfordshire constituency, pubs including the Fox Inn in Denchworth, the White Hart in Harwell and the Fox and Hounds in Uffington are vital to their village communities, yet they face significant business rate increases from April. Given that the chief executive of the Valuation Office Agency told the Treasury Committee that, ahead of the Budget, the VOA warned that over 5,000 pubs would see their business rates double, will the Minister tell the House why the Government decided to press on and create such uncertainty for our hospitality sector in the Budget?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government will have more to say a bit later today when it comes to pubs and the support that the Government can provide for them. We knew that the revaluations would be implemented from 1 April, and that is precisely why we came forward with a significant package of support for all businesses across the economy. We introduced significant reforms to lower the multipliers for businesses like the pubs that the hon. Member mentioned.

Railways Bill (First sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

Q  I am conscious of time, so I just have one broader question about the devolution settlement, which is devolving services and how the railway works, which is mentioned in the Williams review, and I also want to go to Mr Brown’s point about integrated business units. Mr Williams, could you expand a little bit on what the operational reality of a more decentralised railway working in closer partnerships could look like under GBR? The Bill specifically focuses on mayoral strategic authorities as an appropriate unit to engage with to act as a catalyst for economic growth, house building and those things which are really conjoined with rail growth. Can you give us a glimpse of how you feel that the system might work in practice under the Bill’s framework?

Keith Williams: It is a great question, because that, to me, was fundamental to the better running of an integrated transport system. I was listening to the earlier questions, and the advantages of bringing in the mayors and local authorities are twofold. First, there is deciding what the appropriate mechanism for running transport is in their area. I visited Manchester, where you have light rail, heavy rail and buses, so you need to make a decision as to which you are going to promote. In my opinion, that was better done at a mayoral level than a central level. That is one aspect.

The second aspect is integration. We looked at systems overseas and—guess what?—you find that the bus comes to the station, the train starts and then stops. That did not exist in the UK, and bringing the mayors and local authorities into that decision making was hugely important for running an integrated system.

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

Q Both of your reviews highlighted an issue of short-term thinking, or a lack of longer-term vision, on the railway. Are you satisfied with the way that the long-term rail strategy is set out in the Bill, and that it will restore a bit more long-term thinking and vision? Do you think it is a problem that “long term” is not defined in the Bill—are we talking about five, 10, 20 or 30 years?

Richard Brown: I think the Bill talks about a 30-year strategy and the Secretary of State having responsibility for producing that. There will be a degree of evolution, because when you are running an organisation, you need to be the person who is, if you like, giving birth to the strategy, in very close collaboration with your shareholder—if this was a business. The Secretary of State’s strategy will set the long-term objectives about what the Government wish to see the industry do, and then it will be up to GBR to produce the business plans, whether you call them business plans or more detailed strategies, about how it is going to deliver that. I am quite sure that, putting everything together, there are plenty of people in the industry who desperately want to produce a longer-term strategy for rolling stock procurement, electrification and reducing carbon impact, and they are frustrated that it is very difficult to do it now because of the range of parties involved.

Keith Williams: I come from the airline world, and the problem there is that you buy an aeroplane and it lasts for the next 30 years. Rail is very similar: you operate the rolling stock, and that is a long-term decision. I was surprised that decisions were set over five-year periods, because the decisions that you make today partially define the future for a much longer period than five years. Again, a problem of running an airline is that you order the aeroplanes and unfortunately the market declines because of economic factors, commercial factors or whatever. You are therefore taking long-term decisions—that is not wrong—but within those you sometimes have to change direction because of the situation that exists at the time. The classic example of that in rail is franchising: franchising worked while the railway was growing, but once it went ex-growth, franchising came under pressure, and then obviously more pressure when covid arrived.

[Sarah Smith]

Q I spend about four hours a week on a train with a toddler, so I know well that inclusion on our railways is not just for those with disabilities, although that is incredibly important. I am interested in whether you think that the provisions in the Bill around accessibility are strong enough and will go far enough to ensure that we have a railway that truly works for everybody, as it needs to if we are to persuade more people out of their cars and on to the railways, and as is right given the endeavour around net zero and the Government’s wider ambitions.

Richard Brown: Yes, I do. There are clear duties placed on the passengers’ council, for instance, to produce standards for accessibility. Those can then be enforced by the ORR or by persuasion with GBR. The improvement of accessibility is mentioned at several points in the Bill as a duty or responsibility or something that is important, and as something to be taken fully into account in planning and developing investment schemes. I think the Bill actually provides greater impetus on that score, but this is a long-term thing. There are railways with platforms and track such that you have to cross over the track to get from one platform to the other, and there has been a long-term programme of investment to try to improve accessibility with things like lifts. This needs to carry on, and ideally at a faster pace.

Keith Williams: One of the disappointing things for me, when I did the review, was that we did not really know what accessibility was. We actually had to do an audit to look at where we had accessibility to begin with, and I would encourage you to keep the pressure on that one. It is one thing to have an audit of what does and does not exist, but the next thing is to prioritise what really needs doing going forward. I think that is part of the longer-term strategy for the railway, which is in governmental hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

Q I have a quick follow-up for Transport Focus. Will you be able to work effectively with the ORR to deliver for passengers?

Alex Robertson: Yes, definitely. We are already in dialogue with the ORR about its change in responsibilities and the transfer of functions from it to us. We will put in place an MOU to make sure that works in practice. We are comfortable with it. As you will have heard from the earlier panel, it aligns very well with our general consumer functions, which I think makes sense. Having one single enforcement body on the licence in the new system also makes sense.

[Olly Glover]

Q Emma, further to your previous comments, will you say a little more about the current general duty in the Bill to promote the needs of disabled passengers being vague and unenforceable? Do you have any further suggestions for how it could be strengthened, perhaps using examples from other sectors? I am interested to hear what the rest of the panel has to say about that as well.

Emma Vogelmann: In the Bill now, the power is very much centralised with the Secretary of State. We feel that there is already a lack of sufficient safeguards in place to make sure that accessibility does not become beholden to political will and the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Bill as drafted depends too heavily on discretion, future strategies and changeable licences. We want to make sure that the accessibility considerations and requirements are meaningful and enforceable and do not leave disabled people politically vulnerable.

Michael Roberts: For my part, rather reiterating my earlier comments, what is important is the expression of what GBR wants to achieve in accessibility, which is not necessarily to be written on the face of the Bill but should be part of the long-term rail strategy or the business plan. Alongside a duty, however it is expressed in the legislation, there must be some clear milestones and outcomes to which GBR aspires—for example, a milestone for the proportion of stations that should have step-free access by a certain point in time, as the Mayor of London and TfL currently have in the capital, or aspirations for the quality of provision of passenger assistance. There has been a rapid increase in the demand for that sort of service by mobility-impaired passengers, but the level of resource has woefully fallen behind the need. Expressing the stepping stones to a truly more accessible railway in strategic documents needs to go alongside the duty, however it is expressed.

Alex Robertson: I agree with Michael about the important milestones. We need to see real shifts in the ambition on accessibility. One of the other things that has been mentioned is that we will have the ability to set the consumer standards for accessibility. Alongside taking over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman, I want to see a really good, strong set of standards on which we would consult and engage with disabled passengers. If they were not complied with, they would be passed to the ORR for enforcement.

On complaint handling, at the moment, if you have a failed passenger assist, it is possible for some of the train operating companies to refund you only the price of your ticket, and not compensate for the distress and inconvenience that caused you. That is completely wrong. We would be in a position where that could be looked at properly and changed, so we could take an individual’s complaint and get better redress for them, but also use it to identify systemic issues that might be affecting other people as well. It puts us in a stronger position to do all those things.

Ben Plowden: It is not clear to us that the Bill gives GBR a sufficiently strong incentive to increase accessibility over time, in the same way that it does not give an incentive to increase passenger use over time. One issue might be whether you could amend the Bill to require an increase in accessibility over time to be determined through the other documents that the Government and GBR will produce.

Michael Roberts: I want to pick up a point that Transport for All made separately on the public sector equality duty, which GBR will be obliged to fulfil. The observation from Transport for All is that the impact of that duty is felt retrospectively and depends on disabled members of the travelling public challenging a failure in service when they find it. There might be some merit in the industry—GBR, ORR—co-creating a definition of what the exercise of that duty feels like in practice. That should be up front, as part of the strategic documents against which GBR will be held to account, with the passenger watchdog monitoring and the ORR enforcing.

[Daniel Francis]

Q This question is predominantly for Michael and Alex, but others can come in. On the watchdog and current enforcement, I understand that under the new regulations, the enforcement power would go to the ORR. Could you expand on whether that is an improvement or a backwards step from the current arrangements? Many years ago, I was a member of the London TravelWatch board. There are clearly continuing issues with cross-borough arrangements in London—I speak as a London MP. How do you see the new arrangements working for my constituents, for instance, who will sometimes take a London-only journey but sometimes take a London-into-Kent journey?

Alex Robertson: I will pick up the first point. For us, it is quite a significant increase in our powers and it might be worth setting those out. I will start with the duty on GBR to consult us so that we do not get into a position where we are having to call out something that is not right. That is there in both particular documents and strategies and in decisions made by GBR that might affect passengers. That is an important change. We have the power to request information and require it to be provided to us within a reasonable timeframe. That is a stronger power than we have now, as is the ability to ask for improvement plans.

You highlighted the ability to refer across to ORR. Making sure that works in practice will be important, but the ability is there. One thing we have said that we also need, which we understand the Government will include in the licence, is the ability to call officials in front of us to explain and account for what they have done. We have talked a lot about accountability. There will be ways in which we can work collaboratively and publish information to try to make sure the right thing happens, but a big part of the change we need is GBR being held to account in public, and the powers we have will assist with that.

Michael Roberts: There are two separate dimensions to your line of questioning. First, there is the model where the national watchdog sets standards and monitors compliance, but enforcement ultimately rests with the ORR. I think we are comfortable with that approach. It has been mentioned that the more the watchdog moves into the role of regulator, the more its ability to act as passenger champion and to speak in an unvarnished way on behalf of the passenger is diluted, because as the regulator it has to take into account a broader range of considerations when opining. I think the model is fine. The “but”, or the “if”, depends on how independent one feels that watchdog will be in its ability to point out failures and speak truth to power, and the Committee may want to come back to that later.

Your other point was about how the two watchdogs work together. At one level, I think we are reasonably comfortable. Transport Focus and London TravelWatch have a collaboration agreement whereby we share resources within our respective areas for the common good. It is not quite fit for purpose for the new world. We will need to refresh that and set out how we expect to work together in a world where Transport Focus, or whatever it is called in the future, has a standard-setting role.

Where we have a concern, and where we think the Bill is currently flawed, is with regard to our independent ability to be consulted within key industry processes. I heard the evidence given by the chief executive of the DFTO, and I believe that he was slightly mistaken. Transport Focus—or passengers’ council, to give its formal title—is not the only statutory passenger representative body. We are that body for London, as you will know.

We have responsibility for reviewing the provision of rail services within what is known under statute as the London railway area, which covers approximately 400 stations out of a national total of about 2,500— so getting on for about 20% of the national footprint. Around 70% of all railway journeys start or finish within our remit, yet there are probably four or five places within the Bill where GBR’s duty to consult is with the passengers’ council—for example, on its business plan—but there is no explicit reference to us, despite the fact that we are a statutory body. We think that needs remedying.

Covid-19: Financial Support

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for her passionate speech and for securing the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for giving time to this topic. As many hon. Members have said, covid feels like a distant memory to so many of us, but it continues to have severe, long-lasting effects, including those we are discussing today. I will talk about a couple of constituents who have been affected by the issue of covid-19 financial support exclusion.

Fiona and her husband, Bill Bruty, ran a training and consultancy business called Fundraising Training from their bedroom. It helped charities, both here and abroad, to raise money by running training courses. Fiona and Bill were affected by the fact that no financial support was given to business owners whose income principally derived from dividends. Although they eventually received £2,000 from South Oxfordshire district council, they went through tremendous stress and financial struggles. In their words:

“Nobody has understood what happened and the mental anguish it caused to so many of us who had paid taxes and did not have business premises.”

For Fiona and Bill, face-to-face training has never recovered from the pandemic. Bill has suddenly had to put everything online, which has ultimately been good for them, as they have learned to adapt to our increasingly online lives, but that is an effect that we have seen in many other small businesses.

Rob is a limited company director who felt that he and other limited company directors were badly treated, as it was deemed too hard for HMRC to check where dividends came from. Limited company employees were also denied the right to earn income from other sources.

Where do we go from here? First, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what redress he thinks should be considered, given the campaign that ExcludedUK has mounted. Secondly, it is important that we learn for the future. Of course, we all hope that the scientists are wrong, but many of them fear that it is only a matter of time before another pandemic, for a variety of reasons. Indeed, there may be other forms of economic hardship, which means that we will need to consider these matters again and come up with better processes in future.

This debate points to the fact that politics in this country has perhaps been more focused on larger companies, rather than on those who run their own businesses and are self-employed. That is something that we in this House should all think about. The issues that small businesses have raised with me more recently—many of them suffered during the pandemic—are a big concern, because they are being impacted by current decisions on business rates, alcohol duty and other taxation policies. I am proud that the Liberal Democrats were one of the first parties to call for support for self-employed people during the pandemic, and we secured an urgent question on the topic on 24 March 2020.

It is so important that we recognise the contribution that small businesses and the self-employed make to our economy. As well as learning the lessons of the pandemic, we really need to think about how we can support them so that they are better prepared in case of a future economic disaster like the one we all lived through between 2020 and 2022.

Clause 1

Olly Glover Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Following the initial decision to introduce new APR and BPR rates, farmers across the country rallied their tractors outside this place to get their voices heard. Other family-owned businesses have gone through the same agony over the last 14 months, but without the tractors and with perhaps less of a voice, fearing for the future of businesses that have been built up over generations—businesses that form the bedrock of local communities and economies, employing local people and supporting local suppliers. As one constituent business owner told me, even with the recent lifting of the threshold, the reforms to BPR could still lead to family businesses such as his having to break up their underlying assets just to survive. The resulting loss to the Treasury in economic activity will far outweigh the amount of tax raised.

This attack on family-run businesses is particularly damaging in a constituency such as South Devon, where the family-run hotels and holiday parks are the foundation stones of the local economy. Passed down from generation to generation, they are more than just businesses. They are woven into the fabric of our communities. The director of one popular holiday park has been left questioning the long-term viability of their business due to the inheritance tax that will be due. This family-run business was founded over 65 years ago and employs over 180 staff in the summer season, which is a large number in a constituency such as mine that has few large employers. It uses an abundance of local suppliers and makes a significant contribution to the local economy. But I am told that when the 81-year-old majority shareholder passes away, it is likely that the family will have to sell up completely, after at least five generations of ownership, to pay an inheritance tax liability of approximately £2.5 million. The business cannot just chop off a section of the holiday camp, sell it to pay the tax and be left with a viable business—it just does not work like that. That illustrates perfectly how this tax is not merely a financial burden; it threatens the very survival of these businesses, and the ripples will spread out across the pond with scores of people losing their jobs, which will have knock-on effects on the local economy, the community and the mental health of all those people left high and dry.

Examples such as that are why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I support amendment 42, which would maintain 100% business relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family. That is the least that this Government could do given the plethora of financial challenges these family-run businesses already face. Whatever loophole the Government were looking to close with this business property relief, they have gone way beyond that, and the implications will be an economic and personal tragedy for so many.

I could not speak today without again mentioning our family farms. I am pleased that the Government have finally listened and made the adjustment to the threshold, which will end the agony for many farmers. However, I am concerned that in areas where land prices are particularly high, such as the South Hams, the £2.5 million threshold will still be too low. There are also a significant number of farms owned by a single person rather than a couple, meaning they will not benefit from the spousal allowance. When APR was originally introduced, I surveyed all the farmers in the South Devon constituency, of which there are many hundreds: 85% of them said that they would be affected. Of those who responded, 44% said that they would have a bill of at least £300,000. The average bill was going to be £637,000 across my constituency, and the highest inheritance tax expected by one of my farms is £3 million.

I therefore support amendment 48, which would make the resulting inheritance tax liability chargeable only if agricultural land is sold or ceases to be used for farming within 10 years of the relevant transfer. I urge the Government to support new clause 7 to ensure the relief allowance is uprated annually according to the change in the value of agricultural land. I also urge the Government, as many of my colleagues have, to consider extending the spousal allowance to siblings who co-own a farm so that they too can benefit from this relief. Why should one family be penalised because a brother and sister own a farm compared with another family where it is a husband and wife? It is incredibly old fashioned to design a policy that benefits people who are married but not people who co-own within the same family.

I hope the Government will now provide meaningful support for farmers, who have been through so much over the last 14 months, starting with a £1 billion increase in the farming budget as promised by the Liberal Democrats if we were sitting on the Government Benches. If we undermine British farming, we undermine our ability to feed the nation and, in turn, compete in an increasingly uncertain world. Our farmers have been through an agonising 14 months. They should never have been subjected to this fear and stress. It is a disgrace that the Government took more seriously a prospective revolt from their own Back Benchers than the committed, desperate and passionate campaigning of farmers, countryside organisations and rural communities right across the country for the last 14 months. This policy still retains huge unfairness, as colleagues have explained so clearly, and I urge the Government to pause and think again while a proper impact assessment of even the new APR is carried out.

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

I stand to speak in favour of various Lib Dem amendments and in particular new clause 7. Farmers in this country continue to be hammered, as they were under the previous Government, by the current one. From poor funding of rural public services to botched trade deals that undercut British farmers, rural communities have been left behind, despite the industry being vital to delivering our food supply and a key pillar in our fight against climate change. Food is not some luxury or niche commodity but an essential, and an important part of our heritage and culture. In an increasingly volatile world, it is important that we recognise the value of domestic production.

Many speakers this evening have discussed problems with the Labour Government’s changes to agricultural and business property tax relief, and it is welcome that the Government have to some extent listened to that. However, in my constituency, the key thing I hear when speaking with farmers is that the proposed changes, in their original form, were the final straw for them on top of so many other challenges and headwinds. That is why the reaction has been so strong. They face the uncertainty and impact of Brexit; trade deals based on proving the so-called benefits of Brexit, no matter the impact on our farmers; constantly changing Government incentive and payment regimes; the impact of recent worldwide inflation on fertiliser prices and equipment costs; labour shortages, also partly as a result of Brexit; and the dominance of large supermarkets seeking ever lower prices.

Our farmers also face rural crime, which, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) rightly stated, has a significant impact on their mental health and wellbeing. Even with Thames Valley police’s best efforts, farms’ remoteness makes them easy targets for theft or hare coursing. Flooding has also affected many farms across my constituency, such as George Gale’s Manor farm in Appleford or Paul Cauldwell’s Dropshort farm in Drayton. Increased rainfall and a lack of river maintenance are both contributing factors to wider flooding incidents, plus run-off from new developments.

The National Farmers’ Union hustings were by far the toughest of the general election campaign, but I have also been warmly welcomed by farmers who have been very patient and generous in explaining their trade to someone who could not have less of an agricultural background. They include Matt Lane of Grange farm, David Christensen of Lockinge estate and Alan and Richard Binnings, who put so much work into Truckfest, which, as well as being an amazing concert experience on their land, raises tens of thousands of pounds for local charities each year.

I want to talk in particular about Ben Smith from Manor Road farm near Wantage. When I met him last winter to hear his challenges, he explained that he is a third-generation arable farmer. At that time, his mother was 90 years of age. She owns the farm. Ben’s big concern was that when she dies, he and his family will be significantly hit by the inheritance tax, with revenues from their arable farming barely able to cover the liabilities. At that time, his mother was saying that she would rather die than leave Ben and his sister to deal with the situation later. Ben wants his son and daughter to have the farm, but he will be in a financial mess. He might need to lose six or seven staff, some of whom have worked for him for between 10 and 45 years. Inheritance tax is a big worry to him, but he has also been hit by other increases in tax and national insurance.

All the farmers I have met have been welcoming, tolerant of my agricultural ignorance, forgiving of my vegetarianism, patient in educating me about their work and profoundly passionate about what they do. I have been surprised to find parallels between my experience of working in railways before coming to this place and farming. Both are subject to the stop-and-start whims of Government policy and the decisions of people who have little knowledge or experience of the sectors concerned and often do not take the time to listen and learn.

In contrast, the Liberal Democrats are proud of our advocacy for farmers and are calling for the farming budget to be raised by £1 billion, for a renegotiation of trade agreements to protect British farmers in line with our objectives for health, environmental and animal welfare standards, and for strengthening of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to ensure that farmers can keep farming in fair circumstances.

It is welcome that the Government have started to listen, but we must always remember that we need food, we need countryside and our farmers do so much to look after both. They deserve our support.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I extend my thanks to hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions during this session in particular, which I appreciate has been a topic of discussion in public and in this place over a number of months. As I have said, the Government have been listening carefully to feedback from the farming community, family businesses and their representatives. The Government are proud to represent the national interest, with strong representation for rural, semi-rural and urban constituencies. It is a fantastic vote of confidence in our Prime Minister and in this Government that there are pretty much as many Labour MPs who represent rural constituencies as there are Conservative MPs in total.

The Government are going further to protect more farms and businesses while maintaining the core principle that more valuable agricultural and business assets should not receive unlimited relief. That is why we have tabled an amendment that will increase the allowance for the 100% rate of relief from £1 million to £2.5 million.

Road Safety Strategy

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement and for the strategy. We welcome it, having called for an updated road safety strategy for some time, following years of neglect of our roads by the previous Conservative Government. The strategy shows serious intent, and I commend the thought and research that has gone into it and the breadth of thinking on display. It is welcome that it is largely substance rather than gimmicks, which could have been the case. In particular, I welcome the fact that the Ryan’s law campaign on penalties for hit and run, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), is incorporated into the strategy.

Our concern is that much of the strategy is based on a commitment to undertake consultations. I hope the Minister agrees that we would not want to see a repeat of the time it has taken to undertake a pavement-parking consultation—admittedly one initiated by the previous Government—with a wait of five years until the welcome announcement of something today. Consultations need to be meaningful, but they also need to be time-bound and then translated into action.

A number of areas need focus. We need to consider the significant impact on some groups in society that these measures will have, right though they are for advancing road safety. The first group is older people. The older generation have grown up in an age of decades-worth of Government policy promoting travel by car, so this runs the risk of having a significant impact on them. As I know from constituency casework, they also suffer from DVLA administration failures in processing medical changes and so on. This underlines the importance of improving public transport to reduce car dependency—in particular, the development of demand-responsive transport in rural areas, which the Transport Committee has looked at in detail.

These measures also run the risk of placing further pressure on the rural economy. Our pubs and farming communities are already under real pressure from increased alcohol taxation, business rates and inflation and poor international trade arrangements, which makes it even more important that they are properly supported and that the Government listen, including to Liberal Democrat calls for a 5% cut to VAT for hospitality.

It is welcome that the strategy mentions potholes, which drive all our constituents mad—particularly mine on the A4130 between Didcot and Wallingford and the Milton interchange in Queensway. Most importantly, we need to support young drivers. More is needed, given that the Government have twice moved the deadline for reducing the wait for tests to seven weeks. The six-month wait is understandable, but it is important that we support young people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench know that they have two minutes, not two minutes and 50 seconds or three minutes and 10 seconds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

We have a proud history of manufacturing in this country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and we will capitalise on that history as we drive our future growth. The UK is a leader in bus manufacturing, and the Government are committed to supporting the sector, including through the Department for Transport’s UK bus manufacturing expert panel. As a Government, we want to back British buses, unlike the SNP.

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

T10. The Government created the National Wealth Fund to encourage investment in innovation in critical sectors, such as clean energy and sustainable aviation fuel. How will the Chancellor make sure that the wealth fund uses different, and maybe even better, risk criteria than commercial banks and financial entities?

[James Murray]

The National Wealth Fund is at the forefront of public investment, investing in early-stage companies and projects to support innovation, boost jobs and create growth. It will work closely and collaboratively with other public financial institutions such as the British Business Bank, Innovate UK and UK Research and Innovation to support innovative companies across the UK.

Growing the UK Economy

Olly Glover Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend and all my hon. Friends from the Teesside region, who have campaigned hard for investment in their area. I visited the plant in question when I was Chair of the Business Committee in the former Parliament, and I remember clearly the company saying how frustrating it was that the previous Government would not allow them to invest and grow the development of sustainable aviation fuel, but were instead allowing it to be imported at cost from other countries. This Government are taking a different approach, which is unlocking investment and jobs in Teesside, and across the country, in the interests of working people.

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

I welcome the Chief Secretary’s commitment to investing in my Oxfordshire constituency, and particularly in our science centres of Milton Park, Culham and Harwell campus. However, the commitment to the south east strategic reservoir option—SESRO—will be met with far more questions, given Thames Water’s track record. On 15 January 2025, in New Civil Engineer, a water engineer suggested that the reservoir’s £2.2 billion cost could be much better spent tackling leaks and reducing water demand and waste. Will the Chief Secretary meet me to discuss these unanswered questions about the reservoir?

[Darren Jones]

The Environment Secretary, working with the regulator Ofwat, has agreed the largest investment in the water industry on record, with more than £100 billion over the years ahead to tackle issues with sewage and leaks in the Victorian infrastructure, and, crucially, for the first time in decades, to actually build a reservoir, which this country needs. That is why it is important that we have announced those two plans today. They will, of course, go through the normal processes, and I am sure he will be paying attention to that as they come forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Olly Glover Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which clearly is important to him and his constituents. I confirmed to the House today that the Minister for Trade in the Department for Business and Trade is working with the trustees of the BCSSS to consider options. I will meet the Minister to look at those options and provide further updates to the House in due course.

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

T2. The Local Government Association estimates that the Budget’s increases to employer national insurance contributions will cost local councils an extra £637 million per year. The Government’s funding settlement for councils in relation to that of £515 million will leave them with a gap, putting key services such as social care, pothole repairs and leisure facilities at risk. Will the Chancellor commit to fully finding that gap for local councils, rather than them having to look for savings?

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

During the passage of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, we set out clearly how the scheme would work to reimburse costs for public departments or local government. That measure is in line with what the previous Government attempted to do with the health and social care levy. Where third-party private contractors are engaged, those costs will be considered by local government or other public sector organisations in the round.

Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Olly Glover Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to give my maiden speech today. I aspire to match the eloquence of the previous speakers in this debate, including the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who gave the most recent maiden speech; his passion for his constituency is very clear.

I start by paying tribute to my immediate predecessor, David Johnston. I admire the fact that Mr Johnston entered politics because of his passion for social mobility. I have met constituents who have been personally helped by him, and I aspire to follow his lead. I was pleased that the first email in my parliamentary mailbox came from Lord Ed Vaizey of Didcot, Member for the predecessor seat of Wantage between 2005 and 2019, offering his congratulations. That was a warm and encouraging gesture. I arrive in Parliament following a career on the railway, serving the public, and I hope to apply my knowledge and experience to working with others to advance both rail infrastructure and public services in my seat.

The name of the new Didcot and Wantage constituency is an improvement on the previous name, Wantage, but remains imperfect. While Wantage and Didcot are the larger towns of the three in the seat, residents from Wallingford are aggrieved by their omission. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you and this House that all three towns will have my attention and care. The same applies to the dozens of villages in the seat; I am fortunate enough to live in one of them, Milton. All our villages have a unique character and set of attractions. Pendon museum in Long Wittenham includes an homage in model railway form to the 1930s Vale of White Horse landscape, and there is also the ancient Uffington white horse and the beautiful chalk streams of the Letcombes. The constituency’s economy is diverse: we have the technology and science centres of Milton Park, Harwell campus and Culham near to farms that have been passed down through generations. Didcot hosts many industrial and business units, and residents benefit from the great western main line for fast commuting to and from London. Organisations such as Didcot TRAIN, the DAMASCUS youth project and Sustainable Wantage illustrate the strong culture of public service and volunteering.

My constituents rightly have high expectations. During the election campaign, one of them highlighted the lack of biographical detail in a leaflet about me, and asked me whether I was a doctor, a surveyor, a banker, a teacher, or an alien from outer space. Despite my love of the voyages of the crew of the USS Enterprise, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can reassure you and everyone in this House that I am not an alien. Of course, my constituency contains many non-humans, albeit perhaps not aliens. Many a local party volunteer has come to tire of my frequent canvassing of cats as well as humans. On occasion, this has helped my cause: while I was in conversation with one voter, his cat, Matthew, intervened. Matthew took a strong liking to me, with a great deal of leg-rubbing, even sitting on my lap on the pavement. The voter, astonished, told me that Matthew hates nearly everyone, and that his favourable verdict on me would be taken into account.

Turning to the subject of today’s debate, my constituency shares many of the same challenges as the wider country. Access to GP appointments is often difficult, particularly in Didcot, which continues to yearn for a new GP surgery in Great Western Park. NHS dentistry barely exists, and sewage dumping in our waterways is a great concern, as are proposals for a large reservoir near Steventon and the Hanneys. Many residents desire to walk and cycle more, but need pleasant and safe routes and paths in order to do so, and while the constituency benefits from fast railway connections, the reliability and capacity of the service provided can be somewhat patchy, and we continue to lack a railway station serving Grove and Wantage.

Perhaps the greatest issue on constituents’ minds is the cost of housing and recent, very substantial increases in the numbers of houses. I commend the Government on their commitment to genuinely affordable housing, but ask them to bear in mind that residents would be more supportive of housing growth were the health, education, and transport facilities needed to support it delivered in parallel. I promise to work tirelessly for my constituents in the pursuit of progress on these issues, and thank them again for the opportunity to serve. It is a genuine honour to be stood here, and I look forward to working with Members from across the House to achieve those aims.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Josh MacAlister to make his maiden speech.