Olly Glover
MP for Didcot and Wantage · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Olly Glover, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 13.
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for introducing this very important topic. He made some important points in his speech, and he was on to a strong one when he talked about the importance of remoteness and rurality as a factor in local authority costs that should be taken into account with funding. As we have heard from several hon. Members, the Government’s changes to local government finances are going to have a hard impact on rural areas that are already struggling with this critical issue. We have heard from hon. Members from many counties today. I am going to list them all, because it illustrates the national nature of the issue, although we all have the temptation to think that it is down to which parties run local authorities and which do not.”
“It is far more about central Government versus local government, how our local government is structured and funded, and unsustainable local government expectations, given the funding that they are provided. We need significant reform on that, so that we can get our roads in a better place.”
“Councils certainly can do more to better spend the community infrastructure levy, but that partly takes account of the wildly complicated planning system and the negotiations that are needed with developers for both that and section 106. Perhaps the Minister could share what the Government are doing to learn from other countries and to look at better approaches to road design, maintenance and repair. From my travels in, for example, Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands, potholes are either unknown or very rare. If I can briefly deviate from my usual tendencies towards pessimism and cynicism, and lead my colleagues to wonder about my wellbeing, in an ideal world I wonder whether this debate shows that we should try to move away from pretending that the main issue is who, from a party perspective, runs our councils.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the Minister for explaining the proposed regulatory changes, which the Liberal Democrats support. Of course, the rules of physics still apply, and these electric goods vehicles will be heavier, so I simply ask the Minister whether he agrees that that underlines the importance of the work the Government are doing on the road safety strategy to reduce the risk and impact of collisions.”
“I thank the hon. Member for taking time for this intervention on her passionate speech about the huge number of women who suffer from endometriosis. Given the challenges with diagnosis, and the enormous pain and suffering that she has outlined, does she agree that far more money and Government support need to go into research, so that we can better understand this condition and how to diagnose and treat it?”
“All those organisations need Government support to ensure that they can continue to play their part in protecting nature and our environment.”
“Their work is transformative, including the recent restoration of a neglected coppice in Little Wittenham wood into a thriving, biodiverse habitat, encouraging bees with new apiaries on their farm and levelling up opportunities for environmental education by removing barriers of cost and transport to resource-stretched schools. In the towns in my constituency, Sustainable Didcot, Sustainable Wantage and Sustainable Wallingford are doing fantastic work to lead community climate change action through projects on waste, transport, food, biodiversity and social justice. Finally, the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust manages nature reserves, monitors species and runs projects to support declining species such as water voles.”
“The Letcombe Brook chalk stream is a precious habitat running from Letcombe Regis to East Hanney, providing water for local use. The Letcombe Brook project does great work protecting it. The River Thames, which also runs through my constituency, has often been subject to sewage dumping, due to the well documented issues with Thames Water. I pay tribute to local organisations that do so much to protect nature and make it accessible. I recently met members of the Earth Trust in Little Wittenham, who took me on a walk around the Wittenham Clumps.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I also praise the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for his passion for nature and the topics we are discussing. My constituency has seen some of the fastest housing growth in the country: 8,000 new houses added between 2011 and 2021. I understand the need for housing, but a major concern for local residents is how to balance the objective of more housing with the objectives of protecting our green environment and ensuring that amenities are there to protect the housing. The constituency has many wonderful and rare habitats that require protection. If we fail to do that, there will be wide-reaching, catastrophic impacts to our environment.”
“We support Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which will help to provide revenue certainty that can relate only to UK-produced aviation fuel, and Lords amendments 4 and 5, which will simplify industry consultation requirements, while noting the way in which Lords amendment 6 will bring in an overarching consultation requirement. We support the duty placed on the Secretary of State through Lords amendment 6 to consult before making regulations under the Act, including its focus on consultation and engagement with the devolved Administrations, which, of course, is always important. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I only regret that I lack the skill of the shadow Minister in making aviation puns.”
“Even taking into account the Lords amendments, we continue to welcome steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. I repeat the Liberal Democrat point from Second Reading that SAF is just one step in that direction; in the longer term, it needs to complement rather than detract from investment in zero-carbon flight technology. I thank the Government for their engagement in the other place and for bringing forward these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness Pidgeon for her work and advocacy to strengthen the Bill. To that end, the Liberal Democrats support all the amendments.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“We need independent specialist assessments, safe interim arrangements, and timely and accountable co-ordination of care. Some people wait more than eight months for an answer either way regarding whether they are eligible for treatment under the current criteria. That can further compromise their confidence in coming forward and asking for support. It can have a huge personal cost, impacting people’s ability to drive or work, reducing life expectancy and creating long-term medical complications, which add to wider pressures on the NHS. As in other debates that we have about healthcare in this country, this issue highlights an area where, if we get the start of the process right with early, preventive interventions, we will be able to help individuals and alleviate some of the pressure on critical care services.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for introducing the debate and for her enormous dedication and hard work on this vital issue over many years. I would like to talk about the themes that have arisen from constituency cases that my team and I have encountered and supported. The key concern is not the clinical aspects of care but the delay and fragmentation of the ownership of care. Life-threatening conditions can drift. Gaining access to care, support and treatment often involves a Kafkaesque labyrinth of dysfunctional process and procedure, and referrals and re-referrals between a range of teams in the complicated organisation that the NHS is.”
“Friend, early intervention can greatly reduce the number of people who are suffering. We are also campaigning for regular mental health check-ups—the concept of a mental health MOT—at key points in people’s lives when they are most vulnerable to mental ill health. Like others who have spoken, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. So many people are suffering, and lots of people are trying to help—that is not the issue. We need to make the overall system work much better, with all its different component parts working towards the goal of supporting people.”
“We need a meaningful national strategy to transform these services, with more specialist support, and we need to build a culture across the health service and beyond that recognises the complexities of eating disorders and the terrible dangers they pose. Lending urgency to that is the fact that the target of 95% of urgent cases receiving treatment within a week, and routine cases receiving it within four weeks, is routinely being missed. From September to November last year, only 78% of urgent referrals and 82% of routine referrals started treatment within the target timeframe. That is why I am very happy to support a wider Liberal Democrat campaign for investment in community health services and prevention, including better specialist support for people with eating disorders. As we heard from my hon.”
“It is a huge concern, in the face of that crisis, that eating disorder services are being cut in much of the country. Over half of the country’s integrated care boards have cut real-terms spending on children’s eating disorder services in the last financial year. I am proud of the leadership that parliamentarians such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath and Baroness Parminter in the other place have shown on this issue, including working with campaign groups such as Dump the Scales. The scandal of people being told that they are “not thin enough” for medical help must end. Far too many people cannot access the services they need. I welcome recent guidance from NHS England on how to design eating disorder services to support children and young people better, but we need to do more than tinker around the edges with updated guidance.”
“My hon. Friend again shows her wealth of knowledge and experience of this topic. Some of the cases that my team and I have supported have involved people who have been living with eating disorders for decades. I have also seen cases where the transition from support services for children and young people into those for adults has been managed badly. That is not unique to eating disorders; it is a wider issue in mental health provision. As we have heard, eating disorders can have a devastating impact. They rob people of years of life, wipe out adolescence, remove educational and social opportunities, and leave many isolated and unable to cope. Eating disorders are one of the deadliest mental health conditions and constitute a significant health crisis. Cases of eating disorders have surged, with hospital admissions doubling in a decade.”
“Local councils in my Oxfordshire constituency work hard to secure public arts funding through developer contributions for our growing population. However, some existing cultural venues are struggling. The much-loved Vale and Downland Museum in Wantage is having to rely on one-off grants to plug funding gaps and has had an annual average deficit of £24,000 a year since 2020. In that context, what more can the Minister do to help our local councils to provide funding for museums and cultural venues in my part of Oxfordshire?”
“I hope we can all agree that it is vital that people invest in their pensions during the course of their working lives, so that they can have confidence in their wellbeing and livelihoods when they reach retirement. That is particularly important because of the figures I cited at the beginning of my speech, which reveal a worrying lack of investment in private or workplace pensions. This is not just about redress for the AEAT pension campaign, although that is the most important thing; this is about showing that the Government believe in the integrity of pension schemes and are committed to making sure that everybody has faith in those pension schemes. It is so important for people to invest in them.”
“Thirdly, why do Government officials, particularly in the Department for Work and Pensions, repeatedly make insinuations to the effect that the AEAT pension situation has been thoroughly investigated by previous Ministers when the evidence does not support that assertion? Fourthly, why is the Government’s position on AEAT pensions the exact opposite of that taken by the right hon. Member for East Ham when he was Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee? Fifthly, will the Minister require or request that the Government Actuary’s Department publish its calculations —not just the assumptions underlying its calculations—of the sum transferred to the AEAT scheme at privatisation, on the basis that GAD presumably calculated what the cash equivalent transfer sum required by the Pension Schemes Act 1993 would have been?”
“First, why has the current Pensions Minister refused to provide redress for AEAT pensioners without giving reasons why, even though a thorough investigation by the Public Accounts Committee concluded in their favour and the Pensions Minister at the time accepted that conclusion and indicated to the Work and Pensions Committee that he was keen to resolve the situation? Secondly, how are the Government to be held to account for the wrongdoing that has ruined the retirement of elderly AEAT pensioners, many of whom, very sadly, have passed away without justice, given that the previous Administration accepted the objective, non-political findings of the Public Accounts Committee?”
“Secondly, the Government retained a large proportion of the funds that should have been transferred to the new pension scheme. Thirdly, the PPF is making a large profit on the assets transferred in from the AEAT scheme, while members are receiving 50% of the benefits that they spent many decades paying for. My affected constituents, alongside campaigners from across many constituencies, have five questions for the Minister. I hope that he will be able to answer this afternoon; if that is not possible in some cases, I hope he will be willing to make a commitment to write to me with his findings.”
“Numerous insinuations have been made in the House of Lords, such as those made by the noble Baroness Sherlock, claiming that the 1996 Government Actuary’s Department note highlighted the risk that the scheme might fail. For the pension campaigners, that is simply not correct: the words “risk” and “fail” were not used at the time in the Government Actuary’s Department note in connection with the AEAT scheme. In conclusion, I want to put forward three key problems to the Minister today. First, the pensioners received poor information from the Government on their pension choices at privatisation. The information that they were given was not accurate or complete, and that precluded them from making an informed choice about whether to accept the privatisation of the pension alongside their employer.”
“The noble Baroness Ros Altmann, who we can all agree is widely recognised for her expertise on pension matters, recently made a strong statement supporting the AEAT case to the Lords Committee on the Pension Schemes Bill. She proposed a solution by which schemes such as AEAT’s could leave the PPF with full compensation. The Lords Minister, the noble Baroness Sherlock, rejected that proposal. The noble Lord Palmer of Childs Hill tabled amendment 218 to the Pension Schemes Bill, which would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the pension losses incurred by former employees of AEA Technology.”
“Perhaps more concerningly, the Department for Work and Pensions and its Ministers have repeatedly insinuated that the matter has been investigated by various ombudsmen. The truth is that no ombudsman has ever investigated the information on pension options given to scheme members by the Government and their agents in 1996. The Pensions Ombudsman refused to investigate on the basis that the Government Actuary’s Department is excluded from its remit. The Financial Ombudsman Service cannot deal with defined-benefit pension schemes, so this did not fall within its remit either. The Pensions Ombudsman said that it could take action only if the PPF board had made a mistake, which it had not. As the Minister will be aware, the Pension Schemes Bill is currently being debated in the House of Lords.”
“Similarly, the response that I received to a letter from November requesting a meeting with the Minister to discuss this issue—I am grateful to him for making time to meet me—stated: “there are no plans to put in place a further review…the Chancellor announced at the Budget that this government will introduce pre-1997 indexation into the PPF and FAS to address this matter, and that AEAT members will benefit from this measure”. However, my constituents feel that those recent changes will make very little difference compared with what they have lost. Again, they have produced calculations to illustrate that; I am sure that they would be happy to share them, should the Minister be interested.”
“The then Under-Secretary of State for pensions, Paul Maynard, accepted the Committee’s recommendations and began to communicate with the Cabinet Office on the matter, only for that to be abandoned with a change of Government. The current Government have not accepted the findings, and have stated, without particularly clear justification: “There are no plans to offer specific redress to AEAT members.” The Government have often claimed that the matter has been “thoroughly investigated” by previous Ministers. The pension campaigners and I feel that that is not the case.”
“In 2023, a National Audit Office report clearly demonstrated that the Government Actuary’s Department failed to inform closed section pensioners about the loss of Treasury backing when transferring their benefits from the UKAEA pension scheme to the AEAT scheme. Later in 2023, a Public Accounts Committee investigation found that pensioners had not only been misled, but lost money as a result. It also found that no Government Department had taken responsibility, and that pensioners had been passed “from pillar to post”, as well as having no route for appeal. In 2023, the Work and Pensions Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), concluded that the Government should report back on how they intended to ensure an adequate means of redress for the pension scheme members.”
“Friends the Members for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), have heard from our constituents about the devastating effect this scandal has had on their retirements. I spoke with campaigners in my constituency just a few weeks ago, and they told me that their plans to provide for themselves and their dependants at the end of their lives were shattered. They have lost a huge fraction of their pensions, and they told me that they feel that recent Budget changes will make very little difference to them. They have spent years pushing on this issue, only to have been failed time and again by successive Governments. On top of that, it has been estimated that around 200 of the affected campaigners have died. Many independent reports have supported the pension campaigners’ cause.”
“Alongside this, there is strong evidence, which I am sure the campaigners would be willing to share with the Minister, that the Government transferred less than half the proper sum into the new scheme at privatisation. They kept about £200 million. Campaigners believe that had the proper sum been transferred in 1996, it is unlikely that the scheme would have been underfunded and wound up in 2012. There is a strong moral case for redress. Ultimately, for hundreds of pensioners, in my constituency and across those of my colleagues, the retirements they saved for have been blighted. I want to say a little about why this particular pension case is unique and unusual and contains factors related to actions of the state, because I am aware that many such cases come across the Minister’s desk. Both I and my colleagues, including my hon.”
“The underfunded AEAT pension scheme was in deficit and was transferred into the Pension Protection Fund. The employees paid into the UKAEA scheme for pensions linked to the retail prices index, but the PPF provides no inflation protection at all for the pensions those employees earned before privatisation. They now receive about 50% of the pensions they were promised. This is particularly galling for AEAT closed section pensioners, who paid extra pension contributions—30% more than in the open section—specifically to purchase RPI indexation. At the time, the Government actuary assured people in writing that they would receive the same pension benefits from the new scheme, and specifically advised them not to consider the security of their pensions in making their decisions.”
“It is the authority’s clear policy, irrespective of employment law, that employees who move to the private sector should be able to join a pension scheme which is broadly comparable with the authority pension scheme. Indeed, to do otherwise might mean that employees had a claim for constructive dismissal.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 1995; Vol. 566, c. 1289.] However, the new scheme turned out to be less favourable. While the UKAEA scheme had a specific provision that the Government would pay the benefits if the scheme did not, it turned out that the new scheme had no equivalent provision. At privatisation, the Government transferred less than half of the accrued pension contributions into the new AEAT pension scheme, underfunding it from its inception. In 2012, AEA Technology entered a pre-pack administration.”
“I hope the Minister will agree that that is particularly important, given that a Money and Pensions Service survey in 2024 found that 29% of 18 to 25-year-olds in work have never contributed to a private or workplace pension. The AEA Technology pension scandal is a profound injustice that has affected thousands of individuals and families across the country. In 1996, the commercial division of the UK Atomic Energy Authority was privatised to become AEA Technology. The Government gave Parliament a number of assurances about its employees’ pensions, which led to 90% of employees transferring their pensions over. The assurances included one from Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who said in 1995 that “employees of other parts of the authority which may be divested need not be concerned about their future pension arrangements.”
“Let me start by setting out some context and background to how we got to the AEA Technology pension scheme scandal. I will set out the moral case for redress, sum up some of the independent evidence supporting the pension campaigners’ cause, and address some previous comments made on the issue by the Government and some amendments relating to it that are currently going through the House of Lords. I hope that we can begin on a subject of agreement. I hope that we all recognise the vital importance of pensions as part of our financial and life planning system and the importance of having a pension system in which everybody can trust.”
“I understand what the Minister is saying about pre-1997 indexation, but that is not the primary issue. The calculations by the campaigners about the difference this makes to their losses is that it is trivial—very small. I do not have the exact percentage, but it is probably a 5% difference, or something along those lines. I am very happy to share that with the Minister. That does not address the key issue, which is that Government guidance was incorrect at the time, and that led people to make decisions on the basis of wrong information. I suggest to the Minister that pre-1997 indexation is a different issue.”
“I was not intending to intervene, but I am afraid what the hon. Member said is not correct. Tuition fees were first introduced by the Conservative Government in the early 1990s and then by the Labour Government in 1998, with top-up fees in 2004. Will he accept that and then proceed?”
“She says that, “completing a PhD was absolutely necessary to pursue my career in essential scientific research…As they stand, those who choose to embark on a PhD are disadvantaged further by committing to 3-6 years of time in which they will be unable to pay off student loans due to PhD stipends falling under the repayment limit, I am likely to pay significantly more towards my student loan than was originally billed before it is written off purely because as an undergraduate I came from a low income family and I received the full subsistence and fee loans.””
“It feels like I’m being penalised for staying in steady employment rather than making real progress on the debt…I worry that this system will discourage people from training for essential professions like healthcare.” Another constituent, Alexandra, works at Culham Campus, a site for fusion energy research and many other industries.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for introducing this debate. I would like to use my limited time to tell the stories of two of my constituents. One of them is Rebecca, a health worker who is an NHS band 6 employee. For those unfamiliar with NHS pay bands, as I am, that is between £38,600 and £46,600 a year. She has raised concerns about the impact that her student loan repayments are having on her finances and day-to-day life. She says: “It feels like a lifelong debt that’s impossible to reduce…Looking at the bigger picture is even more frustrating. Between 2019 and 2025, almost £18,000 in interest has been added to my loan, despite the fact that I’ve been working and making repayments the entire time.”
“A powerful illustration of my hon. Friend’s point is that oral questions to the Minister for Women and Equalities is compressed into just 30 minutes before Prime Minister’s questions every few weeks. Does she agree?”
“The inquiry would of course take account of police and criminal investigations, disclosure and the publication of relevant documents, but we must go further.”
“This motion is first and foremost about the victims of the appalling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his many associates, as well as the importance of protecting people from abuse of power. It also has significant implications for wider political culture. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) articulately outlined, this and previous Governments have been wracked by scandal of many kinds, and the whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair adds to that by making a very significant contribution to the already severe erosion of trust in our politics and institutions. That is why we are calling for a public inquiry into all aspects of UK and British citizen involvement with Jeffrey Epstein over many years.”
“My hon. Friend makes a practical proposal for how an inquiry could be conducted efficiently with appropriate prioritisation, so that the most urgent matters get looked at, rather than being bogged down in something that would take much longer. We must go further. We must toughen the penalties for breaching the ministerial code. We must create an office of the whistleblower to protect, empower and encourage people with valuable information to come forward and to speak up. I support Liberal Democrat calls for an end to negative privilege protections that have prevented criticism of individuals in the royal family in this House, for the reasons set out during the debate.”
“I agree that far too much in British political and wider culture relies on taking things on trust and assuming that good motives and good intentions will win the day. Very sadly, the whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair shows that we cannot necessarily rely on that and that we need strong processes, procedures and protocols to make sure that we have the highest standards in public life. We all hope that the necessary changes to prevent a repeat of the whole Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affair, which is an abomination, and the wider Epstein disgrace can be made within the structures of our current system of constitutional monarchy. Should that prove not to be the case, then we risk calls for a change to our constitutional arrangements growing louder and more compelling.”
“My hon. Friend makes a compelling point about the UK’s successes in controlling gun crime to date. Does he agree with the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) that the August 2021 murders in Plymouth highlighted significant problems with the implementation of the current regimes around gun checks and that that—as well as any changes to the law—should be a key consideration for the Government?”
“Over 130,000 motor vehicles are now stolen every year in the UK; there has been a 75% increase in England and Wales in a decade. Much of that theft happens through the exploitation of weaknesses in remote key fobs. Does the Minister agree that this crime trend is a major risk for users of motorised vehicles on our roads, and what steps will her Department and its agencies take to improve vehicle and fob design standards and regulation, as well as driver awareness, to prevent such crimes?”