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 6 of 13.
“The Government have big ambitions for active travel, but their targets in the third cycling and walking investment strategy are neither bold nor measurable. Over 40 organisations, including some Labour mayoral authorities, have called for a target of 50% of short urban journeys being walked, wheeled or cycled by 2030, as well as planning for a national active travel network. What does the Secretary of State say in response?”
“Q4. My Oxfordshire constituents are sick of widespread potholes, particularly at Milton interchange, in Didcot and along the A417 serving Challow and Stanford in the Vale. Yet the Government are cutting funding for Oxfordshire county council by £24 million over three years, which is equivalent to its annual highways maintenance budget. The Prime Minister is of course entitled to dig a pothole for himself, but why is he cutting funding for Oxfordshire’s roads?”
“To address the shadow Minister’s point, I understand where he is coming from, but were somebody to be punished by being required to tot up the reports that would have to be laid before Parliament under amendments that he and I have tabled, I think it is possible that he might win. In that context, we do not think that this is overly onerous, but we look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on how the local authority voice can be strengthened.”
“The new clause would create a formal mechanism to surface those priorities and ensure that they are not overlooked. The powers in the Bill are not just for this Government and this Parliament, so it is important that appropriate checks and balances are put in place. The new clause would restore balance by embedding local government and parliamentary scrutiny into long-term rail planning, while making sure that local people’s voices are heard by the Government on the changes that they want to see. By requiring reports to be shared with relevant Select Committees, new clause 25 would strengthen accountability and transparency. It would support joined-up, evidence-based planning and help to ensure that Great British Railways delivers the improvements that reflect local need.”
“Our new clause 25 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report at least once every five years on the long-term rail infrastructure changes needed at a local level. It would force the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities and would ensure that those views are properly considered, reported and laid before Parliament. Local authorities understand where infrastructure is holding back growth, connectivity and reliability. Whether it is the need for additional passing loops—were my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset present I am sure that he would talk about the west of England line—station upgrades or better integration with local bus services, such issues are often well known locally but struggle to be given a proper voice under our current arrangements.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Sir Alec. Before I speak to new clause 25, let me make a few comments about the Government and Conservative amendments. I see nothing to object to in the Government amendments, which seem to tidy up some aspects of the Bill surrounding interfaces relating to TfL; I await the Minister’s comments. We support the Conservative amendments, which would strengthen the role of devolved Scottish and Welsh Ministers, mayoral authorities and TfL in relation to GBR’s decisions. That is the right principle because, as I shall argue, for too long decisions about our rail network have been focused on London and the south-east, sometimes to the detriment of regional development.”
“Passengers are frequently plagued by the imposition of people’s often dubious taste in music or TikTok videos, which may sometimes include the soothing sound of cats miaowing but quite often takes the form of a great deal of other raucous things. It may seem disproportionate to suggest legislation to counter the problem, but sometimes our own human weaknesses let us down. That is why new clause 57 would require regulations to be made to “prohibit any individual on passenger rail services from purposefully playing content with audio from personal electronic devices without the use of headphones in such a way that causes a disturbance to other passengers.” I look forward to the Minister’s comments.”
“By placing a clear duty to patrol where practicable, at reasonable intervals, this new clause would support staff in doing what many already strive to do, while giving passengers reassurance that someone is present, visible and responsive. That visible presence offers peace of mind, particularly for those who may feel anxious or unsafe while travelling, and helps to build confidence in the rail network as a public space. The benefit is a safer, more inclusive travelling environment, with early intervention preventing minor issues from becoming serious incidents and providing a safer, more welcoming environment. New clause 57 would deal with antisocial noise. This is a very grave matter.”
“It has been tabled because, alas, the current general customer experience of the visibility of guards, conductors, train managers or whatever we want to call them, where they are present, is patchy at best—that is the most polite way I can put it. New clause 48 is a modest, practical proposal that puts passenger safety and accessibility at the heart of our railways. Guards, train managers, conductors, senior conductors and all the other job titles—including on-board supervisors on Southern; I must not forget those—are uniquely placed to provide reassurance to passengers and to identify problems at an early stage, whether that is vulnerable passengers needing assistance, antisocial behaviour escalating or obstructions that compromise the safe operation of the train.”
“I have just made the point covered in our proposed subsection (3)(f): that public awareness of the methods to report concerns should be promoted. Perhaps they are working better than I thought. There is a lot to be done on making sure that travel connections from the train for onward journeys are strong, particularly bus waiting points and points to pick up taxis. Staffing is also a key consideration that requires some thought. If the review were to recommend any action to improve safety, it would be down to GBR to make efforts to implement those actions. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. New clause 48, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), would mandate some provisions on train guards.”
“It would need to look at staffing levels at stations and on trains, particularly for services that run late at night or that could give rise to a higher risk to passenger safety, such as services around special events. Lighting is a key consideration, as are opening hours and accessibility of health points. CCTV coverage is already significant across our railway, but the processes in place to access it and obtain evidence promptly are not always there. We want to look at the merits of ideas such as real-time reporting applications for incidents in which a passenger is harassed. There are such initiatives at the moment—I really ought to know the number by now, given the endless announcements: 61016, perhaps—but there is more that can be done.”
“Before I go into the detail of new clause 10, let me say why we think it is important. Passenger safety on our railway is important not only in absolute terms—it is absolutely right that people who are paying to take the train be safe, have their safety taken seriously and feel safe—but because, as always, public transport is competing with the private motor car, which is often associated, rightly or wrongly, with safety. Many people feel that it is a safer option, particularly late at night. Our new clause would therefore require the Secretary of State to undertake, within six months of the Act’s passing, a comprehensive review of passenger safety, with a particular focus on the safety of female passengers and passengers with disabilities.”
“That could be simply to develop an idea to the next level or to implement construction of something that has already gained support. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that. I would also be inclined to support the Conservatives’ new clause 35, which would explicitly intend to create a long-term pipeline project. As I have alluded, we think that is a good idea for our railway and our supply chain, and it is exactly the sort of thing that the Government should welcome, given their oft-stated but rarely implemented commitment to economic growth and getting our country moving.”
“In anticipation of the Government or the Conservatives accusing me of being fiscally reckless, careful observation of the wording highlights that the new clause does not stipulate an amount for what should go into the fund. That is for the Government of the day to decide, but the principle is clear: there should be a longer-term process and mechanism for local authorities and communities to get their ideas on the table. What would the fund involve? The new clause would require the Secretary of State to create the fund, which could be for new or reopened railways or just stations. We would call it the tomorrow’s railway fund. Local and regional transport authorities would have the right to apply to the Secretary of State to receive a grant of monies from the fund.”
“Our new clause 11 would create a fund for future railway improvement, which would have multiple intentions. First, it would create a stable pipeline of enhancements in infrastructure for the years and perhaps even decades ahead, which the supply chain is so loudly clamouring for, given that the rail networks enhancements pipeline has not been updated for many years. During Transport Committee visits around the country, we talked to supply chain businesses. Many of them reported never feeling quite so despairing about the outlook for their trades given the uncertainty with railway investment and enhancements. The fund would also create hope for communities. It would create a mechanism for them to submit their ideas for consideration, so they form part of the pipeline.”
“Given the shadow Minister’s criticism of the new clause, is he willing to condemn the previous Government’s restoring your railway fund for the same reasons?”
“New clause 58 is about our rails to trails programme, which would create the potential for communities to more easily acquire disused railway lines and turn them into walking and cycling routes. Of course, lots of disused railways in the country are no longer owned by railway organisations, but some are. The new clause would facilitate acquisitions so that we can create more spaces on routes that are segregated from traffic for people to enjoy.”
“I shall be concise because we have perhaps started discussing this new clause unwittingly in the previous segment. New clause 12 would require a review of the previous Government’s restoring your railway fund. Given the comments made by the shadow Minister, I am not sure that the wider populace would be quite so effusive about the success of the program—for £500 million, it delivered just 11 miles of reopened line and two new stations. Having said that, the heart of the idea was positive and that is exactly why we tabled our new clause 11, which we have debated previously. New clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the now cancelled restoring your railway fund, to understand the pearls of wisdom that could be salvaged from its wider failure, to improve things for the future.”
“If the Minister’s Wikipedia profile is correct, he studied history and politics. As an historian, does he not agree that to get the future right, we must learn from the past, and that we should therefore review the activities of past Governments?”
“I enjoyed the debate with the Minister, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 13 Report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes “(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes for rail passengers (‘rail miles programmes’). (2) A review under this section must consider any beneficial effect on the growth of rail passenger numbers of introducing rail miles programmes.” —(Olly Glover.) This new clause would ensure the Secretary of State conducts a report into potential benefits of a “rail miles” programme for passenger numbers. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“It therefore ought to be possible to logically define the criteria by which a line will be chosen to be subject to electrification, no electrification or partial electrification. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that.”
“They also have a lower whole-life cost. Yet, with a couple of noble exceptions, there seems to be a real aversion to full electrification. I can entirely understand that for lightly used branches, where some of the novel solutions, such as battery trains or discontinuous electrification with batteries, would be entirely suitable. However, it currently feels like there is no clear criteria or logic as to which type of traction solution is pursued. I have attempted to find answers through written questions and other means; I simply seek reassurance that the only consideration is not saving capital costs. I hope the Minister agrees that it is important that we consider whole-life cost as well as capital cost.”
“New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on types of traction within a year of the Bill having passed, because the UK seems very committed to pursuing the somewhat anomalous obsession of replacing existing diesel trains with something called discontinuous electrification. I will try not to bore the Committee too much with the technical detail, but historically the solution to avoiding diesel trains on railways has been to fully electrify them, which brings a huge raft of advantages. Electric trains are significantly more reliable than diesel trains. They are lighter, and therefore easier on the track. They have an impressive power-to-weight ratio, which is of particular benefit to freight trains; the acceleration of electrically hauled freight trains is incomparable with diesel.”
“The review would explain spending decisions on the programme under the previous Government and set out recommendations for future spending. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“(4) The review must identify all stations with fewer than 1,000,000 entries and exits a year, as recorded by the estimates of station usage published by the Office for Rail and Road, that do not have step-free access as set out in subsection (3). (5) The review must set out an explanation for spending decisions on the Access for All programme between the period 25 October 2022 and 24 May 2024. (6) The review must set out recommendations with the objective of facilitating the level of investment required to support accessibility improvements.”— (Olly Glover.) This new clause would mandate a review of the Access for All programme. The review would seek to ensure that step-free access at railway stations is provided under the programme.”
“I am content to not to press new clause 14—we will save that battle for another day—but I will move new clause 19 formally when the time comes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 16 Access for All programme: review “(1) Within a year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the Access for All programme. (2) The review as set out in subsection (1) must identify the level of investment required to support accessibility improvements. (3) Accessibility improvements as set out in subsection (2) include ensuring step-free access to all— (a) platforms; (b) entrances to stations; (c) exits from stations.”
“A study assessing the viability of replacing the level crossing with a new road bridge over the railway and canal estimated the cost to be in the region of £16.5 million, with that proposal ultimately declared not financially viable as a stand-alone public project. We do not intend to divide the Committee on the new clause, but we will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on the issue that it highlights.”
“The line speed is high, at 100 mph—it is definitely an example of a railway that has benefited from full electrification—which requires the barriers to be lowered earlier than on slower lines, to allow sufficient warning time and ensure safe signal clearance. Thatcham town council and West Berkshire council have formally acknowledged the serious traffic delays at the crossing. These delays have been specifically noted in the development of the local transport plan and the local plan review—the issue of the level crossing delays is identified as a critical factor that must be addressed and mitigated before any major new developments can proceed.”
“That therefore stifles economic and housing growth. The Government have been very clear about their commitment to economic growth and highly ambitious housing targets that some consider to be undeliverable, so I hope that argument holds some weight with the Minister if none of the others do. Let me say a bit more about Thatcham as a case study. Local reports and studies frequently say that the Thatcham level crossing is typically lowered for more than 30 minutes every hour at peak times, leading to significant congestion. The crossing is known as an MCB-CCTV. I have an ongoing commitment to waging war against acronyms, so let me say that that means a manually controlled barrier with CCTV monitoring. It is located on the busy Berks and Hants line, with approximately 133 trains per day passing over it.”
“Road congestion across the UK is estimated to cost the economy tens of billions of pounds a year—some estimates exceed £30 billion—and high-impact level crossings are major contributors to local congestion hotspots, which can result in increased operating costs, particularly for commercial vehicles, such as delivery vans and lorries, and tradespeople. That, in turn, can reduce business productivity, leading to supply chain disruption, and can undermine labour productivity. Of course, there can also be a significant impact on emergency and public services. The presence of a highly congested level crossing can act as a physical constraint on local planning. Local authorities are often unable to approve major housing or commercial developments that would increase local road traffic, as that would exacerbate the existing gridlock.”
“There may be opportunities to improve that, although ultimately to alleviate the local impact of the railway going through those communities, the high-delay level crossings would need to be replaced with an alternative means of crossing. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and other signatories to the new clause are concerned about the wasted time and fuel resulting from long periods of idling traffic while the barriers are down, which can also lead to lost time for commuters, shoppers and business travellers.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 21, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), would require a review of public road level crossings. It addresses similar themes to those raised by the new clauses in the name of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that we have previously discussed. We are seeking an annual review of high-delay level crossings, such as the one at Thatcham on what is known as the Berks and Hants line between Reading and Westbury and beyond. That is because we need to undertake proper analysis of the local economic cost and social impact caused by congestion, which admittedly is often necessary to facilitate railway services. It is sometimes perceived—whether the perception is accurate is another matter—that level crossing down times can be excessive.”
“(7) Where the Board has not approved a decision taken by, or direction given by, the Secretary of State to Great British Railways— (a) the Board must notify the Secretary of State that it has not approved the decision or direction, and its reasons for not doing so; (b) the Secretary of State may proceed to make any such direction or decision provided that, in their opinion, it is necessary to do so. (8) Where subsection (7)(b) applies, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out reasons for proceeding with the direction or decision.”— (Olly Glover.) This new clause would require the creation of a GBR Board, constituted of relevant internal and external stakeholders and regulatory bodies, which the Secretary of State would have to consult on major decisions and changes. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“(5) Any— (a) decision by the Secretary of State concerning, or (b) direction given by the Secretary of State to, Great British Railways must be notified to the Board prior to the making of the decision or issuing of the direction, and such decision or direction may only be made if a majority of the Board approves of it being made. (6) The Board must publish any decision or direction it considers, and whether it has approved any such decision or direction.”
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 24 Great British Railways Board “(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a Board to review decisions taken in respect of Great British Railways (“the Board”). (2) The Secretary of State must appoint to the Board persons who are employees of, or otherwise represent— (a) Great British Railways, (b) open access passenger operators, (c) freight operators, (d) The Office for Rail and Road, (e) The Passengers’ Council, and (f) an organisation or campaign group representing passengers with accessibility requirements. (3) The Board must comprise at least six members and no more than half of its membership may be employed by, or otherwise represent, Great British Railways. (4) Great British Railways must determine the frequency of board meetings in any year.”
“It would require GBR to examine the benefits of mutual and co-operative structures and what they might be able to achieve. It is true that industrial relations in the rail industry are often fraught and subject to frayed tempers. As well as continuing constructive dialogue with the unions, are there other ways of looking at things? Perhaps we could draw on experiences both here and abroad, particularly in Germany, where mutual and co-operative structures, making sure that the worker has a voice on boards, and so on, can create a stronger footing for positive dialogue and secure employee buy-in to the wider objectives of the organisation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.”
“Let me say a couple of words on the shadow Minister’s new clauses. I entirely understand what he is trying to achieve and he asks some valid questions about the nature of industrial relations in the rail industry and how they are managed. I gently suggest, though, that the complexity of those things is perhaps greater than it might appear. This is not the place for me to share my extensive war stories of negotiating on a whole range of things with ASLEF, RMT and TSSA—the three main railway trade unions—but on that basis, my view is that these are exactly the sorts of things that are best left to GBR, with appropriate support and leadership from the Secretary of State. Our new clause 55 is a different way of tackling a similar problem.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, during the final hour of this Bill Committee. May I briefly associate myself with the remarks of the shadow Minister? I thank everybody for their courteous and warm-spirited approach to proceedings, and I thank all the Chairs and the Public Bill Office for all their assistance.”
“After years of enduring domestic abuse, a constituent of mine came forward to Thames Valley police. She was badly let down by process and communication failures, resulting in the perpetrator avoiding prosecution despite a positive charging decision. She is now worried for her personal safety and has a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis. I appreciate what the Minister says she is doing to help victims of domestic violence, but what more can she do to make sure they are taken seriously so that other victims do not have the same experience as my constituent?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again on the Committee, Mr Western. I will no doubt be told off for getting her title wrong, but I agree with the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for—”
“I appreciate that the Government would probably say that Avanti West Coast is terrible and when it becomes GBR everything will be a land of milk, sweetness and honey; however, the real structural problem is that at the moment there is no realistic competition between London and Manchester. That is why—certainly from the figures that I have seen most recently—passenger numbers have recovered far less than they have on the east coast main line, where there is competition and a real spirit of customer choice. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.”
“The new clause does not require GBR to adopt the idea of auctioning train paths, but it does require it to examine the potential of the idea, which is used to good effect on the Italian and Spanish high-speed rail networks. This idea, basically, retains the guiding mind approach to timetable development and construction but would recognise that for routes with a high-revenue yield and limited competition, such as London to Manchester, it may well be best, in the interests of both revenue and getting more people on to trains, to auction off one of the paths—London to Manchester has three an hour—to another operator. That would help GBR to provide some competitive tension to improve its own delivery.”
“I knew the hon. Lady’s seat; it is just that I got told off the other day by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, for calling him the spokesperson instead. Carrying on, I agree with the hon. Lady’s comments on the Opposition’s amendments. I think most of them are sound and reflect the intention to strike a better balance in the Bill between GBR wanting to protect its interests and objectives, and recognising that there are valid and competing objectives elsewhere in the industry, particularly on the freight side, as well as on the open access passenger side. Let me speak briefly to our new clause 56. The hon. Lady accurately summarised our intention.”
“Apologies, Mr Western; the confusion has arisen because the selection and grouping paper lists it as an Opposition amendment. I do not wish to move it.”
“(6) The ORR may direct Great British Railways to reconsider its assessment if it considers that the exclusion of other operators is not necessary for Great British Railways to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure.”— ( Olly Glover .) This amendment requires Great British Railways to publish a statement explaining any decision not to grant access to a specific part of the network on the basis of network capacity. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“Yes, Mr Western. Thank you. Amendment proposed : 211, in clause 63, page 35, line 39, at end insert— “(3) Where Great British Railways decides not to grant access to persons to a specific part of the network to reserve capacity, Great British Railways must— (a) publish a statement (a ‘capacity reservation statement’) setting out the evidence relating to the decision; (b) consult— (i) the Office for Rail and Road, and (ii) any other persons who have sought access to that part of the network. (4) A capacity reservation statement must explain how the decision taken by Great British Railways under subsection (3) reflects the best use of GBR infrastructure for the operation of trains as set out in the infrastructure capacity plan. (5) The ORR must review a capacity reservation statement.”
“The amendments that we tabled earlier allude to that. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend for GBR to make that process transparent, particularly given the high judicial review bar for challenging some of those decisions. That way, hopefully, a new system can be created in which everyone might have faith.”
“It will be interesting to hear from both the Minister and, perhaps, the Conservative spokesperson as to how they feel that those phantom paths can be dealt with, absent an ability by GBR to apply access charges to trains that do not run. Conservative amendment 83 attempts to remove GBR’s ability to charge higher than the normal rate, the likely revenue to be obtained by running train services does not vary significantly based on the type of railway and the type of service concerned. The most extreme example of that is that the typical fare yield for Manchester to Blackburn will obviously be a lot less than for London to Manchester. The concept of GBR applying differential access charges is not necessarily one that I would be inclined to oppose, but the criteria that it uses in doing so needs to be transparent.”
“I have a few brief thoughts on what the Conservative spokesperson has said about this clause. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we feel that a lot of the amendments ask good questions about transparency and about accountability for how the access charging regime will work. We are definitely interested to hear the Minister’s response. A couple of the Opposition amendments perhaps go a little too far, or at least questions could be asked about them. Amendment 242, on what I am calling phantom paths, addresses an interesting phenomenon in the railway at the moment. Many freight paths are in the timetable, but seldom used; they are reserved by freight operators for a variety of reasons in case they might be used. People in the industry say that they sometimes present problems for optimum timetable development or use of capacity.”
“Perhaps this is an extreme thought experiment, but what would happen if GBR said, “Thank you very much, ORR, for your legally binding improvement notice, but we’re not interested—we’re not doing it.”? Is the Minister saying that the ORR could then sue GBR? What would happen next? If he covers that in his summing up, I might not move my amendment—I am sure he feels very threatened given how many Divisions we have won so far.”