Olly Glover
MP for Didcot and Wantage · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“Q Could you say a little more about what you think can be learned from the M6 toll in terms of how we might look to improve or amend the Bill? That is perhaps the largest geographical manifestation of tolling at the moment, and the most similar to the presumed application of this Bill to the lower Thames crossing.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q It is a pleasure to serve on another Bill Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. One of my key concerns about the Bill is that a lot of it is about stuff being decided by regulations and secondary procedures, and by the ORR.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q Over the decades, we have often heard the wisdom that private finance is better than the Treasury, because it helps to keep things off the Treasury books and avoids constraints from public sector financing.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One thing that was really impressive under the last Government was the road investment strategy approach, which essentially said “We will set out a strategic case for all the big roads we want to build, we will give a pot of money and then we will give a delivery body the freedom to execute that.” The freedom to execute was slightly const…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q A witness said that one of my questions was best aimed at Government, so it would be churlish of me not to avail myself of the opportunity to ask it to you, Minister.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is perhaps relevant here that it is important to take account of the risk-adjusted cost of financing. You have already made the point about whether things are on the balance sheet or not. Another point to bring in is the certainty around the funding and delivery arrangements.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,137 held · 729 searchable for Olly Glover. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.””
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The inquiry would of course take account of police and criminal investigations, disclosure and the publication of relevant documents, but we must go further.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons23 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons12 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons12 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons11 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗