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 9 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.
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons9 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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—”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(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.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mrs Hobhouse. Our amendment 212 relates to what the Minister said: it would remove the restriction on the ORR’s ability to impose fines on GBR for licence breaches. I am hoping that we can find some agreement or that the Minister can improve my understanding of the Bill. I entirely agree with him that we do not want wooden dollars—are we still allowed to say that?—sloshing around the system. We do not want fake money, fake economics or fake regulation. That has not been a strength of the rail industry under the current structure. The Minister said that the ORR would have the powers to tell GBR to do better and to put a legally binding notice on it.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We must, however, look to ourselves as well as to others. Pedestrians should think carefully before crossing the road at an inappropriate place, and we all need to get out of our phones and look around us. Cyclists need to be consistent in obeying rules and signals and respecting pedestrians, and drivers need to have good vehicle maintenance and be mindful of the power of their vehicle. Nobody should want to be the cause of the human harm we have heard about today, and we should all think about that the next time we attempt to behave badly on the roads.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Potholes and poor road surfaces are the bane of all road users’ lives, and there is a link there to wider policy, given that upper-tier council authorities are seeing more than half their budgets consumed by statutory requirements such as adult social care. Road safety links to a lot of other policy areas. We need to think hard about enforcement, whether that is cameras or the human interface. We need to continue to expand cycle training, particularly the Bikeability programme for young people, and we need better training and support for new drivers, particularly young ones. The recent Government announcement on pavement parking is welcome, but I hope the Minister will say something about how she intends to implement that. I note that Lord Blunkett in the other place tabled an amendment on that subject.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the meantime, we need to tackle a whole range of factors, as well as the fatal five factors that the hon. Member for Shipley outlined in her introduction. We need to address culture and attitudes to speeding and drinking. A number of hon. Members referred to a particular problem with how young people, in particular young males, can drive. We need to think about the design of our roads and the lack of safe walking and cycling infrastructure. In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, the A417 and A338 are very busy A-roads. They have no viable alternative for people cycling and lack cycle paths, as would be common in Germany, the Netherlands and many other places.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate? I congratulate the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), who secured it, on her powerful speech. She, like many other Members, rightly focused on the appalling human cost when road safety goes wrong. So many Members spoke powerfully with stories from their own lives or from their constituents of people who have lost their lives or been injured and the impact that has on families—that has to be where we start from—and the emergency services. On road safety, we must start with our own human shortcomings. Few of us are, generally speaking, the skilled and wise drivers and road users that we often tend to think we are. It remains to be seen whether driverless cars will save us from ourselves.”
House of Commons5 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course we should all continue to advocate for what we believe, but it seems unlikely that—in the near future at least—there will be a change in approach to the core train operating companies’ being franchised out. Perhaps, rather than relitigating that, we need to focus on other aspects of the Bill, as indeed he has done, and on how we can make the new world better—particularly by removing the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere too much. I wonder what the shadow Minister and Government Minister have to say about that.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Apologies. One recognises one’s status. We agree with the shadow Minister on the principle that it should not be about ideology between the public and private sectors. We have argued that consistently in the past. If it was so simple that nationalising train operators would lead to transformative performance improvements, Northern would be a globally inspiring example. I realised this morning that this month it reaches its half-decade anniversary of being in the public sector and, certainly for friends of mine in the north, it remains some way from being a globally leading example. That highlights the fact that public and private sector ideology is but one factor needed to give excellent rail services. I wonder whether some of the shadow Minister’s amendments are perhaps fighting yesterday’s war.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand what the Minister is saying, but if he means that the ability to give these directions would exist only in very extreme, exceptional cases, such as pandemics or large-scale wars, would he not be open to specifying that in the Bill?”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The cost implications are limited and predictable, as the travel demand is concentrated around a single annual event and largely happens on that day. The new clause recognises the importance of remembrance for bereaved families and sends a clear message of respect and recognition for service and sacrifice. On our new clause 59, I understand the shadow Minister’s points, but the intention is simply to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. This is about officers needing to use the train in the course of their duties. It is important that many of them do so, particularly those engaged in highly visible community policing. The new clause would simply reduce the red tape and bureaucracy of them needing to buy tickets, procure travel warrants and so on.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The context is that there is currently an agreement in place for that travel fee exemption, which is agreed by the Secretary of State and the train operating companies. The new clause would simply formalise something that already happens, but would do so in the framework of GBR and ensure long-term certainty and consistency, national coverage across the GBR network and the inclusion of a representative of a deceased service member. At present, deceased personnel are often not represented at Remembrance events if a family member cannot afford the cost of travel. The new clause addresses that inequity. The new clause places an existing informal arrangement on a statutory footing and ensures consistency and fairness.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We understand and support the intent of the Conservative amendments on veterans, but I suppose the debate will get into what should be legislated for in discount schemes, as opposed to specified in other forms. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister why the Government have opted to put certain discount schemes in the Bill and not others. Hopefully, there is some clear logic, but we shall see. Our new clause 51 would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all GBR passenger services.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our idea is based on the ubiquity of air miles as a highly valued consumer product. So many people talk about air miles in conversation, and the popularity of certain credit cards—I can probably name them, as I do not have an interest, but I will not—is explained by the accumulation of air miles. Why not rail miles? It would promote our network, reward loyal customers and be a brilliant way of promoting domestic tourism, were people able to accumulate rail miles as they currently can air miles. It would also be a good way to promote lower-carbon transport. Our new clause would simply require the examination of the idea of a rail miles programme, and the production of a report on its potential merits that the Secretary of State would lay before Parliament within 12 months of the passage of the Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak briefly about the Conservative amendments. I agree with some of the shortcomings identified by the shadow Minister, but there would be a risk in setting in stone some of the current discount and fares arrangements, as amendment 61 seeks to do. On amendment 62, apart from the good points made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the existing differential discount rates, I am not sure of a particularly compelling reason for why the main discount rate of one third should be preserved in aspic—I said that I would not say “aspic” any more, but I have anyway. There may be times in the future when a higher discount, or maybe even a lower one, could make sense. I assure the shadow Minister that our new clause 13 would require the examination of the idea, rather than a commitment to do it.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The air miles concept has been highly successful for Eurostar, and it is now time to apply the idea to the domestic market.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although perhaps she is advocating another concept called gin miles, which would definitely be beyond the scope of our new clause. She makes the strong point that there have been examples along the lines of this idea in pockets of the network. The new clause would put the idea on a national footing, boost good practice and give GBR positive things to offer its customers from day one. Perhaps it would even compensate for the ghastly livery that GBR is telling us all is so wonderful.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 142, in clause 39, page 21, line 19, at end insert— “(1A) The Passengers’ Council must not investigate a matter unless the matter has been considered first by Great British Railways and is subject to an appeal for further consideration.” This amendment makes Great British Railways the first stage of a complaint submitted, with the Passenger Standards Council the appellant body should the complainant not be satisfied by the response from Great British Railways.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope that the amendment is uncontentious, but if the Minister does not agree I am sure he will give a typically eloquent explanation.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I can be very concise, Mrs Hobhouse. We consider the provisions on the passengers’ council to be among the stronger components of the Bill. Some sound thinking is involved. Amendment 142 is a very basic amendment that aims simply to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. All it would do is ensure that when a complaint is submitted, the first stage is for GBR to look at it. It will be a GBR issue, because GBR is going to run everything. If the appellant body is not satisfied with the response from GBR, the complaint can by all means go to the passengers’ council for investigation. If the complaint goes first to the passengers’ council, what will happen in pretty much every case is that the council will have to go to GBR to find out the facts. How else will it know them?”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hear what the Minister says. I still think that the logical wording of the clause could be ameliorated, but I shall leave that to the Government and spare the Committee a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 40 Power to obtain information”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The shadow Minister is right to say that our amendments have similar intentions to his; we may have taken slightly different avenues but we are heading in the same direction. Amendments 141 and 144 are intended to reduce the Secretary of State’s role in the passengers’ council’s abilities to set standards and go about its work. The shadow Minister is quite right to point out that there is a typo in amendment 144, which I had not spotted—the intention is to delete subsection (5) and not subsection (6). I thank him for drawing our attention to that.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend makes a good point about salaries and how income levels are not necessarily a good predictor of usefulness to society and economic contribution. We have heard that point made clearly about social workers, but does he agree that in high-tech sectors such as space, biotech and robotics, we need global talent and that only by pooling that talent will we succeed, which is why we should not be putting in place these barriers to indefinite leave to remain?”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate that that is a debate for another time, but perhaps I can tempt the Secretary of State to reveal when the Government intend to bring forward proposals for Birmingham to Manchester improvements. I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and thank him for his work. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has a concern that the Bill advocates a similar legislative approach as the rest of HS2 to consent, planning the route, mitigations and so on. I wonder what lessons have been or will be learnt to ensure that the existential despair that is HS2 will not be repeated when attempting to use this procedure to advance Northern Powerhouse Rail.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for clarity on what the this is and what it is not. It is welcome that it is about Northern Powerhouse Rail and its Manchester to Liverpool core—a scheme that the Liberal Democrats continue to support. We hope this time that the dreams for Northern Powerhouse Rail will become a reality, given the very slow journey they have been on since 2014, when first proposed. I understand what the Secretary of State said about this not being about Birmingham to Manchester, but I hope she agrees that we will eventually need to find an effective solution for transport between the west midlands and the north-west, given the very congested rail network and the M6 being something covered by Chris Rea in one of his songs.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is quite right to rebuke me, albeit very politely and gently. I should have worded the amendment in a non-exclusive manner, to make sure that I did not forget any other form of transport. He is right to highlight, as I know he is about to, the critical importance of the integrated transport terminal in Portsmouth harbour for access to and from his wonderful island. There are many other examples of such terminals, including the one in Ardrossan harbour for getting to and from the Isle of Arran in Scotland. I am sure that, if I had had the Government’s resources at my fingertips rather than having bashed away at this over Christmas, I would not have made that error.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We seem to be losing track of the words that have been tabled. Either that or, like a group of management consultants, we are in danger of getting plans confused with strategies and tedious things such as that. Amendment 207 is neither intended nor drafted to encourage or enable the micromanagement of timetables. It is about the development of and the longer-term vision for what those timetables are supposed to achieve, and that is very much in line with what should be a 30-year strategy. I just want to assure the Minister on that point.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗