Olly Glover

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 454

1. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Olly Glover

   Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd—I hope you are not too distraught about not having been in the Chair for some of the other very exciting transport Bill Committees that we have had this year. I want to start by addressing amendment 82, tabled by the shadow Minister. We understand where he is coming from, because the Committee heard evidence from Steve Gooding of the RAC Foundation about the danger of clause 3 being used as a Trojan horse for widespread road pricing, which is something that the Minister has assured us will not happen. Our amendment 44 takes a different approach to the problem of excluding non-new roads altogether. As I said on Second Reading, we feel that the idea of tolls <span id="82" class="column-number" data-column-number="82"></span>and fees is reasonable in principle, and it is used quite widely in Europe, but the safeguards must be clear. That is why our amendment 44 would require a strict threshold for applying tolls to existing roads, which we are defining as a continuous extra lane, to show a genuine improvement in the road’s capacity and to justify any introduction. I agree with the shadow Minister on clause 3, in that so much of the Bill relies on us to take it on trust that the Government will do the right thing with the extensive powers that it creates. There was a good article in <em>The Economist</em> a few years ago about the problem with the good chaps theory of government, which has been an historic feature of the British so-called constitution. The problem is that it is difficult to take things on trust and rely on the current generation to do the right thing and interpret a Bill as it was intended, because a Bill cannot force the hand of a future Government, but future Governments do need to work to the legislation that has been passed. We therefore have some concerns about that and would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments. We support the shadow Minister’s amendment 81. It is sensible to require consultation with the relevant local and mayoral authorities and important to involve them in any major changes to their areas that could increase local traffic flow and the burden on the local community, so we would support the amendment if it were pressed to a Division. Subject to what the Minister says, at this point we would be keen, with your permission, Mr Dowd, to press amendment 44 to Division.

   Hansard source
2. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Olly Glover

   Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert— “(c) publish an independent assessment evaluating whether alternative transport investments, including rail and bus connectivity, could fulfil the transport requirements of the proposed licence.” <em>This amendment would require the Secretary of State and the ORR to evaluate whether alternative transport investment, including rail and bus, is needed and suitable before granting a license to upgrade or build new highways infrastructure.</em>

   Hansard source
3. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Olly Glover

   Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)

   I want to be clear at the beginning that we are keen to press amendment 87 to a vote. Amendment 45 would mandate an independent modal shift and alternative transport assessment before any new highway tolling licence could be granted. It would prevent multibillion-pound road schemes from proceeding in isolation without evaluating whether rail passenger, rail freight or bus upgrades could deliver better value and lower carbon emissions. There is a clear need to reduce pressure on the Dartford crossing and improve connectivity in the south-east of England via the lower Thames crossing. But so far, the Labour Government appear to be looking only at roads-based means to do so. I grew up in Staines, which is very close to junction 13 of the M25 and which road nerds will know is the busiest segment of motorway in Europe. When I was growing up and the M25 was new, it had three lanes, which then increased to four and eventually to five. Seeing the M25 permanently under upgrade was the accompaniment to my youth and adolescence. Do people who use that section of the M25 now find it a joyous driving experience, one that is entirely bereft of stress and complaint, or do they still consider it to be what Chris Rea once called a “road to hell”? They still <span id="90" class="column-number" data-column-number="90"></span>consider it a road to hell, because while the M25 is of course a useful asset, one of the challenges of increased road investment is that very often that capacity gets absorbed and it does not address some of the wider transport challenges. There is a clear need to improve rail connectivity in the region alongside the lower Thames crossing project. There is currently no Kent to Essex rail connection and very limited provision for channel port freight to move by rail—only by road. There are developed proposals on the table to upgrade the Kent railway network and the Barking freight terminal via High Speed 1 as part of the plan to significantly increase rail freight through the channel tunnel. As Ralph Smyth from the Transport Action Network argued in front of the Committee last week, granting certainty to a major private road scheme can make it significantly harder for regional mayors or local authorities to promote sustainable alternatives like rail, tram or bus upgrades. Ben Garratt of Logistics UK noted that while road capacity is needed at Dartford, rail freight connectivity to ports plays a vital role in national supply chain resilience and must be integrated into transport planning. Why should Ministers grant a potentially century-long highway licence without first publishing an independent evaluation of whether rail or public transport investment could solve the bottleneck? If we are to move towards achieving our environmental goals and providing good transport for those who cannot, will not or cannot afford to drive, serious investment in other infrastructure and public transport is needed alongside improving the road network. Amendment 87 would make it mandatory to publish a local road impact and mitigation report. Toll-avoiding traffic that diverts into surrounding residential streets and local A roads could cause severe congestion, noise, air pollution and safety hazards for nearby communities. The amendment would force the licensing authority to assess the exact financial cost of extraordinary road wear imposed on “adjacent local highway authorities” such as Kent, Essex or Surrey—or whatever they are called now as part of local government reorganisation. As Declan Pang, the director of policy at the Road Haulage Association, warned us last week, traffic displacement and unmitigated local congestion can drive significant indirect costs across local economies and businesses. I will turn briefly to Opposition amendment 78, which we support. It would require licensing authorities to send a copy of the notice to mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities or local highway authorities. That would go some way towards addressing some of the deficiencies of clause 4, which leaves it quite open as to which organisations need to be consulted. Clause 4 does not explicitly list local highway authorities, local planning authorities or emergency services—among others—as mandatory statutory consultees. In his comments, I hope the Minister will address why clause 4 is so open and why it does not explicitly name local highway authorities and emergency services as mandatory statutory consultees.

   Hansard source
4. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Olly Glover

   Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)

   I did not seek to say that we should not have more cars or support private road users, merely that the reason a lot of people choose to drive is that it has been the relentless direction of policy going back decades. The rail network has significantly contracted, and a lot of investment has gone into motorways. Does the hon. Member accept the clear statistics showing that far fewer young people are learning to drive and they need alternatives? We cannot rely on continuing to promote the private motorcar over everything else.

   Hansard source
5. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Olly Glover

   Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)

   Given that the Minister was putting words in my mouth, let me clarify my view. We do support the lower Thames crossing, because the Dartford crossing is under pressure and there is no resilience when it closes, but that does not mean that we support only the lower Thames crossing. The problem with policy over decades—I disagree with the shadow Minister on this—is that it has been roads, roads, roads, and motorways, motorways, motorways. It should be not either/or, but both.

   Hansard source
6. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Olly Glover

   Budget Resolutions

   For all the positives in this Budget, the real disappointment is that it does not match the radicalism and the claims of the now endless Government social media and TikTok barrage. It is extraordinary, given everything that he said when he was Secretary of State for Defence, that the Chancellor has kicked the big defence spending decisions down the road. There are warm words, but there is no plan for helping people back into work—and, of course, nothing concrete on Europe, something that even the previous Chancellor acknowledged over the weekend needs to be addressed. A big theme for my constituents is the need for infrastructure to support housing. I believe that there would be less despair and opposition to new houses if central Government listened to calls for transparency and ambition when it comes to infrastructure and public services to support housing growth. Setting and publishing targets for the amount of primary healthcare, transport, large-scale leisure or policing per head of population, based on an analysis of local demographic needs, and showing progress or otherwise against those metrics, would help to restore trust and would highlight where investment is needed. That is all the more important as local councils do not have direct control of most of these areas. The lack of acknowledgment of such challenges, let alone action on them, in the Budget is disappointing. It is also regrettable that there are no rolling funds or investment programmes for major transport improvements. Without them, no hope has been created for a new railway station serving Grove and Wantage, accessibility improvements to Cholsey station, or electrification from <span id="655" class="column-number" data-column-number="655"></span>Didcot to Oxford. We have to hope that the Government’s slow embrace of devolution, amid the utter shambles of local government reorganisation, will fill this void, but that very much remains to be seen given the number of unanswered questions. There are some welcome measures to support hospitality, but small producer relief for small-scale producers of alcohol still excludes vineyards such as Hendred vineyard, which produces a few thousand bottles a year. That makes little sense: the alcohol intensity of a drink does not inherently correlate with how much it is abused, and English wine has a promising future. Let me end by referring to what the Budget says about science and high tech. Despite some positive measures on AI safety and capital gains tax founders’ relief, the Government’s previous decisions on science mean that this is the biggest area of disappointment. My constituency contains a wide range of science and technology organisations, and the Government’s decision to cut Science and Technology Facilities Council funding significantly is incomprehensible and unforgivable. No wonder that after three months the Government have still not had the basis courtesy to reply to my letters about that. The 15% funding cuts in Harwell’s three national and globally significant research facilities—Diamond Light Source, the ISIS Neutron and Muon Source and the Central Laser Facility—will lead to significant decreases in operating time, of up to 25%. I am used to the Government ignoring me, but perhaps they will listen to the deputy general secretary of Prospect, Sue Ferns, the Liverpool city region mayor, Steve Rotherham, and the physicist Brian Cox, all of whom have warned that the cuts would “cause lasting and possibly irreparable damage to the UK’s scientific capabilities”.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Olly Glover

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{49E50FF0-B1A3-4404-ADA7-9B00E8E2D1D8}"> </QNum></strong> 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. There is a real concern about making sure that rights of consumers—the people who are going to be charged to use these roads—are protected. Do you have any suggestions, in addition to what you have already said, about better safeguards that the Bill could have to make sure that tolls are set and continue to be maintained at an affordable level for the people who will use these roads? <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> Our starting point would be that the right sort of duties are applied to the ORR in the Bill, in terms of having regard to the interests of road users and customers of this service. Of course, there are certain things that the Bill provides for that we have not seen yet: we do not know what the terms of the licence will be, we do not know what the terms of the Secretary of State’s guidance to the ORR will be, and we do not know exactly the ORR’s template will be. I am well aware that there is always a balance to be struck between what goes into those documents and what could actually be in the Bill. In principle, I think that the protection is there, but in practice, it might be sensible to have a bit more in the Bill and a bit less reliance on the other documents—but until you see the drafts of the other documents, it is quite hard to tell. <em><strong>Edmund King:</strong></em> Clause 26 talks about tolls being “fair and transparent”. I think that we would like to have seen something built in there about affordability, because they can be fair and transparent, but can people afford them? In effect, the lower Thames crossing and Dartford will have a monopoly position. If you want to cross the Thames to the east of London, they are your choices.<span id="8" class="column-number" data-column-number="8"></span> When the M6 toll first opened, it was rumoured that the tolls for HGVs were initially artificially high and that the operators did not particularly want HGVs to cause wear and tear on the toll. I think that question of affordability is important, and it goes beyond cost: if people cannot afford the toll, they will use other, inadequate roads or go the long way around the M25, which is already vastly congested near Heathrow. I think something about affordability should be built in—perhaps linked to inflation; something more—so that the monopoly position cannot be exploited.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Olly Glover

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   Let me make a brief comment. On your point about some of the things that are dependent on the Bill, such as the licence, not yet being specified, we had a similar debate during the passage of the Railways Bill through the Commons. I think the Government ultimately decided to at least start publishing some of those things alongside it, so I hope the Minister might give some thought to that.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Olly Glover

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{02333174-10F5-4246-B14A-2806E86123D8}"> </QNum></strong> 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. <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> There are features of the Bill about which we are not seeking amendment but seeking reassurances. For example, it must be ensured that there is a strong regulator for establishing the scheme and monitoring it going forward. That relates to the licensing conditions too. Therefore, we see value in there being a Bill setting a broad framework and including the regulator in that, rather than potentially doing things how they have been done in the past in the sense of having individual schemes. We would seek reassurances about <span id="17" class="column-number" data-column-number="17"></span>the strength of the regulator in that space, and that it will think about freight and logistics when it thinks about economy. We have heard from Michael about how the sector is voting with its feet—

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Olly Glover

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{DEA7675F-0C12-457E-8859-99720A87D410}"> </QNum></strong> On that theme, do you have any concerns that the financing arrangements proposed in the Bill and its general intentions could affect the balance of investment between strategic roads and local transport networks?<span id="23" class="column-number" data-column-number="23"></span> <em><strong>Ralph Smyth:</strong></em> Very much so. There is the issue of crowding out. If there is certainty that there is going to be a road scheme, that makes it harder for a mayor or someone else to promote an alternative, such as a tram or a rail or bus upgrade. After this meeting, I am taking part in the mass transit taskforce, where perhaps those issues will come up.

    Hansard source