Calum Miller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2025 · Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the opportunity to contribute on the important matter of how we spend money on local government, given the huge range of services it provides to each of our constituencies. The residents of Bicester and Woodstock share the pressures that many areas face when it comes to housing and homelessness. Like so many Members of this House, my surgeries are dominated by those who are unable to access the social housing that they wish—those who are living in inappropriate accommodation, often trying to look after their children in environments in which no child can advance their education. As such, I very much welcome the Government’s words about their ambition in this area. However, I regret the fact that during the debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Government resisted the request from our party that they make a firm commitment to make 150,000 social homes available each year. I very much hope that the Minister will look for a way to implement that goal in practice, even though he resisted the legislative request. I also welcome the fact that the Government have committed to the abolition of the Vagrancy Act 1824. That campaign, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) has run for many years, is coming to fruition. It is so important that we do not criminalise those who are unable to access housing. I will now turn to the broader issue of financial predictability that our local authorities face. The Minister will know the importance of financial management—indeed, I am sure he is caught up in it almost every day of his working life—but for local authorities to plan, the Government must give them time. As such, could the Minister give us two undertakings: first, that the local government finance settlement will be multi-year, in line with the spending review, and will be set for three years; and secondly, that the draft local government financial settlement on which councils start to plan will be announced much earlier than 18 December as it was last year? That announcement was one of the latest in any year. In common with many Members, the other theme of my surgeries is the plight of many families who are coping with a child with special educational needs and disabilities who cannot access the services they need. Whether it is a lack of places in special schools or an inability to get the assessments they need to estimate their educational potential, too many young people are being let down. As such, given the huge deficits that have been accumulated in high needs blocks—in Oxfordshire, for example, the figure is £137 million—does the Minister recognise that councils simply cannot wait for an education or schools White Paper in the autumn to begin to understand how they will manage those figures in the future? Can he give some guidance to councils about the Government’s intentions for the next financial year, so that they can start to plan for what could otherwise be deeply destabilising cuts? Finally, one highlight of local government is how it touches many aspects of our constituents’ lives and provides many diverse services. I call on the Minister to look at the public health grant and its role in providing for preventive healthcare, working closely with the other branches of the health system. We have figures out to 2026, I believe, but predictability about the future of that budget is a matter of huge importance.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats share in the condemnation of an Iranian regime that poses an existential threat to Israel and has terrorised its own people as surely as it has citizens from other countries around the world, including the UK. That is why we support the consensus in this House that Iran can never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Yet it is not clear that military action by Israel and the US can provide the necessary long-term lock on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Following this weekend’s strikes, it was reported that Iran will work at pace to develop weapons with what remains of its enriched uranium supplies. That should give pause to those on the Conservative and Reform Benches who have breathlessly echoed President Trump’s line that the strikes have been an unrivalled success. Instead of bringing security, Trump and Netanyahu’s unilateral actions have increased uncertainty and the risk of a full-scale regional war. Their belief that might is right both further erodes the rules-based international order and undermines the prospects of containing Iran and other rogue states in the long term. This is not the UK’s interest. That is why Liberal Democrats have called consistently for the application of robust diplomacy, supported by International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring and grounded in international law, as the only sustainable way permanently to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Our immediate priority must now be to ensure the safety and support of British nationals in the region, learning the lessons of unacceptable delays on previous occasions, so why has it taken over a week since the start of strikes to begin repatriating Britons from Israel? What more is being done to support those in the wider region who want to leave? The Government have also remained silent on the legality of this conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary now commit to publishing the Attorney General’s advice on whether any UK involvement in the conflict would constitute a breach of international law? Will he confirm that this House will be given a vote before any decision for the UK to enter this conflict?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Iran-Israel Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and to him, Ministers and officials from the Department for their efforts to support British citizens in the region. People across the UK have watched with horror as war has broken out between Israel and Iran. As we consider the UK’s response, let me begin with key principles on which I hope the House will agree. The state of Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself, in line with international law. We stand against Iran’s stated goal to wipe out the state of Israel, and its use of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to support global terrorism and foster regional instability. Will the Foreign Secretary go further to protect UK residents, including Iranian and Jewish communities, from IRGC-sponsored terrorist actions on our soil and finally proscribe the IRGC? Iran’s ambition to create a nuclear weapon is a grave risk to the UK’s interests and Israel’s survival. Successive Governments have been right to seek to contain that risk through diplomatic means. However, the Netanyahu Government’s unilateral military action, which they took against the advice of allies and without forewarning, has severely undermined those efforts. It was ill-judged, reckless and not the behaviour of a responsible ally. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister will press, at today’s G7 summit, for a return to negotiations, with the UK included alongside the US? Iran has now retaliated with its own strikes and may look to respond further, including by threatening the assets of other states in the region. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the sole purpose of UK military deployments will be to protect our assets, personnel and citizens, and that he will not allow us to be drawn into the conflict between Israel and Iran? What specific steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that while the focus is on this crisis, we do not lose sight of the need to secure the unconditional release of the hostages held by Hamas, and to maintain scrutiny of the extreme actions of the Netanyahu Government towards Palestinians in Gaza, east Jerusalem and the west bank? And, in order to protect the possibility of a two-state solution, will the UK Government heed the call of all 72 Liberal Democrat MPs for the immediate recognition of Palestine?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. On 21 May, the Government published their working paper on community benefits, but contributions are unlikely to be made mandatory before a decision is made about the huge Botley West plant in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that a responsible developer would offer my constituents a level of benefit in line with that proposed by the Government?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister and the members of the Bill Committee for their hard work on this legislation. I regret, however, that the Minister has been so resistant to amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and from others on the Liberal Democrat Benches, which I now rise to support. My constituents in Bicester and Woodstock want to see a planning system that delivers decent, affordable homes for those excluded from housing, that recognises that investment in infrastructure must come before housing development and that does not create a false distinction between development and protecting nature. Linda and Gary live in my constituency. Gary has complex needs and Linda is his carer. Their property is not suitable; Gary cannot shower or get to the garden by himself. Linda and Gary have been bidding to West Oxfordshire district council for a property suitable to meet Gary’s needs for more than a year, but they have been continually unsuccessful. As many hon. Members have stated, we have a crisis of social housing in this country. That is why Liberal Democrats want to see an additional 150,000 social homes built every year through amendment 15, and why new clause 112 is so important, preventing developers from ducking the delivery of social homes. We also need developers to develop the buildings that have been consented. In Cherwell district council in my constituency, more than 8,000 homes have been consented but not built. That has led to a crisis, with villages such as Ambrosden and Launton at the mercy of opportunist developers who have hoovered up sites not contained in the local plan. New clause 3 would put an end to the land banking of consented sites, forcing developers to use them or lose them.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Construction of an Underpass at the Bicester Level Crossing · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present this petition from the residents of Bicester who want a replacement for the level crossing at London road, which will close with the introduction of east-west rail services, cutting the town in two. I am grateful to the 4,526 residents who have individually signed this petition, and to those who worked so hard to gather the signatures, many of whom are sitting in the Gallery tonight. The petitioners therefore request “that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the construction of an underpass at the London Road level crossing in Bicester that could accommodate car users as well as cyclists and pedestrians.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Bicester, Declares that proposals to close the London Road Level Crossing as part of the East West Rail development have failed to reflect the strong local preference for an underpass that accommodates light vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians; and notes that widespread community support for such an underpass has been expressed through public meetings, correspondence and local engagement. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the construction of an underpass at the London Road level crossing in Bicester that could accommodate car users as well as cyclists and pedestrians. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003078]

• 2 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State mentioned that the Minister for Local Transport is taking responsibility for the net zero side, and I was delighted to welcome him to my constituency to see the work of Wrightbus, which is repurposing diesel buses with its new powertrains. Could she provide reassurance that buses repurposed as net zero buses will also be eligible for Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government funding for decarbonisation of the bus fleet in the future?

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister makes the point that this is secondary for primary care providers. However, he does not acknowledge that primary care providers still do not know how they will be compensated by the Government, as I hear from dentists, community pharmacies and social care providers in my constituency. We are very close to the start of the tax year and those small businesses are providing critical primary care services in our communities. How can they operate when the Minister obfuscates and says other people might talk to them at a later stage about the money that they might receive? Would it not be easier for the Minister to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment from the House of Lords and clear up this matter today?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Sudan and Eastern DRC · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and thank him for advance sight of it. He is right to say that the crisis in Sudan will go down in history as one of the biggest humanitarian catastrophes of our lifetimes. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visit to this region and his personal engagement with it, and for updating this House on conflicts in Africa. My party agrees with him that our level of concern for those affected by conflicts overseas should never be influenced by their location. The Foreign Secretary is also right to draw the House’s attention to the escalation of violence by M23 in Goma. M23’s pursuit of mineral resources reminds us of the DRC’s tragedy of having such riches that trigger such violence. The announcement of increased UK aid to Sudan in November was welcome, as is the further £20 million deployed at the weekend. The Foreign Secretary is right to say that the UK’s aid budget not only reduces suffering, but reduces the pressure on refugees to make hazardous journeys in search of sanctuary elsewhere. Yet the UK’s ability to respond to humanitarian and conflict situations is reduced by the Government’s failure to commit to the 0.7% target for official development assistance. Will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why it was reported yesterday that £117 million has been cut from the integrated security fund, which would likely mean less money for conflict reduction work? Can he say what assessment he has made of the impact of the Trump Administration’s instruction that all US aid programmes are suspended? I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s plans to convene Foreign Ministers to galvanise international efforts to seek a ceasefire, but can he say by when this meeting will take place and how he plans to leverage the UK’s position as the Security Council penholder on Sudan? Can he confirm that the Government will not prematurely recognise any alleged authority Government in Sudan when the country is so divided, and how does he propose to reduce the interference of external powers, including Russia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and now China, in the conflict?

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Residents in my constituency are aghast that a mega 840 MW solar farm is being proposed by the Blenheim estate, which, people believe, has not allowed solar panels to be placed on the houses it has developed in the area. Does the hon. Member agree that placing solar panels on the roofs of houses is a much better way to diversify solar panels and build the community consent for the renewable transition that is part of the Government’s mission?

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady speaks of the Government’s ambition, and there is one simple thing they could do. In December 2023, after lobbying from developers, the previous Conservative Government shamefully issued a written ministerial statement to prohibit a councillor in West Oxfordshire district council in my constituency from insisting on higher environmental standards for a net zero development. Does the hon. Lady agree that if the Government simply revoked that written ministerial statement, local councils across the country would have more freedom to set higher environmental standards? Will she encourage the Minister to respond to that point?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Sudan: US Determination of Genocide · Hansard source

  More

  In three months, we will reach the second anniversary of the terrible conflict in Sudan. Can the Minister update us on the Government’s work to deliver a political process to secure a ceasefire before then, so that a civilian Administration can begin the work of reconstruction? In the light of the judgment of the US Administration, can the Minister give the House a date by which the Government will have determined whether genocide is being committed? Last October, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) declared on behalf of the then Government that ethnic cleansing was taking place in Sudan. What have been the consequences of that designation, and what more can the UK do to gather evidence of those crimes? As the Minister mentioned, Russia’s veto of the Security Council resolution is yet one more example of its shameful role in world affairs, but the needs of children, women and ethnic groups for protection is greater, not less, as a result. Can she outline what actions the UK is taking to secure safe zones for schools and hospitals?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  The extraterritorial arrest warrants issued against Hong Kong pro-democracy activists are disgraceful. We must be clear: Hong Kong democracy campaigners such as Carmen Lau, a former district councillor in Hong Kong, are welcome and free to express their views here in the UK. This attempt by Beijing to interfere in our democracy is unacceptable. The previous Government did not do enough to counter this interference, and we urge this Government to go further than words with actions. Will the Minister meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and his constituent Carmen Lau to assure her of the Government’s support? Will the Government clarify that it is illegal to bounty hunt in the UK, and that anyone who does so can expect to be prosecuted? Will she use our Magnitsky sanctions regime against those in Hong Kong and Beijing responsible for the unacceptable targeting of Hong Kong pro-democracy activists? Finally, in the light of the continued detention of Jimmy Lai and these warrants, will the Government reconsider the Chancellor’s planned trip to Beijing?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a county councillor in Oxfordshire. In my constituency and in my surgeries and correspondence, the frustration, desperation and anger of parents and children with special educational needs is constant and shocking. Their needs are not being met, and as the Minister has acknowledged, the funding shortfall for the high needs block is significant and has led to a deficit, which the Local Government Association estimates will be £3.6 billion at the end of this financial year. I very much welcome the Minister’s focus on this issue, as well as that of his colleagues in the Department for Education. Can he assure parents and children in my constituency that, under the multi-year settlement to which he has referred, the future needs of these children will be adequately met, and the needs of the council addressed, as we face those huge deficits?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Local Road Networks · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am glad to have given him the opportunity to speak at the beginning of a debate, rather than at the end. His points about community involvement are very well made, and I will elaborate on them a bit in my own remarks. To turn back to Bicester, the East West Rail project to connect Oxford to Cambridge is an ambitious infrastructure project that will provide a connection between some of the UK’s most dynamic centres of innovation and research. It will pass through my constituency of Bicester and Woodstock, and many constituents have contacted me to highlight how the project will impact them. They include Carol, who lives in a care home south of the rail crossing and tells me that she moved there because it was a short mobility scooter ride from Market Square on a flat route—he would be cut off. They include a volunteer firefighter at Bicester fire station on the north side of the crossing, who lives on the south side and is worried that without access via London Road, he may be delayed when he is called to join an emergency crew—he would be cut off. They include Claire, who cycles with her two sons into town from her home on the south-east of the town. They cannot use the busy A road to get into town if London Road is closed—they would be cut off. Those constituents, and many like them, are worried about the delays that they will face to these regular journeys. All those journeys will be disrupted by this planned closure. To put this issue in some context, Oxfordshire county council maintains an automated traffic monitor on London Road by the level crossing. That traffic monitor shows that in 2017, there were 9,000 journeys per day on the road. That number fell during the pandemic, but has consistently risen since, with 7,700 journeys in 2023. The threat of closing London Road is imminent, but it should not come as any surprise to those in government or the rail industry. Importantly, there was a road there long before there was a railway; back in 1795, a coach service ran six days a week from Banbury to London through Bicester, making use of London Road. The railway came to Bicester in 1850, crossing London Road for the first time. Those horse-drawn coaches have been replaced by motor cars, as well as buses and lorries, and with that has come the growth of the town. Over the century to 1930, Bicester was a town of around 3,000 inhabitants. The war period was followed by expansion, and the town’s population nearly doubled by 1961, before growing rapidly to 20,000 by 1981 and 37,000 by 2021. It is forecast to grow to over 50,000 by 2031. Through all of this, there has remained just one road from the centre of Bicester out to the south: London Road, which is still crossed by the railway line. In 2008, Chiltern Railways announced a proposal to connect Oxford to London Marylebone by instating new track just east of London Road. This was linked to the proposal for the new East West Rail link that had been made in the early 2000s by a consortium of local authorities. Back in 2006, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister stated its support for the west part of the line, from Bletchley to Oxford. That support was finally backed with money in the 2011 autumn statement and a subsequent announcement made by the Transport Secretary in July 2012. The Chiltern Railways proposal went to planning inspection, with a hearing held in 2012. At that point, more than 12 years ago, various Bicester residents pointed out the implications of a new line and the disruption that frequent downtime of the level crossing would cause. Chiltern Railways argued, however, that there was uncertainty about East West Rail going ahead, and therefore it would be premature to act. The inspector agreed. As a result, when the railway was closed for a full 20 months between February 2014 and October 2015, a huge opportunity was missed to provide a viable solution for the future. Worse, the redesign and expansion of the station—including a large two-storey car park to serve Bicester Village retail park—took up space that could have been part of a solution to the rail crossing. It therefore took almost a decade from the announcement of Department for Transport support for the route between Bletchley and Oxford to be formally approved by the Transport Secretary in February 2020. That approval followed another planning inspectorate hearing. Residents including Carole Hetherington, who is the chair of the Langford Village Community Association and is in the Gallery today, and the Bicester Traffic Action Group, represented today by Rachel Mallows, again pointed out the need for a solution for London Road. Again, this did not happen. In 2021, East West Rail consulted residents on its ideas for the line between Bletchley and Oxford, including for London Road. It offered six alternatives, of which option 1 was the full closure of the road with no mitigation. Local residents were appalled by this suggestion. A petition that I launched, as a county council candidate, garnered over 1,500 signatures opposing the road closure. In March 2023, Oxfordshire county council unanimously approved a motion that I proposed as a councillor, stating that the council would work with East West Rail to secure “a sustainable, funded solution that continues to provide suitable rail crossings for cars, cycles and pedestrians”. A similar motion was brought to Cherwell district council by Liberal Democrat councillors, who are represented in the Gallery today by Councillor Frank Ideh. The policy of both local authorities is therefore to keep London Road open. Local residents and I were very frustrated to have to wait over two years for East West Rail’s response to the 2021 consultation. Despite repeated indications that it would publish a response, this was serially delayed. I have some sympathy with East West Rail—under the last Government, it saw five Rail Ministers between 2019 and the 2024 general election, as well as four Prime Ministers and five Chancellors. It was not easy for a major infrastructure project to get steady engagement from the last Government. Finally, in July 2023 East West Rail brought forward feedback on the consultation. This was done through an informal feedback session with a limited amount of published material. Many people were disappointed that, after two further years, there were no specific proposals on the table. Does the Minister share my frustration and that of my constituents that a project first endorsed by the then Deputy Prime Minister under the last Labour Government in 2006 has only in the last month brought forward detailed proposals for London Road, even though residents have been highlighting concerns for over a decade? Does she also agree that it is deeply regrettable that a short-term approach meant that much more cost-effective opportunities to address this issue were missed when the railway was closed and station rebuilt in 2014-15? People in Bicester had to wait for the announcement of the proposed East West Rail route in November 2024 to hear what is now being proposed for our town. Let me start with a positive. It is welcome that there is now a commitment to provide a suitably accessible crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. That is a material improvement on the proposals in 2021, which were either to close London Road or to provide only a basic footbridge that would have been totally unsuitable for anyone with a disability, parents with buggies or cyclists. This reflects sustained community pressure, including from Claire, whom I mentioned earlier, and from the members of the Bicester bike users group, who have been strong champions of a suitable underpass. There is strong support for an underpass rather than a bridge. It would require much less clearance since the land already sits 2 metres below the height of the railway. However, it must be well designed to ensure the safety of users, which, among other things, means adopting best design principles to discourage loitering and maximise visibility for all users. However, the very bad news for Bicester residents is that East West Rail is proposing to close London Road to car users and offer no alternative. In its consultation document, it says: “Our preferred solution is for traffic to be diverted using existing roads.” The strength of community feeling about this is very clear to me in my postbag and my inbox. Nearly 400 people have signed a new petition in the last month objecting to this closure. The technical document that accompanied the conclusion makes it clear that only preliminary analysis of the journey times has been conducted. It is unclear from this whether the projected growth in Bicester, of both new homes and employment sites, has been factored into the analysis. The document talks about potential improvements to journey times from junction improvements and signalling changes. Local residents and I are very sceptical that this can compensate in any meaningful way for closing this arterial road. When the Rail Minister courteously called me last month in advance of the announcement of this route, I shared these concerns with him and welcomed his assurance that this would be a genuine consultation. May I therefore take this opportunity in the House to ask the Minister to confirm that the Government remain open-minded on this proposal? Can she confirm that the Government will listen to the consultation feedback, and will she agree that either she or the Rail Minister will meet me and local representatives before submitting any final proposal for planning approval? Many residents in Bicester see the benefit of increasing the capacity for rail travel across our region, and see that it may bring economic benefits to the UK by joining up some of the most innovative areas, yet all residents agree that the national benefits will come at a cost to Bicester. The core issue here is one of fairness. Local people can support a project that has wider benefits so long as they are not asked to bear concentrated costs without mitigation. In this case, car users are being asked to make materially longer journeys without any alleviation. The situation is akin to a compulsory purchase order. The railway has, in this case, determined that it will compulsorily close the road at the level crossing, but instead of fully compensating the community for the loss of the road, the current proposal is to give them a limited underpass. East West Rail and the Government need to do better. I note that the Government are proposing that for nationally significant infrastructure projects in energy, such as new pylons, there should be direct compensation for affected communities. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) recently led a debate on community benefit from renewable energy, which had strong participation from across the House. There is clear support for accepting that local communities should be compensated when asked to bear the brunt of the effects of national projects. Do the Government agree with the principle that there should be compensation for loss from these nationally significant planning decisions? Money, of course, is key. It has been suggested to me by East West Rail that a core reason for not providing a new road crossing is a cost-benefit evaluation, yet that misses the point. This is not about greenfield project appraisal; it is about compensating the community in Bicester for what is being taken away from them. When land is compulsorily purchased, a market value is paid in compensation. The Government cannot give the landowner a cheaper plot of land and tell them to make the best of it. Since the railway is, in effect, compulsorily seizing the road, it should provide direct compensation to the community. Does the Minister agree that residents in Bicester deserve direct compensation for the closure of London Road in the form of a new road crossing? Over the past decade, many residents have provided potential options for a crossing, and one of their deep frustrations has been that so little detailed work has been done on those options. Residents are sharing ideas with me now. They include a crossing for light vehicles only, or a signal-controlled crossing that would be cheaper as it would only require one lane across the railway. They have asked whether the proposed underpass could be repurposed for light vehicles at limited additional cost. But it is hard for people to engage meaningfully with alternatives when the Government and East West Rail have been so secretive about the funding available for this project. As final proposals are developed next year, will the Minister undertake to provide a cash value of the preferred options that the Department for Transport is set to approve? Finally, I want to stress the urgency of action. East West Rail has already run test trains on the track between Oxford and Bletchley, and it intends to start that service in 2025. When that happens, the downtime of the level crossing will double, creating immediate inconvenience and delay for Bicester residents. After all the delays my constituents have already experienced, they must not be made to wait until services start between Oxford and Cambridge after 2030. I appreciate that there are other challenges at the eastern end of the line before the line is completed, but nothing will change between now and then for the western end of the project that affects London Road. Will the Minister please commit that, once options are submitted and approved under a development consent order, funds will be provided and East West Rail will proceed immediately with works to provide crossings at London Road? This is an issue of fairness. As a national infrastructure project, East West Rail brings many national benefits, yet it brings very specific local costs to my constituents in Bicester. After more than a decade of delay and missed opportunities, we are asking the Government to do the right thing and provide compensation for the direct harm of closing London Road. I hope the Minister will agree to my requests, and I look forward to working with her, her colleague the Rail Minister, and the leadership of East West Rail to ensure that the right solutions are developed for pedestrians, cyclists, and car users, and that Bicester is not cut in two by the new railway.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Local Road Networks · Hansard source

  More

  I very much appreciate the Minister’s fulsome response. There is one point that I want to press her on slightly. East West Rail’s own analysis has demonstrated that there is still a lot of technical work to be done—as I highlighted, some of the traffic modelling has not yet been done—so given that the information is not fully there and we have no public figure on how much money could be spent on a solution, will she accept that there should be openness to suggestions that might come from the community and not a closing down on the relatively limited range of options that East West Rail has so far provided? The Rail Minister gave me that assurance when I spoke to him, and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that there is openness to considering other options if they can be demonstrated to be technically and financially feasible.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Local Road Networks · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate. I thank the Minister for attending and for the engagement that we have had prior to the debate. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a county councillor in Oxfordshire. In Bicester in my constituency, the delivery of East West Rail will lead to the closure of London Road. That is the only road joining the south-east with the centre of town. Closing it without providing a replacement will cut the town in two. I have secured this debate to highlight the problem and to seek the Minister’s support in finding a suitable solution for our town that will keep London Road open to pedestrians, cyclists and car users. Given that the frequency of rail services is set to double from 2025, I hope that she will recognise the urgency of the issue. The general point, which I suspect may be of relevance to other Members, is that when there are projects that bring national benefit, local communities should be directly compensated for the impact on them.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Syria · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for early sight of his statement. The fall of the Assad regime is momentous for the millions of Syrians who have suffered under his brutal rule. The al-Assad dynasty were despots, who used chemical weapons against their own people. The images emerging today from Saydnaya prison illustrate the lengths that the regime took to murder, torture and silence its opponents. What steps are being taken to ensure that both Bashar and his brother Maher al-Assad face justice for the crimes that they have committed? These developments create immediate strategic challenges for the UK. Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the UK is taking urgent action with our allies to identify, locate and secure the stockpiles of chemical weapons in Syria? What assessment can he offer of how this change will impact Russian military capabilities, particularly in respect of its bases at Latakia and Tartus? There is joy for many liberated Syrians today. This has been a national process of liberation—it is not that of just one group. The international community must learn the lessons of other regime changes and seek to support a process of reconciliation and transition that is led by the Syrian people, and not imposed from outside. Will the Foreign Secretary say in a little more detail how the UK will support an inclusive national process that leads to a fresh constitution, and, in due course, free and fair elections? Will he reassure the House that any recognition of a new Government in Syria will depend on sustained evidence that political, minority and human rights are being protected? The Foreign Secretary is right that the displacement of civilians from Syria under Assad has deepened the need for humanitarian support in the region. He mentions £11 million in emergency funding, but the drop in humanitarian and other aid to Syria from the UK from 2016 to 2022 was £289 million. Does he therefore agree that there is an urgent need to restore the UK’s aid budget to help displaced people in their home countries, so they have less need to flee overseas? Assad has fallen. We should act swiftly to support the UK’s strategic interests in the region, and we must do all we can to ensure that what rises in his place represents all the Syrians who yearn to live peacefully, side by side with their neighbours.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Improving Public Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important topic for us all, and in particular for my constituents in Bicester and Woodstock. After the Conservative-led administration cut all direct bus funding in our area in 2016, I am proud that Liberal Democrats have reinstated community bus services. Does she agree that it is incredibly important that the Government’s new plans for public transport not only focus on metropolitan areas but provide adequate funding so that these dislocated areas can access community bus transport, using new technology for demand-led and cost-effective services for our residents?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing a debate on this most pressing of topics, which a great number of our constituents are deeply concerned about. The hon. Member’s compassion and concern for those affected by the conflict, particularly the children, are clear to see. More than a year on from Hamas’s 7 October terrorist attacks and the response that followed by Israel in Gaza, we now face a devastating situation. Gaza faces a humanitarian catastrophe: tens of thousands of Palestinians have died, and 90% of the population of Gaza has been internally displaced. Israel has now twice been hit by airstrikes from Iran, tens of thousands remain internally displaced and around 100 Israelis are still being held hostage by Hamas. In the west bank, settler violence has continued to spike. As many Members have mentioned, in just the past few days we have seen comments from Finance Minister Smotrich and the Minister of Settlements, Orit Strook, about annexing the west bank. We also see the widening of the conflict across the region, not least in Lebanon, where over 1.2 million have been displaced. Refugees from Syria have elected to return rather than remaining in Lebanon. The Liberal Democrats continue to reiterate our call for an immediate bilateral ceasefire in Gaza to put an end to the humanitarian devastation, get the hostages home and open the door to a two-state solution. We have called for that for more than a year. It is, frankly, a failure of the international community that, as we approach a year since the temporary pause in the conflict in late November 2023, that brief cessation is all we have managed. I met recently Ehab al-Sharief, whose family members have been killed and injured in Gaza. They are despairing that the situation will ever improve. How are the Government exerting influence on the parties to the conflict to bring about a ceasefire? As other Members have noted, it is shocking to read the UN Human Rights Office report, which said that over a six-month period between November 2023 and April 2024 close to 70% of the victims in Gaza were women and children. I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) that those figures are horrific, and far higher than the proportions we would expect for conflict zones. They raise clear questions about breaches of international law that I urge the Minister to address. I was not at the event mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow West, but I have read the testimony of Professor Nizam Mamode before the International Development Committee last week. He said that attacks on civilians were a “deliberate and persistent act”, and that there was “persistent targeting of civilians day after day.” Do the Government share Professor Mamode’s assessment? Reflecting on such testimony, I welcome the language of the Minister for Africa, who said at the UN Security Council last week that “it is abundantly clear that a worst case scenario is now playing out in areas of northern Gaza, where starvation, malnutrition and deaths are believed to be rising fast. Colleagues, time has run out, and urgent solutions are required now, to prevent the very worst from unfolding.” In line with the remarks from her departmental colleague, will the Minister update us as to the UK’s assessment of its obligation to prevent atrocities? A particular cause for concern in both Gaza and Lebanon is the use of displacement orders by the IDF, as highlighted by the hon. Members for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert). Those instructions to the civilian population often include relocation to areas that are already overcrowded and have very limited facilities. What assessment have the Government made of whether displacement orders are a breach of Israel’s obligations to civilians under international law? Following on from the point raised by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), what obligations does the Minister consider the UK to have as a result? Tragically, the UN has reported that the aid reaching Gaza has recently been at its lowest level since the first month of the war, yet this has coincided with the US’s 30-day period for the Israeli Government to boost aid into Gaza—a period following which the US has said Israel has taken further steps. Will the Minister address whether the UK Government share that assessment by the US? It was reported yesterday that 97 UNRWA trucks had been stolen and the aid looted. What assessment have the Government made of the risk to aid delivery in Gaza, and the responsibility of all parties to enable the safe delivery of humanitarian aid? I reiterate the concern shared throughout the Chamber about the laws passed in the Israeli Knesset to ban UNRWA. The move, if enacted, would lead to the deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians. What steps are the UK Government taking with their international partners to make it clear to Israel that the ban must not go ahead? Instead, we should be supporting UNRWA to alleviate the humanitarian crisis, as well as ensuring that the Colonna report recommendations are implemented as soon as possible. I turn to the plight of the hostages, following the comments from the hon. Members for Rochdale and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Over 100 hostages are still being held by Hamas in Gaza. We continue to call for their unconditional release. Our thoughts are with them and their families. I was pleased to sign the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), calling for the release of British citizen Emily Damari. Will the Minister update us on what conversations the Government have had with ministerial counterparts in other countries about getting the hostages home? We cannot discuss Hamas’s atrocities without remembering the role of Iran, which has continued to arm terrorist proxies across the region. Will the Minister confirm whether the UK Government will finally proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation? Many hon. Members have referred to the significant concerns about the situation in the west bank, where settler violence has spiked since 7 October 2023, and we now see the comments from Finance Minister Smotrich about annexation. The UK was right to condemn Smotrich’s comments, but will the Government go further and expand our sanctions against the extremist settler movement to Smotrich and Ben-Gvir? We urge the Government to uphold the ICJ advisory opinion on the illegality of the occupation, including by implementing legislation to cease the trade of settlement goods to the UK. The Government have said they accept the advisory opinion, so can the Minister set out whether it is, therefore, the UK’s stance that the occupation is illegal, and will she update us as to what discussions have taken place about settlement goods? Many of us have been deeply concerned to see Donald Trump nominate Mike Huckabee as the next US ambassador to Israel—a man who has called for a one-state solution and said he does not accept the term “Palestinian”. Does the Minister share my concern about someone with such extremist views being been appointed to that critical position? Will the UK accordingly try to use whatever leverage it can with the Biden Administration, including at the UN, in the remaining weeks before the second Trump presidency? The situation is challenging, but I urge the Government to take a firmer stance in key areas, and to show themselves to be more robust with all combatants in pressing for an end to violence and in upholding international law. We cannot stand idly by in the face of such death and suffering.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Children’s Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome today’s statement from the Secretary of State. As a county councillor in Oxfordshire, the number of children in our care who are living in unregistered children’s homes is of grave concern to me. Those homes are often overpriced and always suboptimal for vulnerable children, as well as being strictly illegal. I heard what the Secretary of State had to say about the local authority settlement next month. Will she undertake to work with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor to allocate some of the capital investment announced in the Budget, so that local authorities can open new registered children’s homes and provide safer and more affordable accommodation closer to home for vulnerable young people?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Special Educational Needs and Disabilities · Hansard source

  More

  Zak is nine years old. He is one of dozens of children in my constituency who have been failed by the SEND system. Zak was traumatised by his experience in an inappropriate school setting, causing his learning to regress and both his parents to stop work. Oxfordshire county council has an accumulated high needs deficit of £56 million because of inadequate funding, which has failed families such as Zak’s. Has the Minister pressed the Treasury to increase that funding and maintain the statutory override in next week’s Budget?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Gaza and Lebanon · Hansard source

  More

  No one can be left unmoved by the level of human suffering we have seen recently on our screens. We need immediate ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon more than ever. Liberal Democrats were appalled to learn of the unjustifiable attacks on UN peacekeepers in Lebanon by the Israel Defence Forces. Israel must stop these attacks and comply with international humanitarian law. The mass displacement orders issued by the IDF to 400,000 Palestinians in northern Gaza, and the ongoing bombings, place the population at grave risk. The international community must press for their protection. Will the Minister commit to increasing the supply of aid to the region? UK aid to Lebanon has been cut by 90% since 2019. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to use our sanctions regime against the extremist Ministers, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich? Following the Government’s new sanctions on Iran announced yesterday, will they go further and now proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for securing this debate. My constituency of Bicester and Woodstock has had multiple applications for solar farms, but they are dwarfed by the enormous proposal by the Blenheim estate and its development partners for an 840 MW solar plant, the so-called Botley West proposal. We need to make the transition to more renewables in our energy mix. The Liberal Democrats support that transition—we want to see 90% of our energy coming from renewables by 2030—but that high ambition makes steps to increase community benefit from any new scheme essential. We must bring people with us on this journey by sharing the benefits. As with other aspects of renewable energy policy, the current framework is incomplete and hands too much control to the landowners and developers, often at the cost of local communities. We urgently need an approach to renewables that has a strong presumption in favour of meaningful community engagement and sustained community benefit. Botley West has not met that standard. That is one of the many reasons why I and many of my constituents object to the current proposal. Originally, the developers offered the community a benefit fund of £50,000, amounting to £59.50 per megawatt of annual capacity. It is derisory. The £5,000 per megawatt of capacity recommended by the community benefits protocol would instead deliver £4.2 million each year to the local community if the scheme goes ahead as currently proposed. I urge the Government to put in place a framework for new renewables that will place renewables schemes at the heart of community discussions and place our communities at the heart of debates on renewables schemes.

• 12 Sept 2024 · New Housing: Environmental Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate and the Minister for being here to respond. I second the hon. Lady’s point about the standards set by local authorities. I represent part of West Oxfordshire district council, where the Salt Cross development was brought forth. It was challenged by the developers because the local authority sought to set forth a net zero standard. The developers were unsuccessful in their appeal, but in a very obliging step, the previous Government issued a written ministerial statement in December 2023 clarifying that no local authority could have the power to set net zero standards. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be very helpful if the Minister confirmed that this Government intend to issue a new written ministerial statement to make it more possible, until such time as we have new standards, for local authorities to pursue net zero targets in their planning permissions?