Calum Miller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  Site A at MOD Bicester sits adjacent to a village with only 370 residents. It is more than two miles from the nearest shop, and there is no pavement next to the B road by the site. It is simply not a suitable place in which to locate 1,250 men seeking asylum. That is why a planning inspector rejected a proposal to host half the number there in 2003. The Minister says that no final decision has been taken, but that is not how it feels in Bicester. While I appreciate that he has taken the time to speak to me twice on the phone, I am yet to receive any written information from the Home Office. However, the Ministry of Defence has already written to service personnel families and told them that the site will take 300 people by the end of this year, rising to more than 1,200 overall. To my constituents, this feels like a decision taken in secret in Whitehall and imposed on Bicester, with local people treated as an afterthought. In less than 72 hours, 7,156 local residents have signed my petition opposing the move. Opposition stretches across the political spectrum, across parties and across the community, because this isolated site is wrong for those seeking asylum and for the small villages around it, with no credible plan for local services, support or social cohesion. This morning the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) promised to end the centralised, top-down Whitehall model, so why are the Government racing to do exactly the opposite in my constituency? Will the Minister pause, commit to preparing a detailed impact assessment in partnership with the local community, and come to Bicester to face residents and describe his proposal to them?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing this important debate. I will begin by mentioning two people I represent. Becky runs the Red Lion in Eynsham. She met the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), at my invitation earlier this year. That followed a question in the House, so some Members present, including the Minister, who is smiling, may already know Becky’s story. Her turnover is up, but her profits have vanished. She said that there is “no living to be made any more” from her rural pub. Think about what that means: the customers are still spending, yet she is squeezed to the point of asking herself whether to carry on at all. Donna runs the Oxfordshire Yeoman in Freeland. She has faced the uncontrollable in the last few months: a washout summer, when summer trade is the very thing that a rural pub banks on to survive the winter. Stacked on top of that, she has faced the entirely controllable: a 50p minimum wage rise, soaring energy bills and rising water bills, all landing at once. When landlords are counting every penny and customers are counting every penny on the same evening, that is not a market finding its level but a trade being hollowed out from underneath. Consider the scale of the loss: 161 pubs closed across England, Scotland and Wales in the first quarter of this year alone, which is more than two a day. Those closures took roughly 2,400 jobs with them. There is a huge difference between losing a pub in a city and losing one in a village. When an urban pub closes, a community loses an option, but when a rural pub closes, a community loses its social space, which almost never comes back. The rural pub sits alongside the church and the village hall as part of the fabric of some of our smaller communities. Such closures represent a loss of identity and cohesion in communities such as mine. We should ask, “Why is the rural pub more exposed?” They tend to have lower footfall, they tend to face higher energy and supply costs, and it is far harder for them to diversify their income. Running costs across hospitality are up around 43% since 2019, and one third of those businesses are operating at a loss. I would like to turn to what might actually help. First, there is VAT and energy. Becky’s case is one of simple fairness. Why should British hospitality pay roughly double the VAT of comparable European countries? The Liberal Democrats would cut VAT on hospitality by 5% until April 2027 now—not after yet another review—and remove the main renewable levy from energy bills, taking more than £90 a year off the typical bill, funded by a windfall tax on the banks. Taken together, that is £270 back in the pockets of the average household over 18 months, allowing them more opportunity to buy a pint or a meal in their local pub. Secondly, there is the issue of business rates. In January, the Government discounted 15% of the planned rate hikes for pubs, but Becky’s rateable value was hiked phenomenally before the freeze arrived, locking the damage in. The relief does nothing for shops, restaurants, cafés and the wider high street. Our ask is straightforward: the Government must deliver the full 20p discount promised to all retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. In the interim, they should keep the 75% relief and freeze the small business multiplier. Before I end my remarks, I wish to refer briefly to the role of small breweries in our communities, such as Tap Social Movement in Kidlington, Little Ox in Freeland or Twisted Tree in Tusmore. Those small and medium-sized enterprises in the community combine a passion for independent brewing with a commitment to creating local jobs. However, in addition to the impact of pub company ties on landlords, the large brewers are locking small breweries out of our village pubs. Fewer than 40% of local pubs are open to small, independent breweries. Will the Minister encourage Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade to consider that barrier to market access? As part of the current pubs code review, will they consider a guest beer arrangement in England and Wales similar to that in Scotland?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Local Government Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case against the reorganisation in principle, but does he agree that if it is to go ahead, the Government should stick to the guidelines they provided to councils? In Oxfordshire, a Labour city proposal for a similar expansion of the boundaries of the city violates many of the principles set out, such as that it should be bounded by the existing district boundaries and, as far as possible, avoid breaking up service provision. Does he agree that, if this is to go ahead, the Government should stick to clear criteria when making decisions?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The steps announced by the Government today are important and right. British businesses and charities have to know that engaging with or sustaining settlements in the west bank is illegal and unacceptable. The updated business risk guidance is therefore correct, but it is overdue—the Dutch Government issued a similar discouragement notice in 2006, 20 years ago—and also insufficient. The Government should have used this moment to announce specific sanctions on British firms that enable or finance the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. Will they move to review sanctions much more regularly and bring new packages to the House every month, and will the Foreign Secretary finally heed Liberal Democrat calls to ban all trade in goods and services with the illegal settlements? Last September, the Government took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. That was the right thing to do, and a step that Liberal Democrats have been advocating for almost a decade. However, the Israeli Security Cabinet is moving fast to expand legal rights for land purchases in the west bank, while settler violence towards Palestinians continues. The UK’s complicity in enabling the growth of illegal settlements runs deep. On Sunday, the Great Israeli Real Estate Event is coming to London. Properties in illegal settlements in Gush Etzion are being marketed alongside properties in Israeli cities. This is Palestinian land being advertised, bartered and sold on the streets of our capital. Will the Government intervene to ban the event unless assurances can be given that no properties in illegal settlements will be advertised? Let me return to the subject of the wider region. Hezbollah has continued to strike northern Israel, but the latest exchange of fire between Israel and Iran following Israeli strikes on Beirut shows just how precarious the regional ceasefire is. Talks on moving towards a peace settlement cannot be derailed. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that actions by the Israel Defence Forces in Lebanon, directed by Netanyahu, are materially undermining the chances of reaching a wider peace settlement? What actions are the Government taking to address that? Liberal Democrats have long called for the proscription in the UK of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Government have now committed themselves to legislating during the current Session, so will they engage with Members on both sides of the House to see whether this legislation can be put forward immediately and fast-tracked into law?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The war of Trump and Netanyahu—cheered on uncritically by Reform Members and the Conservatives—has put our citizens and troops in the region under immediate threat from Iran’s reckless retaliation, and worsened the cost of living crisis for households here in the UK. The Government’s first priority must be to protect our citizens, our troops and our allies facing unprovoked attacks. They must also take action on the huge cost increases here at home. I wish to put on record my party’s thanks to our brave service personnel for their work to keep our citizens safe. We also now face the possibility of another major escalation. Reports suggest that a ground invasion of Lebanon by Israeli defence forces is imminent. Hezbollah is a brutal terror organisation and must be disarmed, but that must be achieved by working with leaders in Beirut and through international organisations. Will the Foreign Secretary tell me what further steps she will take to pressure the Netanyahu Government to cease their devastating strikes on Lebanon, and pull back from plans for a ground offensive? Will she also set out what new steps the Government are taking to halt and reverse the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank? The IRGC is also a terrorist organisation and should be proscribed here in the UK. Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why she has still not done that? We know that UK bases have now been used by the US to conduct strikes in Iran. The Prime Minister told this House that those strikes would be only defensive. To assure the House of that, it is crucial that the UK monitors the outcomes of US actions. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the Government have been supplied with that information by US forces or, if not, will she confirm whether the Government have asked for it? It was wholly predictable that Iran would retaliate by closing the strait of Hormuz. Donald Trump has now made a shameless plea that NATO allies should clean up the mess that he initiated. Liberal Democrats are clear that we cannot afford to be dragged by Trump into this costly foreign adventure. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government will seek to secure an emergency resolution from the UN Security Council, calling for a multilateral approach to reopening the strait of Hormuz? Will she commit to bringing a vote to this House before any UK forces are sent to operate in the strait?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  Households across the UK are fearful of rising prices at the pumps and for heating their homes. The closure of the strait of Hormuz by Iran will worsen the serious situation, yet it should have come as no surprise. In response, President Trump’s position is both irresponsible and inconsistent. One week, he says that he has no need for UK warships to support his unilateral action, because he has already won; the next, he says that we must send ships. One day, he suspends sanctions on Russian oil in a desperate, dangerous attempt to bring down oil prices; the next, he says that he might bomb the Iranian facility at Kharg island “for fun”. The UK should be leading on the world stage at a time like this, not following Trump like a poodle, or succumbing to his bullying, as the Conservatives and the Reform party have advocated. Can the Minister state what specific actions the UK is taking with our reliable allies to press the US, Israel and Iran to scale back hostilities? Will the Minister commit to seeking agreement at the UN Security Council on a collective approach to open the strait?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing this important debate. Last October, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), I met with representatives of 48 parish and town councils from the villages and towns that surround Oxford. These hard-working volunteers are the lifeblood of local communities and the closest level of representation to residents. They were very clear that local government reorganisation is an opportunity as well as a considerable upheaval, and they had three tests for any new arrangement in Oxfordshire: first, that it should make the delivery of public services simpler and more efficient; secondly, that it should retain accountability for key decisions closer to residents and strengthen the role of parish and town councils; and thirdly, that it should make sense in terms of geography, history and existing structures. Happily, those tests are similar to those that the Government have themselves set out—yet Oxfordshire is shaping up to be an important test of the Government’s approach to local government reorganisation. Ministers have set out clear criteria, and it is essential that they are applied properly to every proposal. On those tests, I believe the strongest fit in Oxfordshire is the One Oxfordshire proposal. Oxfordshire county council’s proposal is for a single county-wide unitary on the existing county geography. The county council says that this would save over £63 million a year, and it stands to reason that consolidating at the higher tier would be more efficient, as the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) set out more eloquently than I could. The county council already delivers services to over 750,000 residents and accounts for 85% of local government service expenditure in Oxfordshire. Keeping the county structure would avoid splitting critical services such as adult and children’s social care, SEND provision and homelessness. The main challenge to this approach is how it would sustain accountability at a suitably local level. To this, the county council proposes partnerships with town and parish councils, new area committees and other neighbourhood governance arrangements. As well as local representation, what matters is that the shape of any new unitary authority makes sense to residents. A county-wide model follows the existing Oxfordshire geography, keeps the area together and is plainly easier for residents to understand than a plan built on split districts and cross-boundary complexity. By contrast, the Oxford city council-backed 3Councils proposal asks Ministers to move away from that starting point; the Government’s consultation states that it would split existing district areas and establish a Greater Oxford council, a Northern Oxfordshire council and a Ridgeway council. That proposal is fraught with issues. It chops and changes existing district-level boundaries, even though the Government’s guidance says that districts should be the building blocks of new unitaries. It shoehorns in west Berkshire, which is in a different fire and rescue service area, even though the Government’s guidance says that proposals affecting wider public services need a strong justification. The Government say that 500,000 residents is the guiding principle, yet Oxford city council’s proposal documents put the populations at 240,000 for Greater Oxford, 265,000 for Northern Oxfordshire and 430,000 for Ridgeway. Oxford city council argues for an exception, and that is of course open to it, but let us be honest about what it means. It means asking Ministers to depart from their own default principle not once but three times, while accepting greater boundary complexity. The question for Ministers is, what justification could there be for departing so far from Government guidance, and why import additional structural complexity and financial risk into Oxfordshire when there is a county-wide Oxfordshire option that does not require it? Before we get to a new model for local government in Oxfordshire, we need to address transitional funding arrangements. The Minister is well aware of the challenges of funding the SEND system and the impact that underfunding has had on not only councils but families across the country. The proposal to meet 90% of the high needs block deficit in Oxfordshire with central Government funding is welcome, but Oxfordshire county council understands that this deficit will be defined as of 31 March this year, whereas new funding models will not begin until 2028-29. Will the Minister please set out how the likely additional funding for high needs will be met for the two missing years? At the same time, Cherwell district council in my constituency was shocked that the Government advised, on 6 February, days before its budget-setting council, that they had made an error in the draft local government funding proposals and were cutting £2 million from Cherwell’s advised settlement. After interventions from local MPs, the Government provided a one-year additional grant to Cherwell, but the council and its residents have no certainty about the next two years of funding, with the threat of losing nearly 10% of income hanging over it. I hope the Minister will agree to meet me and the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) to discuss Cherwell’s future funding formula. In October, the 48 parish and town councils were unanimous in opposing the 3Councils proposal. They saw it for what it is: a crude effort by Oxford city council to grab a larger area of land, which would break up existing rural communities, sever historic linkages between villages and market towns, and leave two other ill-funded residual councils as the collateral damage of a power grab that fails to meet the Government’s criteria. Reorganisation should be about better services, clearer accountability and stronger local government. It should not be about bending the rules after the event. In Oxfordshire, the Government have set the tests. They should now apply them properly.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Community Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  Across my constituency, there are three things that small villages tend to have: a pub, a church and a village hall. The community asset policy will support community ownership of the pubs, but I am hearing from those who run large faith buildings that they are deeply concerned about the changes to VAT relief on listed buildings. Will the Minister agree to meet me and others who are literally trying to repair the church roof to discuss that uncertainty?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Iran: Human Rights Violations · Hansard source

  More

  It is currently unclear whether the turmoil unleashed by Trump and Netanyahu’s unilateral military action will bring freedom and security for Iranians who deserve a better future, but we can be certain that the IRGC will seek to crush domestic opposition and, if given the chance, export terror abroad—and that includes the United Kingdom’s streets. Members of the Iranian diaspora here, and the UK’s Jewish community, have expressed their fears of attack. May I echo the words of Members on both sides of the House, and ask whether the Foreign Secretary will work with her colleagues in heeding the calls of the Liberal Democrats and other parties for emergency legislation to enact the recommendations of the Hall review and proscribe the IRGC?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Gibraltar Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for contact about it in the preceding days. The Conservatives’ botched deal with Europe left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. That was a shameful dereliction of their duty to protect Gibraltarians and the business community there. Now that we have a draft deal in place, we look forward to full scrutiny of the treaty in this House. It must meet a number of key tests. The first of those tests is the question of sovereignty. The new agreement must leave no lingering questions over the status of Britain’s sovereignty in Gibraltar. That is vital, given that we know from past experience that the Spanish Government are willing to act unilaterally over Gibraltar and to the detriment of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister outline what mechanisms exist in the deal to ensure compliance and effective dispute resolution in the event of any future possible unilateral action, giving confidence to Gibraltarians that the deal will be enforceable? Will the Minister confirm that the deal includes provisions for the agreement’s termination in the event that the UK and Gibraltarians view it as no longer being in our shared interest, ensuring the ultimate guarantee of Gibraltar’s sovereignty? The second test is whether the deal gives genuine effect to the self-determination of the Gibraltarian community. Nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltarians, so will the Minister confirm that the Gibraltarian Government have led the negotiations and that their interests have been front and centre in them? The final test is whether the deal actually works for the Gibraltarian economy. It must support jobs and economic growth in the territory. Will the Minister make available to the House the Government’s impact assessment of how the deal will support economic growth and jobs there?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q7. Bicester is one of the fastest-growing towns in the country, but the town will be cut in two when rail services start between Oxford and Cambridge and the London Road level crossing closes. Campaigners were ignored by the Conservative Administration for over a decade, but today we are in touching distance of a solution. East West Rail has a detailed plan for an underpass, the Rail Minister is fully engaged, we have financial support from the county council, and thousands of local residents have pledged a pound to go underground. Can the Prime Minister now confirm that the Government will back the plan and keep London Road open?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Large-scale Solar Projects: Community Engagement · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure large-scale solar project developers effectively engage with local communities.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Large-scale Solar Projects: Community Engagement · Hansard source

  More

  Just across the border of my constituency lies Southill Solar, a scheme that works with the local community, pays a direct return to residents, funds local projects, and has even won awards for its landscape and environmental design. By contrast, Botley West, one of the largest solar farms ever brought forward in Europe, would have a profound and long-lasting impact on a rural area, but local people feel that the level of developer engagement and transparency, as well as the community benefit on offer, falls far short of the scale of that impact, and the Planning Inspectorate recently described the absence of key information as “very disappointing”. Does the Minister agree that community benefit should be proportionate to the scale and impact of solar development, and will he agree to meet me to discuss how those operating large-scale solar schemes can listen better to rural communities so that clean energy is delivered with, not against, local consent?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I did indeed. My point is that when the Conservatives had the opportunity to provide the bases for their objection to the Bill, they did not once mention the rights of the Chagossian community. It is clear that those rights are just as low a priority for the Conservatives as they are for the Government. When the Liberal Democrats proposed, in Committee of the whole House, an amendment to the Bill that would have provided for a referendum of the Chagossian people, the Conservatives failed to back it and the Government opposed it. Even at this late stage, however, I want to encourage the Government to reconsider their position. There remains a window of opportunity for the Government to support the rights of Chagossians and buck the historical trend of this community being left out of decisions about their future. Will the Government therefore support a second Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place that would require binding guarantees from the Government of Mauritius on the rights of Chagossians? Another outstanding issue is the question of money. The Government are proposing to send billions of pounds to Mauritius, despite having what appears to be zero monitoring, evaluation or recall mechanisms built into the treaty. It is inconceivable that the Government would oppose the introduction of such measures or fail to support the principle that the UK should be able to cease future payments to Mauritius if the treaty were deemed no longer to support the UK’s security, so will the Government back a third Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place introducing meaningful and effective safeguards around the proposed vast sums of public funds due to be sent to Mauritius?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I was in the Chamber on Monday when he remarked that it was a fine aspect of joint working between Reform and the Conservatives to bring in that view from Donald Trump. I do not think it is appropriate for the leader of Reform to be whispering in the ear of the US President to upset negotiations. The right hon. Member makes a brave point when he appears to suggest that the fact that the US President has moved in one direction recently means that it will be sustained in the future. That notwithstanding, it is the case that the US President has recently made those remarks about the Chagos islands, and we will have to take those into consideration during the progress of the Bill. We need to reflect on the other outstanding problems with the Government’s proposed legislation. Since the start of debates over the treaty, Liberal Democrats have been the only party consistently championing the rights of Chagossians. That stands in contrast with the Government’s lack of substantive engagement with the Chagossian community. Chagossians have been denied a meaningful say in their future and the provisions of the treaty shamefully fail to affirm their rights. But that is not only a failing of the Government; indeed, despite the remarks of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the motion we are debating today in her name includes not a single reference to the Chagossian community. That is addressed in the amendment in my name on behalf of my party.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Like Members across the House, I feel humbled by the courage shown by so many Iranians to stand up to the tyrants in Tehran. That bravery was also shown after the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022 at the hands of the religious morality police—a crime showed the regime’s particular violence towards women. It is abundantly clear that the regime in Tehran is utterly illegitimate in the eyes of the Iranian people, and it is deeply shocking to learn that thousands of protesters have now been killed by regime forces and that further executions have already been scheduled. At this critical moment, we must take all the action available to us to support these brave protesters. We must also ensure that those in the UK who campaign for freedom and democracy in Iran, and members of the British Jewish community, are safe here. I welcome the new sanctions that the Government have committed to today. In the light of the grotesque efforts to brutalise these protesters, will the Government now personally sanction Iran’s senior leadership, including Supreme Leader Khamenei? I hear the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to new legislation. When it is in place, will she commit to proscribing the IRGC—an organisation committed to suppressing dissent at home and exporting intimidation to our shores? Iran’s decision makers must be held to account for their attacks on peaceful protesters, and the UK must take a lead to ensure that justice is delivered, so will the Secretary of State call on the UN Security Council to open an International Criminal Court investigation into crimes against humanity committed by the Iranian Government against their people? Will this Government also commit to using the UK’s satellite capabilities to record evidence of human rights abuses, which could be used to support such an ICC investigation? The Foreign Secretary is right to avoid giving the regime any excuse falsely to claim foreign influence. Yet we know that Donald Trump has proposed direct US military intervention. Does the Government consider that that would be merited politically and legally, and would it reduce or increase the risk to the brave protesters? As evidence of the violence being perpetrated by the regime continues to reach international media, the safety of British nationals in Iran must remain a priority, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s assurance that plans are in place to support British citizens in Iran, and I thank our ambassador and his staff for all their work.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to place clause 86 in the wider context of the Budget’s impact on the hospitality sector and, in particular, the village pub. I was very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), for agreeing to meet two landladies from my constituency in December. The Minister heard from Becky, who runs the Red Lion and the White Hart in Eynsham, and from Donna, who runs the Oxfordshire Yeoman in Freeland. As other Members have highlighted, village pubs are at the heart of their communities, but Becky and Donna described how hard it is to make the books balance. Donna gave the example of the work she does in her community. She has a number of regulars, and when one of them does not come in on a given day, she will give them a call to check he is all right and suggest he comes in—not because he is a big drinker, but because it is somewhere to be warm and sociable, and she knows that he has mental health challenges. In other ways, these two publicans are contributing to the lives of their communities. Becky put in front of the Minister some of the cost increases she has faced. A fillet of fish cost her £2.30 in June 2023; when she saw the Minister in December 2025, the latest cost was £4.90. As well as these food prices more than doubling, energy prices have rocketed, but the greatest anxiety for these two publicans came from tax and regulation. Labour costs have increased with employer NICs—Becky gave the example of her employer NICs, which in gross terms have increased by more than four times over three years. Both publicans have had to release staff, with Donna now working more than 80 hours a week, serving as both the pub’s chef and general manager. She places orders on Mondays and Tuesdays when covers are lower, and she is in the kitchen Wednesday through Sunday. Meanwhile, business rates represent a bombshell. Becky faces an increase in business rates at the Red Lion of nearly 120%, but she is outdone in my constituency by the 223% increase at the Lion in Wendlebury. Finally, Becky highlighted the impact of VAT on the hot food sold in her pub. Before the Budget, Liberal Democrats called for a 5% cut in VAT to offer some relief to the hospitality sector. Take that fillet of fish that has gone up by over 100% over two and a half years. Over the same period, the Treasury’s VAT take on that food has gone up by the same amount, an incredible increase in revenue with no relief for publicans. The Minister asserted earlier that the Government were backing British pubs, despite the many hits to their bottom line. She also said that the structure of duty increases and reliefs is intended to support pubs by raising the relative price of alcohol consumed at home, compared with that consumed in a pub. Other Members from all parties have made proposals to go further, but many pubs have sought to diversify and increase the share of income and profit from food. Those that have tried are now being hobbled by the impact of VAT, which is another multiplier of costs. Becky and Donna are but two examples of the many publicans across my constituency who are holding on by their fingertips.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Social and Affordable Homes: Banbury · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) referred to the wider Cherwell district council area.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Middle East and North Africa · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I regret that the Government have presented developments in four significant states in one statement, but I will do my best to respond in the time afforded to me. While the attention of the world is seized by the illegal actions of the US President, it is crucial that the UK works closely with our allies to support just, lawful and humanitarian action in the middle east. After two years of widespread destruction, people in Gaza are already facing severe shortages of food, clean water and medical supplies in the midst of winter. What immediate action are the Government taking to persuade Israel to reverse its decision to bar reputable international aid agencies from Gaza and the west bank? The continued expansion of settlements on Palestinian land by Netanyahu’s extremist Cabinet since the House last met is explicitly intended to undermine any prospect of a two-state solution, so will the Government implement immediate sanctions on members of the Israeli Cabinet, and a full ban on the import of settlement goods? Will they finally publish their response to the 2024 International Court of Justice ruling that Israel’s occupation is illegal under international law? The Liberal Democrats condemn the violent repression of public demonstrations in Iran. The US President’s casual threats to take unilateral military action there merely serve to escalate tensions. How are our Government working with European and regional partners to co-ordinate lawful external pressure on Iran, and when will the Government commit to proscribing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in UK law? The people of Yemen desperately need peace, yet regional powers continue to intervene to support the armed factions. Will the Government review all arms export licences to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, to ensure that UK weapons are not enabling them to sustain the conflict? The UN estimates that around 24 million Yemenis desperately need food and protection. How is the UK ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches those most in need, particularly in areas where access is restricted or contested? The Liberal Democrats support limited multilateral strikes against Daesh in Syria to ensure the eradication of its infrastructure, and to counter its dangerous and violent ideology in the middle east. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are confident that the recent strikes were fully compliant with international law and proportionate to the threat, and what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the new Syrian Government are protecting the rights of all, including minorities and women?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the ambition to build much-needed homes, especially social and affordable housing. However, in places such as Cherwell district in my constituency, the problem is not planning permissions. Under Liberal Democrat control, the council has already consented more than 10,000 homes; though consented, those homes have not yet been built, because the real blockage is delivery. Homes are not built because of a failure of grid capacity, supply chain costs and land banking by developers. These problems, which are outside the council’s control, now undermine its five-year housing land supply. The build-out consultation, which the Minister referred to, closed in the summer. Will he now commit to holding developers to account, once permission is granted, with real “use it or lose it” powers and to developing core infrastructure first, so that approved homes actually get built?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Illegal waste dumping · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to present this petition from my constituents who care deeply about protecting our natural environment, and especially the River Cherwell, from criminal pollution from the enormous dump of illegal waste close to Kidlington. I thank all those who signed the petition, and those who collected signatures from more than 950 people. Billy Burnell, Anthony and Emma Henman, Laura Reineke and Vanessa Langton—who are here in the Gallery tonight—represent the anglers, farmers, environmentalists and residents who signed the petition. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to press the Government to direct the Environment Agency to clear the illegal waste at this site urgently and prevent waste”— further waste— “from entering the River Cherwell.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Bicester and Woodstock, Declares that the discovery of one of the largest illegal waste dumps in the UK on land near Kidlington, located metres from the River Cherwell and on a known floodplain, has caused deep concern; further declares that rising river levels pose an imminent risk of contaminated waste entering the river and surrounding soil, and that there is also a risk of fire at a site adjacent to the A34; further declares that the cost should not be met through council tax. The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to press the Government to direct the Environment Agency to clear the illegal waste at this site urgently and prevent waste from entering the River Cherwell. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003146]

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) both for securing this debate and for laying out so well so many of the issues that relate to the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. I am proud to represent a dynamic centre of innovation, growth and job creation in Bicester, Kidlington and Woodstock, which is rightly at the heart of the Government’s growth ambitions and at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to the Government’s prospectus on the corridor, and I will take this early opportunity to say gently to the Minister that this area would love to be recognised as a hub in the next prospectus, given that we host leading firms, such as Oxford Ionics, YASA, Airbus, Sauber and NewPower among many others, and contribute significantly to the new creation of growth and opportunity in the region. My part of Oxfordshire is central to this Government’s plan to drive national productivity and housing delivery. However, such growth is being undermined by fragmented decision making, lack of a cohesive plan and chronic underfunding of infrastructure. Communities such as those in my constituency are willing to support growth. Parents want houses for their children and people want good job opportunities, but they also want to see the Government play their part in delivering infrastructure first, not as an afterthought. Too often we see major projects approved in silos, each one through a separate Department, and planning routes that do not take into account the cumulative impact of different projects on an area. This lack of cross-Government co-ordination leads to delays in projects, higher costs and—most importantly—a loss of public trust in the whole process. I will divide such projects into two different categories. First, we have some projects in my area where there has been a lack of co-ordination on specific initiatives. For example, there is the London Road in Bicester, where East West Rail will result in the closure of a level crossing. There has been a five-year campaign by the local community to ensure that the impact of that closure locally is fully recognised and that the Government step up to play their part in maintaining connectivity. In Woodstock, another part of my constituency, the surgery provides for only 38% of the growing population, based on the numbers set out in NHS guidance. It has been extremely hard to work with the valuation office to have it realistically assess rental values in the area, which is necessary to build the financial model that would allow for a new surgery to be developed. In north-west Bicester, the Government want to support local plans for up to 9,000 new homes. However, those homes cannot be built because of a lack of grid capacity and supply to the area, which is halting the development of homes that have been consented, leading to real difficulties for Cherwell district council when it comes to its local housing land supply. Recently at the Botley West solar farm in the west of my constituency we have seen a very extensive process by the National Infrastructure Commission and the Planning Inspectorate, with relatively poor engagement by the developer. It has not engaged with local people in the way that would be expected in order to build the consent for such a project. The second category relates to areas where we have multiple national projects with relatively poor co-ordination. At the end of September, I attended a meeting convened by local councillor Gareth Epps with over 30 local parish councils that are concerned about the proposals for four separate major national projects within a three-mile area. None appears in the local plan, all were to have significant impacts and each is sponsored by a different national Government Department: the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the case of a new town, the Department for Transport for a strategic rail freight interchange, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for a major new tourist attraction, with the local district council sponsoring new warehousing. Local people are saying, “We are open for growth, and want to see the creation of housing and job opportunities, but we need the Government to step forward and help with the co-ordination, so that this is done in a structured way.” I gently invite the Minister to respond with regard to how best the Government think this can be developed. Will the Government look at the concepts of spatial delivery boards, or similar, that can be stood up in areas where there is a significant set of proposals beyond local plans? Will the Minister say more about the Government’s plans in this area?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Gaza and Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for advanced sight of her statement, which I welcome. The Foreign Secretary is right that the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan is horrendous, as are accounts of systematic murder, rape and torture, often targeted at civilians from specific ethnic groups, and, in particular, the widespread use of sexual violence towards women and girls. The UK has a special responsibility as the penholder for Sudan at the UN. We must be relentless in pursuing true protection for civilians, so will the Foreign Secretary update the House with her assessment of the role of external actors in supporting the warring parties? Will she lead efforts at the UN to secure and implement a country-wide arms embargo? How will the UK ensure that the UN inquiry that she referred to can gather evidence, so that those actors, both inside and outside Sudan, who are responsible for these atrocities are held to account? Turning to the middle east, last night’s UN Security Council resolution marks an important step forward, and I hope that it will reinforce the fragile ceasefire in Gaza. However, vital details are missing from the resolution. What will be the remit and scope of the international stabilisation force? How will Hamas be disarmed? How will those responsible for atrocities in Gaza be held accountable, and how does the Foreign Secretary envisage that a Palestinian committee will ensure that Palestinian self-determination is respected? The resolution focuses on Gaza, but we desperately need a clear road map to securing a two-state solution. That requires an end to illegal settlements in the west bank and East Jerusalem, and reform of the governance of the Palestinian Authority. How is the UK supporting reforms to the PA, and will the Foreign Secretary today commit to banning all UK trade with illegal settlements?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Littering · Hansard source

  More

  Criminals have dumped a mountain of illegal plastic waste, 20 feet high and weighing hundreds of tonnes, in my constituency on the floodplain adjacent to the River Cherwell. River levels are rising and heat maps show that the waste is heating up, raising the risk of fire. The Environment Agency says that it has limited resources for enforcement, and the estimated cost of removal is greater than the entire annual budget of the local district council. Will the Minister meet me urgently to discuss what support the Government can offer to avoid an environmental disaster?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Conflict in Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  The Rapid Support Forces’ capture of El Fasher, following an 18-month siege, has ushered in a new phase of terror. Reports of systematic sexual violence against women and the summary execution of civilians are truly horrific. The Minister referred to the UN Security Council, which met last week and demanded that all parties to the conflict protect civilians and abide by their obligations under international law. It is clear that those obligations are being entirely ignored. As the penholder on Sudan at the UN, the UK has a unique responsibility to show leadership and ensure that protection for citizens is more than just words. I have three questions for the Minister. First, can he confirm whether the UK sought at the UN to secure a country-wide arms embargo? Secondly, do the Government consider that the United Arab Emirates is a party to the conflict? Thirdly, in the light of reports that British weapons have been supplied by the UAE to the RSF, will the Government ban arms sales to the UAE until it can be proven that Abu Dhabi is not re-exporting British arms to the RSF?