Calum Miller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jun 2026 · The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I welcome this legislation; if we needed any further explanation of the need for it, the terrible events and attacks over the weekend, which the Minister has already referred to, provide us with that. Allow me to add my party’s admiration for the personnel involved in the first interdiction of a shadow fleet tanker over the weekend. This legislation is long awaited: I am reliably informed by my noble Friend Lord Purvis that since March 2022 he has called no fewer than eight times in the other place for the loophole on refined products paid for in third currencies to be closed. I am glad that we finally have this legislation before us. I note that the licence on these refined products was initially not time-limited; as the Minister has said, it has now been rendered so. I understand that the Minister and his colleagues in the other place met Lord Purvis, and that Lord Purvis wrote to the Minister seeking a firm end date. I ask the Minister three things. Will he kindly deposit that correspondence in the Commons Library, to make clear the constructive exchange that took place? Will he confirm that the licence will end no later than 1 January 2027? Will he also confirm that the licence remains under review and could be suspended prior to that date? I also understand that businesses now operating under the LNG and refined products licences have to notify the Government that they are operating under that licence. Can the Minister state whether notifications have been made since the entry into force of the regime? If not, will he agree to let us know in writing and commit to a monthly update on the notifications made for as long as the licences remain in place? We must continue to isolate Russia as the rogue state that it is. That means taking robust action to ensure that sanctions are not sidestepped. Since the illegal invasion of Ukraine, it has been necessary and appropriate to implement a wide range of sanctions against both individuals and companies. Liberal Democrats want to put a stop to oligarchs from corrupt regimes channelling their money through the UK by beginning the seizure of frozen Russian assets in the UK, with proceeds being repurposed to finance support for Ukraine, so that we can stand with Ukraine even if US support wavers. We also want action on releasing the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club for the benefit of Ukrainian civilians; the proper resourcing of the National Crime Agency; and the closure of loopholes on economic crime legislation that allow Putin’s cronies and other kleptocrats to continue funnelling dirty cash into our country. Liberal Democrats are also calling for a complete prohibition on UK companies providing maritime services, such as insurance, for Russia’s export of fossil fuels. The scandal of UK plc helping to facilitate profits for Putin’s war machine must end. To conclude, will the Minister confirm that the Government will keep all sanctions on oil and gas products, and on professional, maritime and banking services, under review, and bring forward further packages that choke off Russia’s revenue streams?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Like many, I spent the weekend door-knocking in my constituency. People in Bicester and Woodstock are frustrated by delays to medical appointments, fed up with rising prices and fearful about the war in the middle east. Yet a number of them raised the Prime Minister’s handling of the Peter Mandelson saga. Their overwhelming emotions were disappointment that a Prime Minister who promised change has delivered so little, and anger that a Prime Minister who said he would be better than the Tories has failed so badly. The Prime Minister set out yesterday to defend himself. He set out the case like a barrister. He took the narrow view that the charge was misleading the House and tried to claim that Sir Olly Robbins had repeatedly misled him, and so it was only natural that he should have misled us. He failed first by misjudging the seriousness of his failure. It was as though he was charged with petty larceny when the actual offence was gross misconduct decapitation. Yet the crucial weakness in the Prime Minister’s argument was one of chronology. He cited statements and reports between September 2025 and April 2026, but the crime he sought to defend was committed between December 2024 and January 2025. He had no answer to why he ignored the advice of the Cabinet Secretary to seek security clearance before appointing Mandelson. He could not explain why he announced Mandelson’s appointment without conditions, nor why the offer letter to Mandelson dated before Sir Olly started work said that Mandelson had cleared security clearance. The damning evidence given today by Sir Olly Robbins confirms what the Prime Minister failed to dispel yesterday: there was a complacent culture in Downing Street—indeed, there may still be—which had a dismissive approach to the vetting of Lord Mandelson. The Prime Minister wants us now to believe that he would have sacked Mandelson if he had failed vetting, yet all of the evidence then showed that he and his team did not care about vetting and even believed it had already been granted. We further learned this morning that officials in No. 10 asked the FCDO to find an ambassadorial role for Matthew Doyle—another man who was friends with a convicted sex offender. What is worse, they told FCDO officials not to tell the Foreign Secretary. The unavoidable conclusion is that under the Prime Minister and Morgan McSweeney, No. 10 believed that it could fix plum jobs for the boys—and they were all boys—with casual disregard for process, propriety and national security. We come to the consequences of this sorry episode. First, a distinguished civil servant has lost his position as the fall guy for the Prime Minister. I was proud to work with Sir Olly, and I know the regard in which he is held by Ministers and civil servants, so I am frankly furious—to use the word of the day—to learn that a No. 10 spokesman has just said that Sir Olly was a “man of integrity and professionalism” who made an “error of judgment”. It is extraordinary that when political appointees like Peter Mandelson or the former Deputy Prime Minister are accused of errors of judgment, or worse, the Prime Minister has come to that Dispatch Box and defended them for days, yet when the Prime Minister’s error of judgment was highlighted again, he took a few short hours to dismiss Sir Olly. In the last five days, the Prime Minister has gone further and directed the full power of the state against one man. The Government Legal Service reinterpreted the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 on Sunday. The Government Communication Service briefed hard against Robbins, and Cabinet Office officials sought to prime the Foreign Affairs Committee before it heard from Sir Olly today. This state-led assault on one man is unprecedented, and it is unacceptable. If the consequence of committing an error of judgment is to resign, why is the Prime Minister still in post? Secondly, this whole episode has done grave damage to relations between Ministers and civil servants. The Prime Minister once said that when staff “made mistakes, I carried the can. I never turn on my staff”. No one believes that now. His cowardly reaction has shown civil servants that they should be fearful of future treatment by the Prime Minister, No. 10 and Ministers. I believed that the Prime Minister, as a former permanent secretary, understood and valued the relationship of trust, candour and loyalty that governs the best relationship in Ministries. Today those relationships are shattered, and our country will be the poorer for it. Thirdly, my constituents and people up and down the country who are worried about waiting lists, rising prices and threats to security can have no confidence that this Prime Minister can change our country for the better. When something went wrong in Government, the Prime Minister did not take responsibility; he took the easy way out. When called on to defend himself, he failed abjectly. This sorry tale points to a corrupted culture at the heart of No. 10, and there is now only one man left to carry the can. He must complete the clear-out and resign.

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

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. We have spent the last three and a half hours debating the UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Just before we began that debate, President Trump announced on social media that a US armada was positioned to attack Iran. Can I seek your advice on whether it would be appropriate for a Minister to come urgently to the Chamber to update the House and to clarify the Government’s position on the use of UK assets and personnel in any such attack?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  Bicester is one of the fastest-growing towns in the country, yet it currently has no dedicated youth hub. In the town centre sits the former Courtyard Youth Arts Centre, which remains largely configured for youth work. The courtyard currently serves a purpose as limited office space, but could clearly be repurposed back to its original purpose. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the funding announced in December for youth hubs should prioritise places such as Bicester, where existing public assets could be better used to deliver youth services at high value for money for the taxpayer?

• 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?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Venezuela: US Military · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the granting of this urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. At oral questions yesterday, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) both stated that the UK was committed to upholding international law. Last night, Donald Trump announced that US military strikes against Venezuelan land targets would “start…very soon”. Does the Minister believe that such an action would be legal? Over recent weeks, the US has acted with complete impunity in the Caribbean, conducting unilateral military strikes in international waters with no due process. Let me be very clear. President Maduro is a threat to democracy and civil liberty. He is an ally only to dictators such as Vladimir Putin and President Xi. Yet the UK’s response to the culture of impunity in the Oval Office must be robust and consistent. We must always hold accountable those who breach international law. By failing to do so, we risk normalising abuses that are eroding the international liberal order, all to the benefit of strong men such as Maduro who reject entirely the rule of law. I have several questions for the Minister. Have US strikes in the Caribbean already violated international law? What steps are the Government taking, including on halting intelligence sharing, to ensure that the UK cannot be complicit in other US violations? Has the UK been complicit in illegal actions already taken by the US, including the alleged “double tap” operations authorised by War Secretary Hegseth? Does the Minister believe that War Secretary Hegseth has authorised the commitment of war crimes? Finally, will the Minister confirm what further steps the Government are taking to sanction Maduro and his associates, and to work with international allies to strengthen our collective diplomatic and economic pressure on his regime?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In the United States, President Trump continues to use his public power to advance his private financial interests. In the UK, as well as rooting out traitors like Nathan Gill, who take funds from our enemies, we must prevent this corrosive cronyism from entering our politics. I wrote yesterday to the new Ethics and Integrity Commission, calling on it to investigate whether Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials lobbied for Trump’s golf courses. I intend to bring a Bill to this place that would create enhanced protections against UK Ministers and officials lobbying for foreign powers. Will the Secretary of State commit to supporting the principle of the Bill?