Calum Miller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I spoke yesterday with a British surgeon who has regularly visited Gaza to deliver emergency medical aid. He first reported cases of malnutrition 18 months ago and is deeply anxious about what he will find when he arrives at Nasser hospital in southern Gaza later this month. People in Gaza are on the brink of starvation. Others are dying daily from gunshot wounds inflicted as they queue for food. The situation is intolerable, and it is deliberate. The policies of Netanyahu’s Government amount to an indiscriminate assault on the Palestinian people. We must get the aid in, we must get the hostages out and we must stop the violent forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and in the west bank. That is the only path back to a ceasefire. The time for timidity is over. Liberal Democrats have consistently called for the Government to take firmer action, and they must do so today. We called for the sanctioning of the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich 18 months ago. Will the Minister finally commit to implementing those sanctions, showing that we will no longer tolerate calls for Palestinian dispossession? Will the Government make it clear that unless the Israeli Government change course, the UK will expand sanctions to those Ministers and Members of the Knesset who support a continuation of the blockade and the current military action? Will the Government finally ban the export of all UK arms to Israel? In his response earlier, the Prime Minister said that the Government were working with allies to get aid into Gaza. Can the Minister expand on what options are under consideration and when they could be implemented? Last week’s announcement of 22 new settlements in the west bank—the largest expansion in years—is intolerable. The UK should have no part in this, so will Ministers introduce legislation now to ban all UK trade with the illegal settlements? Will the Government use the conference later this month, together with allies such as France, finally to recognise the state of Palestine, showing beyond doubt the UK’s commitment to Palestinians’ right to self-determination and a two-state solution?

• 22 May 2025 · School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations · Hansard source

  More

  I was a school governor for 13 years and served as a finance governor, so I know these issues well. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the plight of small, rural primary schools. There are many such schools in my constituency, and they are really up against it with the costs that they face. In the school that I served, 86% of the budget was spent on staffing, so a significant unfunded increase in staffing costs, whether through national insurance or salary contributions, has a huge impact. Will the Minister meet me to discuss sparsity funding and the equalisation of per capita funding so that primary schools in small, rural areas are not so serially disadvantaged?

• 21 May 2025 · Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. This country, as well as the USA, should take responsibility for its hard power and its soft power. Just as the UK and its US ally have historically been willing to support Ukraine’s defence in the face of Russia’s aggression, we must make sure that we invest in peace by supporting those kinds of democratic institutions. I believe it is the shame of this Government that they have cut so significantly the UK’s aid budget. I welcome the steps taken and the agreement that was struck on Monday to restore elements of judicial co-operation with our European partners. I hope that the Government will now take the opportunity to strengthen co-operation with Europol ahead of the transfer of any data relating to these crimes so that it can support the work of tracking and bringing home Ukraine’s stolen children. Although there are no signs of a change in Russia’s policy now, we must also plan for a future when the children are returned, and we must support those already rescued by organisations such as Bring Kids Back. They will undoubtedly be traumatised and deeply affected by their experiences, as my hon. Friends the Members for Woking and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury have highlighted. What steps can the UK Government take now to support the Ukrainian Government and civil society in developing programmes of psychological support for children and their families? The previous Conservative Government agreed to the sale of Chelsea football club and that the proceeds would be forfeited by Roman Abramovich and used to benefit civilians in Ukraine, yet those funds—£2.5 billion—have still not been deployed. I asked the Foreign Secretary on 24 February what progress was being made. I asked again on 17 March, and he said that he was frustrated by the lack of progress and that he would consider “all the tools available to Government.” —[ Official Report , 17 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 41.] Can the Minister update us on what is holding up the release of those funds and say which tools the Government are now using to secure their release? As other Members have mentioned, the ICC has issued arrest warrants for President Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova in recognition of their crimes. It is a foul irony that she is Russia’s children’s rights commissioner. All those involved must be held responsible and accountable for their complicity. The Government need to be laser-focused in identifying the individuals and entities against whom sanctions should be applied so that they can be held accountable today for their actions. The Government should do that in concert with our international allies, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) highlighted. By strengthening Ukraine and undermining Putin’s ability to prosecute his war, particularly through the use of sanctions, we can give President Zelensky the maximum leverage he needs in any future peace negotiations. A core aspect of any just peace must be the return of the Ukrainian children stolen by the Kremlin. Anything less will only embolden Putin and other authoritarian leaders like him, who would otherwise hope to continue acting with complete impunity and relentless cruelty. As Ukraine continues to fight not only for its freedom today but for future generations, I am glad that this House is recommitting itself to that cause. Ukraine’s security is our security. We have a categorical moral imperative to help to secure its future by supporting every effort to return Ukraine’s stolen children.

• 20 May 2025 · Spending Review: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Chancellor’s answers on growth. She has been a strong champion of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, but my constituents are concerned to know that she will lend her support to Lord Vallance’s efforts to join up across Departments and ensure that there is the social infrastructure to support the growth. My constituents worry that hospitals, schools and roads will not keep up with the ambitious pace that Lord Vallance is proposing.

• 20 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The previous deal done by the Conservatives tied up many businesses in red tape, so I warmly welcome the progress on SPS. But advanced manufacturers in my constituency are part of integrated supply chains with the EU and they are still tied up in red tape. In light of the further summits that will be held, will the Prime Minister outline what the Government will do to reduce that red tape and allow them to grow jobs in my constituency?

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Bicester and Woodstock, many workers at the Cowley Mini plant tell me that they are worried about the future of the plant, and one of the principal reasons is that the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has introduced so much red tape that the just-in-time delivery of component parts across the European network that BMW operates is threatening the plant. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is just one example of how the Brexit deal damages our economy, rather than supporting our core industries?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister referred to the capital needs of the NHS as a whole. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) mentioned, that applies to many GP surgeries too. In my constituency, we have rapid growth in population. The populations of Woodstock, Heyford Park and Bicester are struggling, because GPs want to expand, but they cannot access the money to do so. Will the Minister look urgently at releasing more funds through integrated care boards so that future revenue can be provided to allow for the capital investment that would give my constituents an expansion in GP surgeries and take some pressure off our much-pressurised hospitals?

• 26 Mar 2025 · UK-China Relations · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member on two fronts. First, he and I agree more on our disappointment with today’s growth figure than he gives me credit for. Secondly, the Government have set out that they wish at times to challenge, at times to co-operate and at other times to compete with China, but it is my contention that, as he set out, they are too intent on co-operation and not sufficiently intent on challenge. I will briefly set out three areas of threat, starting with security and echoing the comments made by others. We face direct threats in the form of cyber-attacks, the threat of China as an ally to our enemies and see China threatening some of our own allies, including Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. Secondly, we face threats in terms of economic vulnerability. Many other Members have spoken about our dependency. In addition, the Government’s regrettable decision to cut the UK’s overseas aid budget creates an opening space for China in the global south, through its belt and road initiative, to increase the debt dependency of countries on itself, and therefore to increase its influence in the world. On the economic side, there are credible reports of China’s attempts to steal intellectual property from the United Kingdom’s university and tech sectors, and I am concerned that the Government are not doing enough to stop that.

• 26 Mar 2025 · UK-China Relations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I concur with the view expressed in the integrated review refresh 2023 that China represents a strategic challenge to the UK, “across almost every aspect of national life and government policy.” This debate has been a chance to consider how the Government are focusing on meeting that challenge. Suffice to say, from my and my party’s perspective, at this stage it is disappointing. I accept that it is not easy, as the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) just set out; the Conservative party lurched from sharing pints with the President of China to in 2021 designating China as, “the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”. Xi is able to think strategically over many years, now that he has such great control of the Chinese apparatus, so the UK needs to do better and be more constant. First, we need to be more clear-sighted about the threat that China poses. Secondly, we need to make use of the full apparatus available to us. Thirdly, we must set out some red lines, and show the Chinese Government that breaching them will have consequences. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe is right to highlight the scale that China has when it comes to the global economy, but the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) is also right to point out, from his position of experience, the importance that that has for UK industry. However, we must balance those economic interests with the threat, and it is my view that, at the moment, the Government’s position is too accommodating and not sufficiently robust.

• 26 Mar 2025 · UK-China Relations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a delicate balancing act, as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have articulated. If we want collaboration and co-operation then information will inevitably flow, but it is important that there is transparency about that and that the right economic benefit is derived from any intellectual property, if it is transferred. The third, and perhaps most important, area of threat is around human rights and political interference—other hon. Members have spoken about this, so I shall be brief. I too have met with the team supporting Jimmy Lai and his son Sebastien and I call on the Government to reassure us that his case is being upheld. I also had the opportunity to meet with two of those people in the United Kingdom who, in return for campaigning for real democracy in Hong Kong, have suffered being placed under bounties by the Hong Kong authorities— I know that one such person, Carmen Lau, is in the Public Gallery. The fact that the Hong Kong authorities see fit to distribute posters and letters on UK soil to neighbours, in order to intimidate those who have stood up for political rights in Hong Kong, is appalling. I would like reassurance from the Government that much more is being done, including through our police forces, to identify who, within the allegedly diplomatic team from China, has done that. It is critical that we take these items together, see them as part of one entity and take a holistic approach to China. Too often, the Government have treated such things in compartments, spoken briefly about human rights and then failed to address other issues. To conclude, I call on the Government to use the apparatus available to them, to generate a human rights and democracy report, to conduct the audit on China that they have promised, to fully introduce the foreign influence registration scheme and place China in the enhanced tier, and to ensure that China is fully considered in the strategic defence review. We cannot allow China to dominate our relationship with it. The Government must be prepared to set out red lines, and to demonstrate the consequences if China does not observe them.

• 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?

• 17 Mar 2025 · G7 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Like him, I will focus on Ukraine. Last week, President Zelensky announced his willingness to accept an immediate ceasefire. In response, Vladimir Putin intensified his attacks on Ukraine. This gives the lie to Putin’s cheap talk about agreeing with the idea of a ceasefire. His goals remain the same: to destroy Ukraine’s sovereignty and turn it into a satellite state of Russia. The only way to achieve a just and lasting peace is by strengthening Ukraine in the face of Putin’s brutality, so I was slightly alarmed to hear the Foreign Secretary say that we can seize Russian assets only if we progress by unanimity. If the US refuses to seize Russian assets, will the Foreign Secretary take a lead with European partners so that the support can flow? Can he also say what is stopping him unlocking the £2.5 billion generated from the sale of Chelsea football club, which is held here in the UK and should have already been used to provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine? The Foreign Secretary referred to the work that Ministers have been doing to build a coalition of the willing to support any final peace agreement in Ukraine, which my party strongly supports, but can he be more specific? What levels of support have other countries committed, and what progress has he made in securing a backstop security guarantee from the United States? The Liberal Democrats have warned repeatedly that Donald Trump’s actions are emboldening Putin. Last month, Trump said that Russia should rejoin the G7 if a peace settlement is agreed. That would be unjust and wrong. Did the Foreign Secretary make it clear to his G7 counterparts that the UK would oppose Russia rejoining the G7? Given that Donald Trump is not a reliable ally, the Liberal Democrats have argued that the UK must lead in Europe to reduce the continent’s reliance on the United States. We support the creation of a pan-European rearmament bank so that Europe’s defences can be rapidly rebuilt, yet last week we saw proposals from the European Commission for EU structures that could leave the UK out. Will the Foreign Secretary use his meeting with High Representative Kallas tomorrow to make sure that the UK plays a full part in European efforts, to the benefit of our security and our defence industry?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have missed an opportunity to recognise the extraordinary contribution of kinship carers in this Bill? I recently met a couple in my constituency who are kinship carers. They have acted out of love, but they have had none of the support that foster parents would have had in looking after the children in their care. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government would do well to look at including the same employment rights for kinship carers as they currently offer to foster parents?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this important statement from the Prime Minister. The Liberal Democrats support an increase in defence budgets and the leadership in Europe that the Prime Minister has described. The Prime Minister spoke about the need for unity and a whole-society approach. He will have heard the concerns from across the House about the way he is proposing to fund this increase in the defence budget, and the deep concern that it will create opportunities for our adversaries, Russia and China, around the world. Will he undertake to meet other parties to build the consensus behind the funding of 2.5% and then 3%, so that we can maintain the unity and the national purpose that he has so eloquently described?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a powerful point to which I am sure the Minister will wish to respond. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) have been right to recognise the terrible level of violence that we have seen over the 16 months since the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October. We are moved to tears and anger when we hear of the deaths of infants in tents and hospitals in Gaza. At the same time, we are shocked and appalled to see the emaciated state of hostages such as Eli Sharabi as they are released from Hamas captivity in a gruesome pageant. There has been inhumane cruelty towards innocent civilians. That underscores why the rule of law matters. The ICC is right to consider cases against leaders on both sides. The UK should enforce these warrants. It has been impossible for us to consider the ICJ opinion today without reference to the proposals for Gaza put forward by President Trump last week, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) highlighted. Since 5 November, Liberal Democrats have pointed out that President Trump would be unpredictable, and that the UK needed to put itself in a position of strength so as not to get swept into the chaos that the new resident of the White House would unleash. Since the ICJ’s opinion was delivered in July 2024, the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories has worsened appreciably. Northern Gaza has been flattened and its citizens placed under displacement orders. Gaza is today riddled with unexploded ordnance, even as Palestinians return home under the fragile ceasefire. In the west bank, settlement expansion has continued, and the Israel Defence Forces have continued arbitrarily to detain Palestinians and protect illegal settlements. The Israeli Knesset has outlawed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Extremist members of the Israeli Cabinet have continued to call for the annexation of the west bank, and welcomed President Trump’s suggestion that Palestinians be forced from Gaza, yet the ICJ’s opinion is clear. It creates obligations on other states, including the UK, which include supporting the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, taking steps to prevent trade or investment that assists in maintaining the illegal situation, and not rendering aid or assistance that maintains the situation. In response to that call, Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called on the Government to take the following steps: legislate to cease trade with illegal settlements in the occupied territories; sanction those who advocate illegal settler expansion or violence by settlers towards Palestinians, in particular Minister Smotrich and former Minister Ben-Gvir; restrict all arms sale to Israel, including component parts for F-35 aircraft, since those have been used against Palestinians in the occupied territories; and immediately recognise the state of Palestine. Ministers have repeatedly refused to take those steps—

• 4 Feb 2025 · UK-US Bilateral Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair today, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing today’s debate on this important topic. The level of interest shows how important the issue is to our country. Many Members, including the hon. Members for Rugby (John Slinger), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have spoken warmly of how they have benefited from the historical relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. Let us be in no doubt: the US is a key ally of the UK, and our relationship today is the consequence of close co-operation across many generations. Unfortunately, Donald Trump is not concerned about the preservation of any relationship. He is threatening Denmark and Panama, bullying Canada and Mexico and undermining NATO by praising Putin’s aggression towards Ukraine. In personal and international relations, the President is unpredictable and disloyal. He breaks laws and he lies. He bullies and intimidates. He does not see the benefit of institutions that foster co-operation and promote stability and peace. That represents a threat to the UK’s relationship with the US and to the UK’s wider interests. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway had some colourful rhetorical flourishes, but they could not mask the brass neck of his remarks, for his Conservative party is in no position to criticise others for selling the UK short in global affairs. From their botched Brexit deal to the rushed trade deals that betrayed British farmers under the last Government, the UK shrank from leadership and stood small on the global stage. We know that Donald Trump likes to set the news agenda by making outrageous pronouncements. The only thing I agreed with in the speech by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) is that we should focus not on the statements but on his deeds. Sadly, even in his first days in office, actions by the new US Administration underscore that we cannot depend on the US in the way that we have in the past. In critical areas, this US Administration have moved far away from the rules-based order that has marked the partnership between the UK and the US over the last 60 or more years. For example, we have seen Donald Trump sign an executive order to withdraw the US from the World Health Organisation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) set out, we are in an era when the UK and all countries depend on one another for health security. Covid-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome, mpox—these viruses know no borders. International co-operation is critical if we are to protect our citizens. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) said we were lucky in the members of the Administration. Since a number of them disregard vaccine science, it is deeply concerning to see the US withdraw from international health co-operation. Donald Trump has also withdrawn the US from the Paris climate agreement while encouraging US oil companies to renew extensive drilling operations including in sensitive environmental settings. Recent reports from Copernicus show how rapidly the globe is heating. Climate emergencies from fires in California to extreme rainfall and flooding in Valencia and in the UK show that the impacts are no abstract future threat. This decision by the new Administration sets back hard-won international progress and undermines collective efforts to reduce carbon emissions and protect future generations. Take, too, the recent announcement of a stop to all USAID funding, alongside the briefing that the Administration wants to wind up USAID entirely. USAID is the world’s largest single aid donor. In 2023, it disbursed $72 billion of aid worldwide. In countries across the globe, UK Aid has worked alongside our US partners to support women and girls, the victims of conflict and those displaced by climate emergencies and natural disasters. The consequences of this unilateral action by the US Administration have been severe. From Ukraine to Syria to Sudan, cuts to US support have put lives at risk while throwing international partnerships into disarray. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester highlighted, USAID cuts threaten progress in eradicating illnesses such as polio once and for all. We have urged this Government not to abandon Parliament’s historic commitment to provide 0.7% of GNI in overseas aid. Leadership with our international partners on international development is all the more critical in light of the capriciousness of the US Administration. Perhaps the greatest worry comes from the Administration’s approach to Russia and Ukraine. In the White House, the President described Putin’s illegal war as genius. Meantime, his vice-president has advocated a proposal that would give Russia the territory that it has illegally seized. The post-war security of Europe was protected under US-UK leadership through NATO. Our defence, security and intelligence partnership with the US has been a cornerstone of UK foreign policy. When the facts change, we must pause and take stock. The harsh truth is that we can no longer rely on the US. It is time for the UK to lead within Europe and ensure that the brave Ukrainians are properly supported. At a time when non-democratic states such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea seek to menace and undermine democracies, the UK needs partners it can rely on and we cannot say that of Donald Trump. The issue is how to manage this situation. The Conservatives and Reform are currently engaged in an undignified squabble to show who can be the most sycophantic to Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Labour has gone cap in hand to plead with Trump to treat us nicely. On this, I agree with the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) and for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) that we must proceed from a position of strength. The Conservatives, Reform and the Labour party fundamentally misunderstand that Trump is someone who believes that might is right and who scorns those who show weakness. We know that Donald Trump wants to be invited to make a state visit to the UK. If he wants to make our relationship transactional, we can do that too. The Prime Minister should make it clear that there will be no state visit unless or until Donald Trump commits to attending a summit on funding and equipping Ukraine to resist Russia’s aggression. If Trump commits to defending Ukraine and talks about seizing the Russian assets held in the US, the UK and the EU so that we can fund Ukraine, then we can talk about a state visit. The UK needs to strengthen our position in the face of Trump’s bullying. We trade more than twice as much with our closest neighbours in the EU than we do with the US, and they share our immediate security threats—unlike the US, many of them are on the frontline of Putin’s aggression. By showing leadership in European security, and opening negotiations on a new UK-EU customs union, the UK would show Donald Trump that we are serious about leading and will not bend to his threats.

• 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?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Global Combat Air Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair and the Committee for their industry and for this excellent report. He highlighted the size of the GCAP programme and the need for such programmes to show greater flexibility. Does he intend for the Committee to look during this Parliament at the agile procurement of the sort that we are seeing in Ukraine, and to make recommendations to the Government on that?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Strengthening NATO · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) pointed out, President-elect Trump has threatened to use force to seize the Panama canal and Greenland, and he has promised tariffs of 25% on Canada and Mexico. Whatever else we can predict about the presidency that begins next Monday, we know that it will be unpredictable. May I therefore ask the Minister what steps his Government has taken to Trump-proof UK foreign policy so that we cannot be held hostage in the security, economic or climate realm by a President who puts short-term deals ahead of long-term relationships, and what specific steps the Government have taken to accelerate an improvement in the UK’s relationship with European partners since 5 November?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents do not understand why they may be facing a 50% price increase from Thames Water, partly to service a £3 billion loan. The Secretary of State talks about resetting the water industry. Will he consider taking Thames Water into a special administrative regime, so it can be properly reset and the inappropriate debt built up under the previous Government written off to the benefit of taxpayers and consumers?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Farmers in my constituency maintain the highest animal welfare standards. They want reassurance that those will not be undercut by any future UK-US trade deal as they were by some of the deals done by the previous Government. Will the Minister assure me that the mandate and the detail of a trade deal will come to the House before the Government sign it, as many Members on the Government Front Bench agreed when they were in opposition? If not, why not?

• 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.

• 2 Dec 2024 · North-West Syria · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I join hon. Members across the House in expressing our deep concern at the toll of the latest outbreak of conflict on the innocent civilians of Syrian. They have borne the brunt of more than a decade of horrific conflict, and we should not forget the devastating impact of the 2023 earthquake on parts of the country as well. I offer my support to the Government in urging all parties to uphold international law. It is vital that the Government do all they can to prevent a deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Syria, and in the region more broadly. I spoke this afternoon to the Jordanian ambassador to the UK. He underscored the potential impact of this conflict on his country, with its long and porous border with Syria. With an estimated 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon and another 1.3 million in Jordan, providing necessary support to neighbouring countries that host those refugees is crucial. Yet thanks to successive cuts to the international development budget, including by the new Government, too often we approach such crises with one hand tied behind our back. Will the Minister set out what new development assistance we are providing in response and whether he is seeking additional emergency funds from the Treasury? It appears that the fighting reflects interference in Syria by both Iran and Russia, as the Minister has said, each seeking to serve their interests during a period of instability. There is a very real risk that this new conflict in the north-west of the country may create a vacuum in the south of Syria that allows terrorist groups such as al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and Daesh to re-establish. Does the Minister share that concern? The UK must hold others to account and press for an end to the use of proxies that show no regard for the rights of civilian populations or the role of international law. Will the Minister say how the UK is using its influence in international organisations and with our allies to achieve that?

• 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?