Calum Miller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  In September 2024, my constituency experienced a month’s worth of rainfall in 36 hours, which led to the inundation of many homes. A constituent in Woodstock has described how her house and her annexe—into which she had poured her pension to convert it to a holiday let—were inundated. She is now unable to obtain any kind of insurance, including Flood Re insurance. She wrote this to me: “ I am terrified to think about any rainfall that could damage my home and business again.” Will the Minister look at that case, and at Flood Re eligibility for those at risk of surface flooding—as distinct from river flooding—and those whose business premises abut their homes?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On 20 May at Prime Minister’s questions, I raised the fears of my constituents, like Leigh, about the exceptionally high levels of forever chemicals in watercourses near the former RAF Upper Heyford airbase. Without hesitation, the Prime Minister agreed to ask the Environment and Health Secretaries to meet my constituents and me. Five weeks later, the two Secretaries of State have repeatedly refused a meeting; instead, the Minister for Water’s office has offered 15 minutes for an “initial discussion” before recess. My constituents are deeply worried and desperate for the Government to take a grip. I ask the Leader of the House to help me to secure the meeting that the Prime Minister promised without delay.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not for the moment. I will, if I may, make a bit more progress. It is equally vital, however, to give our armed forces confidence that the Government are serious about expanding our military capabilities, and we cannot do that without a credible defence investment plan. The outgoing Prime Minister allowed his office to brief that this document would be published before the NATO summit on 7 July. Today, Labour appears more concerned by who gets a seat at the Cabinet table than about actually governing the country. Can I therefore ask the Minister whether that commitment to publish the plan in the next fortnight is made by the Government, or merely by the current occupant of No. 10 Downing Street? Once the DIP is finally published, it is critical that Ministers can be held to account for its implementation, and for the costs that the delay in its publication has already caused for UK businesses. Small and medium-sized enterprises are desperate to contribute to our national defence, but their survival has been jeopardised by delays to the DIP. New clauses 21 and 22 would guarantee this necessary transparency, requiring the Government to produce two reports a year to provide an update on the delivery of the DIP and a report on the impact of its delay on business.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has just said that the Government intend to keep the House regularly updated on these matters, but she declined the Liberal Democrat amendment that would set out that commitment in the Bill. Will she commit from the Dispatch Box that the Government will report, within six months of the enactment of the Bill, on the delays caused by the delay to the DIP, and the impact that they have had on the economy?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his remarks. As I was underscoring, he is quite right to say that so many in the defence industry are holding on for the announcement of the DIP. There are many companies in the supply chains whose very survival depends on it, and I urge the Government to recommit to publishing the DIP before 7 July. Turning to the wider Bill, there are several important areas for improvement, and I will start with how we recruit and retain service personnel across our military, how we treat those who have left, and how we strengthen our understanding of the reasons why they have left. This priority requires a long-term plan. That is why our new clause 13 would mandate the publication of a retention strategy, alongside the Bill, outlining the Government’s plan to ensure we can attract and keep talent in the military for longer. Our new clause 14 would also require an independent review to identify and examine factors such as diversity, inclusion, the medical discharge process and the state of defence housing. On housing, I am pleased that Ministers have heeded Liberal Democrat calls to bring service family accommodation under the decent homes standard. We were troubled, however, to hear that delaying the implementation of this commitment was one of the Treasury’s ruses to help fund the DIP. I am sure the Minister agrees that that would be short-sighted, so I invite her to recommit to achieving the decent homes standard for SFA properties before the standard comes into force. We also want the Government to take the next step by applying the same standard to single living accommodation, too. That is what amendment 13 would do, helping to deliver for about 80,000 single and unaccompanied service personnel.

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

  More

  Further to the comments from the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the Minister will be aware of the way in which the pub industry is dominated by major pub companies, which often own tied pubs. That has a major bearing on the leasable value of many of these properties. Many publicans in my area tell me that that drives up their rates, even though they do not have full control over that, just as they do not have full control over their purchasing. Is the Minister working with the Department for Business and Trade to review that, and is he talking to the Competition and Markets Authority to review whether the pubco structure in our country is fit for purpose?

• 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?

• 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?

• 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?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  Every week I meet young people with energy and ambition whose hopes are at risk of being crushed by a lack of opportunity. I also recently met Stuart Forbes, who set up Fairford Heating 42 years ago in my constituency. Stuart told me that this year, for the first time, they will not be taking on an apprentice due to the cost overheads of employment. What are the Government doing to make it easier and cheaper for local family businesses to take on apprentices?

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister makes a strong case for hard power, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the investment in British defence. However, he also knows that generals on both sides of the Atlantic have made the case that investment in development is necessary to prevent conflict. In fact, they say that prevention is better than military intervention. Will the Minister take this opportunity to assure the House that there will be no further cuts to the international development budget in the forthcoming period?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  In serving for a number of years as a senior civil servant, I experienced in Whitehall the impression that the monarchy should be protected and that nothing should be done to embarrass the royal family. I hope the materials we are seeking the release of through today’s Humble Address will ensure that we can scrutinise whether civil servants’ ability to check whether Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was an appropriate person to be a trade envoy was impeded, and will shed light on the relationship that should exist between Whitehall and the monarchy in the future.

• 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.

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

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. Both the publicans I am talking about are working in excess of 70 hours a week. They have laid off staff, meaning fewer jobs for those who might be able to engage in entry-level occupations. It is hitting employment as well as other aspects of the economy. Too many local pubs in my constituency, as in so many others, have shut, and other publicans are considering leaving the sector. When they go, communities lose a key institution that brings people together at the heart of their villages. That is why I strongly support the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 9, which would ensure an assessment of the cumulative effect of this Government’s careless assault on the hospitality sector.

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

  More

  I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is trying to make the case that freezing thresholds is progressive, but what he has not mentioned, understandably, is the freezing of student loan thresholds. There is strong evidence that it will result in lower-earning graduates having to pay much more back over the duration of their loan period. Why is the Treasury taking the £6 billion benefit to the asset balance sheet in 2026-27 from this measure, and can the Minister convince me and my constituents that this is in any way fair and progressive?

• 6 Jan 2026 · River Cherwell: Clearing Illegal Waste · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for such a comprehensive response. On the question of funding, the £15.6 million in the budget this year for tackling waste crime, as she said, is for the officers who engage in investigation, but it still strikes me as a small amount of money, with 43 officers for a crime that is now taking place up and down the country. Can she clarify whether the additional £5.6 million is now permanently in that budget and will be going forward such that the additional funds she has referred to for permitting will be over and above that sum? Fundamentally, does she think that this is enough?

• 6 Jan 2026 · River Cherwell: Clearing Illegal Waste · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for setting out those figures so clearly. That was the point that I was driving at in addressing the budget for waste crime. It is not so much that I or anybody else wants to spend money dealing with criminals, but a relatively modest investment in detection and investigation could yield a higher proportion of that missing tax. We lose £1 billion every year, but a relatively modest increase in the waste crime unit’s budget, or the National Crime Agency doing more, could potentially bring in more of that revenue, which should be used for the benefit of all taxpayers.

• 6 Jan 2026 · River Cherwell: Clearing Illegal Waste · Hansard source

  More

  It is my privilege to represent a beautiful part of England’s countryside. Stretching from the Chilterns in the east to the Cotswolds in the west, it is criss-crossed by a network of rivers that define the geography of the area. The largest of these is the River Cherwell, which flows from its origin in Northamptonshire for about 40 miles south, where it joins the Thames in Oxford. My constituency also hosts two major highways: the M40 and the A34. It is the proximity of the A34 to the River Cherwell that created both the setting and the opportunity for a major environmental crime to be committed. In late October, I was knocking on doors in Kidlington when a conversation opened my eyes. The resident—not particularly interested in politics—was ready to close the door when he said, “Actually, my housemate Billy might want to talk to you.” He shouted upstairs and Billy came down. Billy Burnell is a local angler who knows the River Cherwell inside out. He showed me photos and videos of a vast waste dump beside the river. This was not fly-tipping—it was industrial-scale organised criminal dumping. It quickly became clear that this was not new. Billy and others had been raising concerns for months. The Environment Agency had visited the site on 2 July with local council officers and determined it was a major incident, which the EA took responsibility for addressing. Yet local anglers, farmers and residents saw dumping continue through the summer. What emerged was staggering: around 20,000 tonnes of waste had been dumped illegally on a floodplain beside the River Cherwell, close to the A34. You had to see it to believe it—and many people did, thanks to media coverage that went viral due to its shocking nature. This mountain of waste was one of the most serious cases of criminal dumping anywhere in the country. We quickly had an energetic response from local councillors like Laura Gordon and Gemma Coton, and campaigners stepped up too. Environmental groups including Friends of the Thames helped to amplify the concerns across Oxfordshire and nationally. Around Kidlington, a parliamentary petition gathered nearly 1,000 signatures, which I presented here on 9 December following a series of interventions: my oral question to the Minister on 13 November, my urgent question on 17 November, the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) to the Prime Minister on 19 November and my meeting with the Minister on 2 December. I thank the Minister for her engagement with this issue from the start and for her work with officials to ensure that the risks were identified and managed. Locally, following my initial question and the media coverage that followed, the Environment Agency convened key partners from councils and emergency services to develop a strategy for the site. The agency confirmed last month that it will take the exceptional step of clearing the site itself, citing serious fire and public safety risks. This is highly unusual and entirely reflective of the sheer amount of effort and support local councillors, campaigners and activists put in to raise the alarm. It should never have been allowed to reach this scale, but this decision shows what determined local people, backed by political pressure, can achieve. We come now to the situation today. The River Cherwell is, thankfully, not high by its winter standards, yet it still laps against the sandbags and fencing installed by the Environment Agency. Water testing has, thankfully, not shown any significant increase in chemical pollutants downstream from the site. I am truly grateful that we appear to be averting environmental catastrophe—for now. However, now that the winter trees have shed their leaves and revealed the scale of the illegal waste site, it is visible to my constituents and is a constant reminder of the damage already done and the risks ahead. My constituents continue to ask what is being done to avert the environmental disaster of the waste contaminating the River Cherwell, and I have some questions to ask the Minister on their behalf. Have the measures to contain the waste been designed to cope with a rise in water levels equivalent to a further 2 metres—the peak recorded at the nearest EA measuring station at Thrupp in November 2024? What actions will be taken by the Environment Agency if water testing reveals that chemical pollutants are leaching into the River Cherwell? What steps have been taken to reduce the risk of fire at the site? The December decision to clear the site was warmly welcomed by all the campaigners who had fought for it, yet the factor that led the Environment Agency to authorise the clearance—the risk of fire from combustible and decomposing waste—remains. Local people remain angry that criminals did this to our countryside and deeply frustrated that more than six months after the site was first visited by the Environment Agency, the waste is still there. The key question that my constituents continue to ask is: when will the waste be removed? On 11 December, a press release from the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs stated that “preparatory works for clearance will begin imminently. Further details on the timeframe for clearance will be set out shortly.” To the best of my knowledge, no physical preparatory works have commenced, and the timeframe for clearance has not been set out. I therefore ask the Minister to tell my constituents the following. What steps have been taken since 11 December? When will a timetable for clearance be published? When will the first lorry remove waste from the site? When does she estimate the site will finally be cleared? Finally, my constituents are concerned about who will bear the cost for this clear-up, so can the Minister confirm that all efforts are being made to identify the criminals responsible and recover costs from them, and that in the meantime the Environment Agency will meet the cost of clearance and that it will not fall to local taxpayers? Can she further confirm whether she has an estimate of what the total cost will be? Since news broke of the illegal waste dump in Kidlington, there has been concerted media focus on the scandal of industrial-scale, criminal waste dumping up and down the country. Like many people, I had no idea it was so widespread. I have been shocked to learn of how many communities are afflicted by it. Research commissioned by the Liberal Democrats in December indicated that 20% of UK adults have witnessed large-scale illegal dumping in their own local areas, and three in five of those say that the problem has got worse in the last year. This is truly an epidemic of criminal activity that damages our natural spaces and harms the lives of local residents. People who play by the rules—who dispose of their own litter carefully and take their household waste to council-run tips—are rightly appalled that gangs are doing this and, too often, getting away with it. I know that it is less of a surprise to the Minister, who has been working on these issues for some time. She will know that the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee, led by my noble Friend Baroness Sheehan, has been critical of the Government’s response to its inquiry and recommendations of October 2025. I do not intend to cover those points extensively, but I want to highlight three that directly reflect the experience in my constituency. First, we need to make it easier for people to report waste crime. In this case, constituents told me that they had suspicions and even evidence in the form of number plates or a description of unusual activity, but did not know what to do with it. Should they call the council, the police, the Environment Agency? They did not know, and that stopped them from acting. Early detection of sites is key to stopping the criminals before they get started, and we should make it as easy as possible for people to report concerns. Will the Minister look again at creating a single national hotline for reporting waste crime? Secondly, it is clear that the Environment Agency is grossly under-resourced to tackle waste crime. When I first raised this case in the House with the Minister on 13 November, she said that the budget for waste crime enforcement had been increased by 50% this year. That took the budget to £15.6 million, yet as this case shows, the costs of clearance can be close to that full amount. At the same time, the Treasury received £486 million in revenue from landfill tax in 2004-05. Have the Government conducted an assessment of how much additional landfill tax revenue is generated for each pound spent on tackling waste crime? Has DEFRA pressed the Treasury to allocate a larger share of the revenue from landfill tax to the waste crime budget? Given the Government’s response to the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee, can the Minister set out a clear timetable for the publication of the revised national metrics on waste crime and confirm whether interim reporting will be put in place while those indicators are developed? Thirdly, in this case it is clear that the Environment Agency prioritised investigating the crime over protecting the site by containing the waste on it. Between 2 July and 15 October, the joint unit for waste crime worked to establish who the landowner was and collected evidence about the crimes. I am glad that that led to an arrest last year. However, nothing was done to anticipate the risks to the site, either from waste entering the River Cherwell or fire hazard. It was only after my question to the Minister on 13 November that work began to put in barriers to prevent the waste entering the Cherwell. I want to be clear: the EA has worked swiftly since November to prevent further environmental damage, and working with other local partners it identified the risks of the site, which led to the decision to remove all the waste from it. My concern is that, perhaps for financial reasons, in this case the EA prioritised investigation ahead of early protective action on the site. Does the Minister think that the EA should reassess the balance between investigation and environmental protection when it identifies sites? Is the Minister satisfied that the EA has the resources and expertise to tackle serious organised criminals who are committing waste crimes, or should the National Crime Agency take over major investigations?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Members across the House expressed their deep concerns on this issue in the Backbench Business Committee debate on foreign interference that was led by my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), last Thursday, so I am glad that the Government have taken this step today. There is clear evidence that other leaders of UKIP and Reform UK also associated with Nathan Gill’s Russian handlers. There is also evidence, laid out—albeit in redacted form—in the Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Russian money seeking to influence other parties and elections. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the review will be free to look back as far as it needs to inform its recommendations, including to the referendums of 2014 and 2016, and that it will be free to publish its findings without ministerial censorship?

• 11 Dec 2025 · US National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  With this statement, Trump’s White House has driven a coach and horses through the UK’s national security strategy and strategic defence review. Trump has stated that the US has no enduring commitment to NATO, no support for fair and open international trade, and no willingness to co-operate in international organisations or abide by international law. The document shows derision for Europe, including the UK, for failing to share Trump’s divisive nationalist ideology, whereas Russia is seen as a great power with which the US intends to carve up Ukraine. No wonder the Kremlin said it was “consistent with our vision”. Will the Government commit to an urgent review of the UK’s approach, and to making a statement to the House in January on the Government’s strategic response to this new Trump doctrine? Will the Minister take the opportunity to state clearly that her Government will not tolerate interference by America in the domestic politics of the UK, and will she commit that the forthcoming elections Bill will restrict funding to UK political parties from sources outside the UK?

• 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]

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State knows, because his Department shares responsibility for special educational needs and disabilities education, that that is a major challenge facing the young people whose opportunity he so rightly champions. How will the announcement that the Government will take responsibility for that from 2028 alleviate the growing deficits facing many county councils across this country, which it is estimated will grow to nearly £17 billion by the time the national Government take over?