Calum Miller MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents have strongly supported this petition because they feel ripped off by Thames Water. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s refusal to consider special administration for Thames Water sends a signal to all other water companies that investing money in paying off bondholders is more important than sorting out the mess that is their infrastructure?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents and I welcomed the Prime Minister’s commitment in this House, on Tuesday 1 September, that he would familiarise himself with all the detail of the proposed asylum centre at MOD Bicester. The Prime Minister further gave a commitment that he would “happily report back” to the House from the Dispatch Box. On 4 September, the Government announced that the short deadline for my constituents to respond to the application is Thursday 17 September. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a statement from the Prime Minister before the consultation deadline, so that my constituents can hear his conclusions from the Dispatch Box? If not, will the Leader of the House advise how the Prime Minister can fulfil his commitment?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Let me also thank him for sharing the painful history of his family. I know that that will echo with many Jewish families in the UK, including those in my constituency. Let me strongly associate myself and my party with the Foreign Secretary’s clear statement that robustly challenging the illegal actions of this extremist Israeli Government is compatible both with staunch support for the rights of the states of Israel and Palestine to exist and with resolute support for the rights of British Jews to live free from the scourge of anti-Jewish hatred. For years, Liberal Democrats called for the proscription of the IRGC. We will work across the House to support the rights, freedoms and security of the British Jewish community. The recent scenes from Palestine should horrify every Member of this House—the abhorrent violence against Palestinians; families, awoken by soldiers breaking down the doors of their homes, evicted; the accelerated annexation of the west bank, spurred on by the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich; attempts to destroy the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state through E1 settlement construction; and the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The two-state solution is being fatally threatened. That is why today’s announcement is greatly welcomed from these Benches, but is also long overdue. Liberal Democrats have called for a trade ban for years, and have asked the Government to declare Israel’s occupation in Palestine unlawful. It is also right that the Government have included services in this ban, with those financing or facilitating settlements now facing legal consequences. The Foreign Secretary has billed today’s announcement as a reset in our relationship with Israel. This requires a vision for that future relationship. We want a relationship with Israel based on shared liberal values, but that requires the Israeli Government to recognise their obligations under international law, and not ride roughshod over them. The Foreign Secretary supports the role of the International Court of Justice in the determination of war crimes and genocide. Will he explain how the Government are providing resources to allow the ICJ to complete its work in reaching a judgment? I also welcome the clear statement, long overdue, that the Government accept the ICJ’s 2024 opinion that the occupation is unlawful. Will the Foreign Secretary publish the Government’s assessment of the duties that this creates for the UK? I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s candour about the fact that the Government have previously failed to do enough. Today’s measures cannot simply be symbolic; they must be robust, enforceable and sustained for as long as necessary. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us in more detail how enforcement measures would be implemented in response to any violation of these bans? He says that the ban on arms exports will endure as long as the illegal occupation. Will he confirm that that will apply to all arms exports, including F-35 parts? Will he spell out more clearly what he means when he says that the existing global human rights regime will be extended? Parties on both sides of the House have been united in our support—with international partners—for a two-state solution. It is this outcome that will bring peace, security and stability to the Palestinian and Israeli people. As we approach an autumn of elections in Israel and Palestine, so critical to the future prospects for peace and justice, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that he will insist that the Palestinian Authority hold to the timetable for elections in November, and that they will be free, fair and open to all parties? Before the elections, will he work with international partners to ensure the disarmament of Hamas? Will he also commit himself to conveying clearly and with no ambiguity to the Government of Israel that the UK will stand up against breaches of international law, and that there will be consequences when they occur? This extremist Israeli Cabinet has repeatedly acted to erase the prospects of a viable state in Palestine. In doing so, it has furthered a pattern of violence and destruction. Today must be the day that the UK says, “Enough is enough.”

• 8 Sept 2026 · Falkland Islands: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on comments from the Argentinian President and President Donald Trump regarding the UK’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Falkland Islands: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. As surely as night follows day, another Argentine President facing economic trouble at home has tried to distract attention by threatening British sovereignty. This is a President who, I remind colleagues, was praised by the Leader of the Opposition. When asked whether Britain needed our own Milei, and whether she was such a politician, she replied, “Yes and yes”. Meanwhile, President Trump, so loudly cheered by Members of Reform and the Conservatives, has also declared that the US is considering changing its stance on British sovereignty over the Falklands. The decision of sovereignty over the Falklands does not belong to President Milei or to President Trump; it belongs to the people of the Falklands alone. They have spoken unequivocally and we should support them. The renewed threat to the Falklands should sharpen Ministers’ minds as to the mounting security challenges facing our overseas territories. The world is more unstable now than at any point since the end of the cold war, yet our threadbare Navy and hollowed armed forces are perilously overstretched. Meeting the threats to our sovereign territories requires genuine investment. Can the Minister update the House on what steps will be taken to increase our defence spending rapidly, and on whether the Government are considering Liberal Democrat proposals for defence bonds, investing in our critical capabilities and restoring British deterrence? President Milei has now threatened sanctions and criminal charges on energy companies operating offshore from the Falklands, including British firms. That would be a direct—

• 8 Sept 2026 · Falkland Islands: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  That would be a direct economic attack on operations from British sovereign territory. Is the Minister preparing retaliatory measures and sanctions in the event that British companies operating around the Falklands are targeted? The Government must be resolute in defending Britain’s interests and the people of the Falklands. Has the Minister called in both the Argentine and US ambassadors to make it clear that British sovereignty over the Falklands is non-negotiable? If she has not, will she?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the reference that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has made to the Oxford growth corridor and localising power and resources, but my constituents are deeply concerned about ensuring that infrastructure comes before the many developments that the Government have in mind. Can she confirm that along the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor there will be an “infrastructure first” approach, and can she let me and my constituents know which Minister now has responsibility for that corridor?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Prime Minister to his role, and I also welcome his commitment to restoring local ownership and control. Sadly, that has not been the experience of my residents in Bicester, Piddington, Blackthorn, Ambrosden and Arncott, who face a proposal for the building of a huge asylum centre, costing millions of taxpayer pounds. Fifty-five days ago, the Government said that this was an urgent application, yet it remains veiled in secrecy and has not been published. Will the Prime Minister honour that commitment to restoring local agency, withdraw the urgent application, and publish the details, so that they can be scrutinised by the people who should be scrutinising them—local people and local representatives?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Arms Export Licensing: Israel · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Foreign Secretary and the new Ministers to their places in the House. As previous speakers have mentioned, the UK’s trade relationship with Israel includes the trade in goods from illegal settlements. Members across the House will have been shocked to see the violent scenes of settlers acting with apparent impunity and with overt support from Israeli Ministers who have set out their support for those settlements. May I push the Minister a little bit further, and ask him to confirm whether the Government will introduce new sanctions to target those settlers involved in these attacks as well as the extremist Ministers who are encouraging them; whether their reported progress towards a trade ban on illegal goods will extend to services; and most importantly, whether they will set out the consequences if those bans are breached?

• 1 Sept 2026 · EU Foreign and Security Co-operation · Hansard source

  More

  Labour’s decision to recruit a new Prime Minister directly led to the cancellation of the UK-EU summit in July, but a month and a half later, we still have no date, leaving businesses in the dark about the future relationship. Businesses also want to know whether the Prime Minister is truly committed to a bolder approach to our European relations, or if he will follow the pedestrian approach taken by his predecessor. Will the Minister today provide some certainty by telling the House when the UK-EU summit will take place? Will he also confirm whether the Government will heed Liberal Democrat calls to put the UK’s entry into the single market on the table at those talks?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad the Minister has moved on to the substance of DEFRA’s case. Will she clarify for my residents whether she considers a company that is spending 33% of the income it gets from customers on servicing its debt and paying a 10% premium on that debt is actually viable as a company? Will she set out for the House what she considers to be the measure of insolvency for a privately held monopoly?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Does he agree that the Government’s reluctance to take a company that is clearly now technically insolvent into a SAR is loading costs on to consumers who use other water companies, by creating a moral hazard that means that companies are incentivised to take on ever more debt, with the debt providers being protected by the Government? Instead, the Government should allow companies to fail, if they are going to fail, and to be taken into a SAR, so that there can be investment in the infrastructure that my hon. Friends referred to.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  My residents in Bicester and Woodstock are deeply concerned by rumours that the Cherwell and West Oxfordshire district councils will be hollowed out in order to create a Greater Oxford combined authority at the behest of Labour councillors in that city. I know that the Minister will not respond directly to that point, so I ask her to respond to this: in Oxfordshire, is it true, as she just said to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), that the original criteria set out by the Government will be followed? Is it true, as she has said in response to the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), that growth will be a priority in the decisions made by the Government?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in a unique position to advise the House on his assessment of the DIP as published. Can he give us his view on whether the quantity of funds provided and the certainty of the period over which they will be provided are sufficient to achieve the kind of industrial step change that he is advocating in his excellent speech?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Civil Service Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as a former civil servant and a future civil service pensioner. Many of my constituents are angry about this situation, like Gary, who waited more than six months and has now received a pension that is wrong, or the widower who has not received anything yet. I am glad that the Minister is angry, but let me ask him this: if a senior civil servant had been responsible for this scheme, would he not have sacked them? What is he doing to ensure that the chief executive, who has told him so many lies, loses their job?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Local residents, including service personnel living in my constituency, are deeply concerned by the proposal to create a new asylum centre at MOD Bicester. The Minister for Border Security and Asylum, who is currently in his place on the Front Bench, promised me last week that there would be absolute transparency for the affected communities. Will the Minster clarify when MOD officials first began speaking to the Home Office about the proposal; whether any—and if so, how many—contracts have been issued by the MOD to assess the site; and whether any serving personnel, MOD staff or MOD contractors are under non-disclosure agreements in respect of the proposal?

• 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?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

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

• 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.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  I respect the Minister, but I regret the gap between his words and the actions of this Government. He said that the world has failed Sudan, but the UK has also failed Sudan. He said that the Government believe that we need those responsible to be held to account, but the Government are not doing that. It is widely known that the United Arab Emirates is arming the RSF. Will the Minister tell the House which UAE leader the Foreign Secretary spoke with and what was said? Will he agree today to suspend arms exports to the UAE? Finally, will he summon the ambassador to insist that the UAE takes every step to arrest the RSF’s approach to El Obeid?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for opening this debate and speaking to his new clauses. I will shortly speak to the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) on behalf of my party and to others tabled by my hon. Friends. It is particularly appropriate that we should be holding this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week. Like many Members, I look forward to attending Armed Forces Day in my constituency, at Pingle field in Bicester on Saturday. We will raise the flag to salute the service and sacrifice of our incredible armed forces and their families. If previous years are anything to go by, I will again disgrace myself in misdirecting a bomb disposal robot under the patient eye of a member of the defence explosive ordnance disposal, munitions and search training team, which is based at the Bicester garrison.

• 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?