Budget Resolutions

Calum Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The Government have labelled today’s debate “fresh hope for the future”, but I regret that the Budget failed to meet the hopes of my constituents. My constituency contains a number of leading spin-out, innovation and engineering companies, from Oxford Ionics to Zero fuels and from the Jaguar and McLaren Formula E teams to Siemens Healthineers. They want to put the area on the map as one of the fastest-growing tech hubs in the country, yet too many face one major constraint: energy. The queue for grid connections faced by many new businesses and developments in my constituency goes far into the 2030s.

Many households in the area are also used to power outages. The Cooper school in Bicester recently had to close for a day because of a lack of power. North West Bicester, a site for 6,000 homes, was delayed by more than two years purely because of a lack of grid connectivity. We now have two proposed mega data centres. Exeter college proposes a new centre south of Kidlington, while a large centre south-east of Bicester will require electricity equivalent to that needed for 1.4 million homes. That is a huge amount for an area already facing energy scarcity. My constituents are worried that the Chancellor’s commitment to pushing data centres to the front of the queue will overload local networks or delay connections for essential new services. The Government must commit to publishing an assessment of capacity before allowing data centres to jump the queue.

I agree with the Prime Minister and Chancellor that we need to give more power back to the people and to end the UK’s excessive centralisation in London. In principle, I support the creation of a Thames valley mayor and regional devolution, but devolution must give local communities a stronger voice when it comes to the cumulative impact of development in our areas. New housing, data centres and major infrastructure projects cannot be considered in isolation. They make demands on the same roads, public services and electricity networks, and residents experience the combined impact. The pressure on roads, GP surgeries, schools and utilities must therefore be assessed across the whole area.

Buried in the Budget document is another announcement of real interest to my constituents. There is £150 million of additional funds to support large asylum centres, such as that proposed for site A of MOD Bicester. My constituents and I oppose this scheme for many reasons, but in this Budget debate I will limit myself to the eye-watering costs of converting this derelict storage depot, which has never had accommodation for people, into a village for 1,256 asylum seekers. The best estimate is some £280 million in capital costs and £80 million in annual operating costs, which sums to more than £1 billion over 10 years. That raises serious questions about how far the additional £150 million will stretch. I urge the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and their officials to take a close look at Home Office spending. I fear that they will find once again that the asylum programme is out of control. They will certainly find that building new accommodation at MOD Bicester is a bad deal for the taxpayer.

Turning to hospitality, pubs, cafés and restaurants are key to the health of the high streets of Bicester, Kidlington and Woodstock. In the rural villages of my constituency, the local pub, alongside the church and the primary school, is the key local institution. Too many such businesses, including the much-loved Fat Zebra café in Bicester’s Market Square, have been forced to close. Too many others tell me that they are facing mounting and unrelenting cost rises. The changes on business rates relief are welcome, but businesses tell me that they may not be enough to keep them afloat. I urge the Treasury to look again at the Liberal Democrat proposal to cut VAT for hospitality businesses.

This Budget was a missed opportunity for my constituents. It failed to assure them that infrastructure would come first, before major developments. It backed a failing Home Office programme for large asylum centres. It failed to deliver a stronger local voice, despite promises of devolution, and it failed to support the pubs, cafés and restaurants at the heart of our communities. I urge the Government to give my constituents more hope in the future.

Royal Mail: Performance

Calum Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is giving a typically powerful and empathetic speech. Amid the deluge of letters failing to arrive in my constituency, one constituent was waiting 12 days for an important letter. They went to the sorting office and were told that it had not been delivered, along with another pile of mail, because the postie was on leave. That kind of management at the local level, never mind among the leadership of the organisation, shows me that there is not adequate support behind our postal workers. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need a reset in the culture, so that there is not this division between postal workers, many of whom have great ideas to improve the quality of service, and management, who seem to be pressing new reforms down on them without a real understanding of the challenges of the role?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Absolutely; again, the hon. Member has got to the real nub of the issue. It almost feels as though it is handy and convenient for Royal Mail to pit worker against worker and person against person. By doing so, I think it is seeking to evade its responsibility and role in all of this, and we must not lose sight of that.

Royal Mail is rolling out a new delivery model by Christmas, apparently, which the Communication Workers Union reports is causing huge problems in hundreds of offices right across the country. Is it not better to fix what is broken before making it bigger? Why roll it out right before the busiest time of the year?

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Calum Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart]

Nobody should be above the law, and nobody should be above scrutiny. When good people get together, there is a willingness to embrace creativity and the nerdery of parliamentary procedures so that we can find a way to get to the truth that we need to get to.

Trust in our politics is vital, and trust in our institutions is further eroded every time we have one of these debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) talked about the impact on the reputation of this House and the vital role of trust in politics. There are too many people involved in politics for whom a lack of trust in politics is really useful. The stoking of division and mistrust means that there is space for voices that, in my view, are not welcome and we should reject. It is in all our interests and the whole country’s interest for there to be trust in our institutions and our political set-up.

During the debate we have been reminded of the need for proper processes to be in place. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) reminded us, not everybody can be relied on to be a good bloke. Many of our systems are based on gentlemen’s agreements and just expecting people to be a good bloke—and as has been repeatedly proven, it is simply not the case that people will be.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

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.

[Lisa Smart]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have seen some press reports about civil servants who were doing their job and absolutely rightly questioning some of the expenses that were being put through, but they were overruled. That clearly is not good enough and not acceptable, and it is not what we should expect from our institutions and establishment. I completely agree about the importance of being clear about what we expect when somebody takes on a public role at cost to the taxpayer.

We should have very high standards. We should, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, talk about how we can ensure that those with power are held to account. She was entirely right in the points she made about what we do with this information, where we go with it and how we build from here.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) made a really strong speech in which he gave very constructive suggestions to the Minister of measures that we Liberal Democrats would support in bringing about change to the system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calum Miller Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

1. What steps he is taking to support the hospitality sector in Bicester and Woodstock constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

As this is my first time at the Dispatch Box, if I may I would like to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). It is an honour to build on his work, particularly on employment rights and championing fairness and dignity at work.

Hospitality businesses, including those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), are vital to the UK economy, driving growth, creating jobs, and strengthening our communities. The Government are delivering targeted support under the small and medium-sized enterprises strategy to boost productivity, cut red tape and revitalise our high streets. Our £1.5 million hospitality scheme aims to help businesses boost productivity and adapt to local needs, while the licensing taskforce seeks to address unnecessary barriers that hospitality businesses face. Furthermore, we plan to permanently reduce business rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just to help Members, this question is purely about Bicester and Woodstock.

[Calum Miller]

I wish all the questions were just about Bicester and Woodstock.

I welcome the Minister to her place. Becky, who runs the Red Lion in Eynsham, and Donna, who runs the Oxfordshire Yeoman in Freeland, tell me that they are working upwards of 80 hours a week just to keep their pubs open. Despite loyal customers and rising turnover, they are struggling to meet soaring bills from employment costs, food, energy, business rates and a tied tenancy, which means that prices are over £100 more per barrel. In small villages across my constituency, pubs are the lifeblood and fabric of the community. Will the Minister meet Becky, Donna and me to discuss what more the Government can do to support the vital village pub?

[Kate Dearden]

I agree with the hon. Member that pubs are the lifeblood of our local communities. We recognise the challenges facing the hospitality sector, particularly our pubs. They play such an important role in our local communities as places where people can come together to celebrate, connect and build communities, and that is especially true of the pubs that he mentioned in his constituency. I would of course be happy to meet him and his pub managers to celebrate their contribution to his constituency. We continue to work closely with the Hospitality Sector Council and industry leaders across the country to understand the pressures facing pubs, and to co-create solutions for the long-term stability and local economic growth that are vital for our communities and our country.

“Chapter 4A

Calum Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The holy grail sought by all Governments, of whichever hue, is economic growth. I therefore think it important for us to look through the lens of economic growth, and to think about whether the Bill drives it. I recall from my time in Committee, where I spent many hours listening to the oratory of the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), that we spoke a great deal about productivity and whether it would be driven by the Bill.

I have spoken about the possible impact of the Bill to people in my community, including representatives of Enlightened HR and Alison Bennett, a human resources consultant, for whom its destination was very welcome. Indeed, we have heard from many other people who have been consulted that the Bill’s destination and aspirations are correct and appropriate, but it is a question of how we get there and whether the Government have achieved the right balance between employers and employees. That is important, because the last thing we want the Bill to do is have a chilling effect on the economy. We are only too well aware that the national insurance contributions that are set to kick in next month are already having that negative impact, and we do not want this well-intended Bill to echo that further.

There are 250 amendments before us at this late stage of the legislation. The Minister says that that is due to levels of consultation and so forth and should be welcomed, and that we are trimming our sails, but if that is the case, and if the Minister was in such listening mode in Committee, why did the Government accept no Opposition amendments whatsoever? I should welcome some reflections from the Minister when he winds up the debate.

As a Liberal Democrat, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions, I can say that carers are at the front and centre of our world. What is effectively the population of Portsmouth—200,000 people a year, or 600 a day—walk away from the employment market to take up caring occupations and, in many instances, support family members. That has an £8 billion annual impact on our economy, which leaves us less productive. I hope that the Government will give serious thought to our amendment to make leave for carers a paid opportunity, because giving them that flexibility and that breathing space would unlock more people for our employment market.

Our proposal to make caring a protected characteristic is extremely important. We have already heard about harassment and discrimination in connection with other parts of the Bill, but this would help immensely to support carers. Doubling the pay of those taking adoption leave is also important, as is support for people who take caring roles such as kinship care. I hope that the Ministers will take those family roles into account.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

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?

Plant Oxford Site

Calum Miller Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend as absolutely right to say that this is a commercial decision. As he would expect, we are talking to representatives of BMW; my officials were with them in Munich a couple of weeks ago, and I have met the UK managing director several times. We are talking to them to support the commercial decisions that they need to make. They have made it clear that there were macroeconomic, global and commercial reasons for the delay that has been announced; such delays are not uncommon. I know that BMW remains committed to this investment in the UK.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

More than 300 employees at the BMW plant in Oxford live in my constituency, and this morning I met plant convenors from the Unite union to discuss the impact that the uncertainty at the plant is having on those workers and their families. Can the Minister outline exactly how the new industrial strategy will help the plant to become more competitive, in the face of severe competition from other BMW plants in the EU, the US and China?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the concern that I suspect those employees feel. They have known about this change since last year. There are 3,500 people who work in the Oxford plant and many more who work at Rolls-Royce, which is owned by BMW, and in other parts of the UK. Through the industrial strategy, we are looking at a number of issues that we will use the £2 billion for, and we will use the powers that we have. Skills, energy costs and access to finance are all issues that we are having lots of conversations about, as well as the transition to electric vehicles. We are making sure that the flight path for investment in the UK is as good as possible, and that those who are already investing in the UK continue to do so. BMW has announced a £300 million investment in Rolls-Royce, which it owns. It remains committed to this investment in the UK, but I appreciate that there will be concerns among the workers to whom the hon. Gentleman has been talking, and I am always happy to meet people to discuss these matters in more detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calum Miller Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, and I welcomed the time we spent together at South Crofty tin mine, which was also one of my favourite visits of the year. This is a hugely exciting area, and the opportunities for his area are particularly exciting. What we need is an open, transparent trading system where these products will have the certainty of access to markets, which will unlock the ability to use those deposits to our and our allies’ mutual interests.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

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?

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

There is an established process in taking forward the Government’s discussions in relation to the mandate. On animal welfare standards, the Secretary of State has already alluded to how there was clearly considerable divergence during the previous attempts to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. I assure the House that we as a new Government continue to take issues of animal welfare extremely seriously.