River Cherwell: Clearing Illegal Waste

Calum Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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?

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I did not realise that the A34 goes through the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, as it does mine—we will have to do a road trip some time. I congratulate him on his excellent speech. The Minister will not be surprised to see me here, because in Newcastle-under-Lyme we lived with the very worst example of waste crime and profit over people that was Walleys Quarry. We have just marked a year since the landfill site was closed and the cowboy operators driven out of town. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need a stand-alone strategy for waste crime and that we need it quickly?

[Calum Miller]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Perhaps we can look forward to joining up on the A34 at some point. I agree that we need an approach that is truly national and truly strategic. What I have witnessed in my constituency is a piecemeal approach, with best efforts by an under-resourced agency unable to join the dots and, despite the hard work of many people within that agency, a failure to conduct, on the one hand, the investigation and, on the other hand, the preventive measures. It is clear that the estimates of the scale of the criminal activity justify a robust and fulsome national strategy. I agree with him and hope that the Minister will respond to his question.

Strange as it may seem, my constituents and I have been lucky, in so much as this site met the narrow criteria for exceptional intervention. Many communities up and down the country, such as the one just cited, also face the blight of criminal waste dumping yet do not have exceptional circumstances that allow the EA, under the current resourcing and rules, to clear their sites. The site chosen by criminals to dump waste in my constituency suited them as it had easy, undetected access to the A34, but its very proximity to the A34 became the reason that exceptional action has now been approved to remove the waste.

What has struck me most about this toxic crime is how strongly people feel it is wrong. It is wrong to be so arrogant as to despoil our beautiful countryside; wrong that too many people get away with it and that the penalties are not higher; and wrong that it takes too long to clear up these sites. When Billy told me about the site, I vowed that I would work to see the waste contained and then cleared. I am glad that that is happening now, and I hope the Minister will confirm that it will be delivered with urgency.

When I learned how widespread the issue was, I vowed to work with all those like the Minister who care deeply about it to ensure that we make real progress in stopping this crime from blighting so many communities. I look forward to continuing that work with colleagues across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I will get back to the hon. Member on that, if I may. The point of a digital waste tracking system is that everything is digitised. The problem has been that it is a paper-based register, so how can people check it at the moment? My understanding is that the move is to a digital system, but I will get back to her. I do not want to mislead her or the House. Perhaps Box officials can enlighten us while I go through the third reform of the waste permit exemptions.

Thirdly, there are exemptions for three high-risk areas: end of life vehicles—that is, car scrappage—end of life tyres and scrap metal. Those exemptions have long caused problems and have been abused. We will replace them with a requirement for a full environmental permit for all those activities. We will introduce greater record keeping requirements for all waste exemption holders and impose controls on how exemptions can be managed at one site.

At the moment, there are seven waste exemptions: construction waste, preparatory treatments, treatment of waste wood, manual treatment, burning vegetation at the place of production only—that is essentially for farmers—storage in containers and storage in a safe place. As I have mentioned, we have increased the waste crime investigation unit budget. It now has 43 full-time staff.

People have often asked me about enabling the Environment Agency to use environmental permit income to tackle waste crime. Rules are set out by the Treasury in “Managing Public Money” about how the income raised by public bodies may be used. These rules ensure transparency to us as parliamentarians and ensure that fees and charges are not set higher than necessary to cover activity that should be properly funded from taxation. We instead look to innovative ideas, and the EA has consulted on the implementation of a 10% levy to generate a further £3.2 million of waste enforcement funding each year. That would enable a further 30% increase in enforcement activity to be targeted at activities identified by the EA as waste crime priorities. Those include tackling organised crime groups, increasing enforcement activity around specific areas of concern such as landfill sites, closing down illegal sites more quickly, using intelligence more effectively and delivering successful major criminal investigations.

[Calum Miller]

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?

[Mary Creagh]

My aim is not to spend further taxpayers’ money on crime; my aim is to stop it happening in the first place. All budget decisions are subject to the normal business planning, but we hope that, through our three-year spending review, we can give the Environment Agency a three-year or indicative settlement that will enable it to plan, rather than the annual process of, “Up this year, down next year,” so that there will be long-range line-of-sight planning. As I say, the EA is consulting at the moment on the additional extra revenue. If that goes through, there would be a funding uplift.

I have the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade): we are happy to confirm that it is already possible to check the online database for permits, so that is good news there.

I have mentioned the different reforms and I think I have answered all the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I am pretty much coming to the end of my speech. On steps taken since 11 December and his specific question about the rise in water level of up to two metres, equivalent to the peak recorded at Thrupp in November ’24, the waste is within a large floodplain that can store a substantial volume of water during heavy rain. The EA has carried out more detailed flood risk assessment to understand any changes in water levels due to the illegal waste and has determined that there will not be any increased flood risk to local properties. My understanding is that sandbags and a fence are there in order to protect the river.

The EA has also carried out regular water quality sampling of the river to check for impacts of run-off or leaching and has found no indication of pollution. If any pollutants were found in the watercourse, the action would depend on the nature and type of the pollutants found.

On fire risk at the site, EA officials have been working with the fire and rescue service, which is leading on monitoring the temperatures of the waste and planning appropriately. The fire risk was one of the main reasons that an exceptional decision was taken to progress works to clear the site entirely.

Analysis on how the site would be cleared, including ecology surveys, has been carried out with partners and the Environment Agency to get contracts in place as soon as possible, but we need to follow legal process to ensure that the waste is disposed of correctly. The clearance timetable is being finalised and will shortly be published on the EngagementHQ website. As I said, we hope that clearance will begin in February. Early indications and scoping indicate that full clearance will take approximately six to nine months. Where possible, we are seeking to recover our costs from those responsible in accordance with the legislation and the “polluter pays” principle, and the EA is working with the economic crime unit to target the finances of waste criminals. That unit can freeze bank accounts, seize assets and investigate cases of money laundering linked to waste crime.

[Mary Creagh]

I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the things that I am very interested in exploring is what the playbook is. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock asked who such things should be reported to, and the problem is that if that is not clear, people do nothing. The most important thing when any crime is being carried out, wherever it is happening—whether that is on the Tube or wherever we see things happening—is for us as citizens to do something. That might be reporting it to the council, the local police or the Environment Agency, whose hotline is 0800 807060—I thank my officials for getting that through so that it is on the public record.

The playbook is important. Once something has been reported, what does the local authority, the police or the EA do? What is the definition of “major site”? I have visited sites, including Watery Lane in Staffordshire, where two vanloads of fly-tipping was not classified as a major problem, and it fell to the local authority to clear it. People were locked in their homes physically unable to leave via the road—an absolutely extraordinary position for people to find themselves in. What is the playbook, what are the definitions and where do national agencies step in?

The Environment Agency expects to fund the clearance efforts by making efficiencies in its operations, without impacting on or scaling back any other services. The EA is not funded to clear up waste sites nationally, however, and makes these types of decisions only in exceptional circumstances.

The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock asked about additional landfill tax revenue. The waste crime survey that the EA has carried out indicates that 20% of waste is handled illegally. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that 23% of landfill tax is evaded, contributing to an annual waste crime cost of roughly £1 billion a year, including a £150 million landfill tax gap, which is 23% of the theoretical liability—I hope that everyone can understand that. That £1 billion a year shows that this is big business. It is a profitable and lucrative business, and we are all paying. We are paying twice, because we are losing the £1 billion and then clearing up the waste, so it is a double whammy for us—it is maddening.

[Calum Miller]

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.

[Mary Creagh]

I am in passionate agreement with the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure is everyone in the Chamber and watching at home. I would say, however, that big businesses use all available resources to protect their income. They are sophisticated businesses—some are registered companies—and they have their own ways of making life difficult for law enforcement. We are in a bit of a David and Goliath situation. They have been very good at doing that. This is a complex crime, and it takes a while to unravel.

We continue to work with the Treasury on the best approach to fiscal policies to tackle and reduce waste crime. The joint unit for waste crime is a UK-wide partnership, working with the Environment Agency, HMRC, the National Crime Agency, the police and others. It shares intelligence, powers and resources to disrupt waste criminals. The unit, which was launched in 2024 and uses proceeds of crime action and asset freezes, has doubled in size thanks to our extra funding. Anyone with intelligence about waste crime can report it to Crimestoppers on 0800 555111.

My message to our constituents around the country is that waste crime is an absolute top priority for the Government. My message to the waste criminals is we are coming for you and we are going to shut you down. My message to the legitimate waste operators is thank you for your work maintaining safe, healthy and clean environments in our towns and putting pride in our places. Let us all ensure that we work together to create a truly circular economy in which this sort of terrible crime is unthinkable and its perpetrators are put out of business.

Question put and agreed to.

Illegal Waste: Organised Crime

Calum Miller Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the powers, funding and staffing of the Environment Agency to tackle the work and impact of organised criminal gangs illegally dumping huge quantities of waste in the countryside.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

Let me first convey apologies from the Minister for Nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh). She would have loved to be here for the urgent question, but she is currently attending COP30 in Brazil. In her absence, I will be doing my absolute best to answer all the questions from Members about this important issue.

The British countryside is one of our nation’s greatest treasures. From rolling hills to tranquil woodlands, it is both beautiful and essential to our wellbeing and our health. That is why it is so deplorable when waste criminals scar the landscape with complete disregard, damaging precious ecosystems and undermining our communities. This Government are committed to tackling waste crime, which is a blight on local communities and the environment and damages legitimate businesses. The Environment Agency has a wide range of powers, which it uses in its enforcement work against organised crime in waste and other environmental areas. It has strong powers of entry and evidence gathering, is able to authorise mobile communications data, and has authority to use covert human intelligence sources. It is one of only three non-police agencies to have access to police databases.

The Joint Unit for Waste Crime, hosted by the Environment Agency, brings together the Environment Agency, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, the police, waste regulators from across the UK and other operational partners to share intelligence and tasking in order to disrupt and prevent serious organised waste crime. The Environment Agency’s economic crime unit targets the financial motivation behind offending, and uses financial mechanisms to inhibit the ability of offenders, including organised crime groups, to operate.

This Government have also increased the Environment Agency’s funding, including the amount available to tackle illegal waste operators, after years of frozen budgets and real-terms cuts. We have raised the budget for waste crime enforcement by 50% this year to £15.6 million, but we plan to go further still to tighten the net on waste criminals with policy and regulatory reforms to close loopholes exploited by them. We are fundamentally reforming the waste carriers, brokers and dealers system, tightening waste permit exemptions and introducing digital waste-tracking, and we are determined to clean up Britain and end the throwaway society.

[Calum Miller]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr. Speaker for granting the urgent question.

I recently knocked on the door of Billy Burnell, the chair of the Kidlington Angling Society in my constituency. Billy showed me photographs and videos that took my breath away. They revealed the obscene scale of the illegal waste dump in my constituency. The site is approximately 150 metres long, 10 metres wide and up to 12 metres high. It has to be seen to be believed. Over the weekend, the situation has become much more urgent. Heavy rain has caused the River Cherwell to rise by 4 feet or so. Water now laps against the waste that can be seen floating towards the Cherwell. This incident highlights the fact that organised criminal gangs are carefully planning operations to dump industrial waste in the countryside. They gain millions of pounds in illegal earnings without a thought for the health of people or animals, or the damage to soil, water or air. It concerns me deeply that the Environment Agency is not equipped to deal with this unfolding environmental disaster. For example, the agency recently informed those in the other place that six other sites had experienced waste dumping on the same scale as the disaster at Hoad’s Wood in Kent, but the site in my constituency was not on that list.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, and most urgently for my constituents, will Ministers follow the example of the previous Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who, on 22 May 2024, issued a directive to the Environment Agency to clear up the illegal dump at Hoad’s Wood—and issue a similar urgent directive for the clearance of the dump in my constituency before it is too late for the River Cherwell? Secondly, will Ministers undertake a root-and-branch review, independent of the Department, of the Government’s response to waste crime? Finally, in the meantime, does the Minister support calls from Liberal Democrats for the National Crime Agency, in the most serious cases, to take over the investigation?

[Emma Hardy]

The Government are aware of the appalling case of illegal dumping in the hon. Member’s constituency, and I absolutely share his constituents’ anger. I, too, have seen the photographs and videos, and it is no wonder that he feels moved to bring forward this urgent question. There is a criminal investigation under way, and an Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further fly-tipping. The local resilience forum has been notified to explore opportunities for multi-agency support.

I understand that the Minister with responsibility for nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), has offered to meet the hon. Gentleman when she returns from COP, and I know that she is keen to fulfil that offer. I do not want to pre-empt the findings of the criminal investigation, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Environment Agency is working very closely with local partners, and that the offer of continuing the conversation outside the Chamber is there for him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calum Miller Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I commend my hon. Friend’s constituents for their important work, particularly Derby city council’s Streetpride champions. Their work is supported by this Government, who are committed to helping councils to do more: seizing and crushing the vehicles of fly-tippers; forcing fly-tippers to clear up their own mess; and bringing in new five-year prison sentences for those transporting waste illegally.

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

Criminals have dumped a mountain of illegal plastic waste, 20 feet high and weighing hundreds of tonnes, in my constituency on the floodplain adjacent to the River Cherwell. River levels are rising and heat maps show that the waste is heating up, raising the risk of fire. The Environment Agency says that it has limited resources for enforcement, and the estimated cost of removal is greater than the entire annual budget of the local district council. Will the Minister meet me urgently to discuss what support the Government can offer to avoid an environmental disaster?

[Mary Creagh]

We inherited a whole system failure in the waste industry, from end to end with failures at every level. That is why there has been an epidemic of illegal fly-tipping. It is now the work of serious and organised crime. We have a waste crime unit that has undertaken in the last financial year—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members stop chuntering they might learn something. It has undertaken 21 money laundering investigations, six account-freezing orders and 13 confiscation orders. However, I am aware of this incident and I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it. I understand that a restriction order was served to prevent further access and tipping at the site.

Independent Water Commission

Calum Miller Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

Well, the answer to that question is very quick: yes, it does.

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

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register as I am an office holder on the all-party parliamentary water group. Last year, at the first Prime Minister’s questions of the Session, I drew the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that Thames Water had pumped sewage into the River Evenlode for 2,600 hours in the previous year. I called then for the scrapping of Ofwat, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State has listened to my party and so many campaigners by doing so today. Thames Water has pumped a further 1,000 hours-worth of sewage into the same river in the intervening period, however, which is why the Evenlode Catchment Partnership has taken to citizen science to try to measure those figures. The Secretary of State set out that he wishes to halve the number of spills, but why is he not seeking to halve their volume and quantity, for that is what is killing our rivers?

[Steve Reed]

Our target for sewage reduction is the most ambitious target put forward by any Government in our country’s history, and I am very proud of that. It is an important stepping-stone to restoring our rivers, lakes and seas to the good health and purity that many of us will remember from when we were younger.

Thames Water

Calum Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Part of making the sector more investable is ensuring that we have a robust, clear and predictable regulatory framework, which is what Sir Jon Cunliffe is working towards. The hon. Gentleman may have had a chance to look at the interim report that Sir Jon published today; if he has not, I recommend it to him. That is the way we create an investable water sector and bring in the money that will allow us to fix our broken water system once and for all.

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

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My constituent Bruno lives in Charlton-on-Otmoor. When it rains heavily, sewage flows into his garden, which is within sight of a pumping station that fails every single time. One third of bills paid to Thames Water by Bruno and other customers is used to service the company’s debt; that money should instead be invested, and should go towards improving pumping stations like the one near Bruno’s garden. Why will the Secretary of State not recognise that Thames is financially unviable, bring it into special administration, write down the debt and ensure that the future company serves the public interest?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman points with a graphic example to what happens when we face the scale of regulatory failure that developed untroubled under the previous Government. That is why Sir Jon Cunliffe has brought forward his report today, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will read; I hope he will also provide Sir Jon with feedback, which he is asking for ahead of his final report in a month’s time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have helped to secure £104 billion of private sector investment by the conclusion of the price review period. That will be used to upgrade exactly the kind of facilities that he points to, which are letting down his constituents and mine, and those of everyone else in the House.

Sewage

Calum Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for opening this debate for the Liberal Democrats, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am an office holder in the all-party parliamentary water group.

It is one day short of nine months since the first Prime Minister’s Question Time of this Parliament. On that day, it was my privilege to pose the first question to the Prime Minister, and I asked him about the levels of sewage being pumped by Thames Water into the River Evenlode in my constituency. He said that

“Customers should not pay the price for mismanagement by water companies”,

and added that

“it falls to this Government…to fix the mess of that failure.”—[Official Report, 24 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 661.]

However, since that date, Thames Water has pumped sewage into the Evenlode for a further 1,050 hours, while hiking bills for my constituents by over 30% on 1 April. As such, I regret that I cannot see that the plan put forward by the Government is yet working. I urge them to work with we Liberal Democrats to go further and faster.

The problem is that pumping sewage into our rivers and waterways is now routine—indeed, it is so routine that it happens even when there has been no excess rainwater or storms. On the River Ray, for example, there were seven and a half hours of sewage-spilling on 9 April. There was no rain that day, and neither had there been any in the previous week. This so-called dry spilling shows that the regulatory arrangements are a joke. My constituents were shocked to learn from Lib Dem freedom of information requests that Ofwat had not issued a single fine to water companies for their management of sewage treatment since 2021. In the past year, I have joined local residents and campaigners to participate in citizen science projects with the Evenlode Catchment Partnership and RiverWatch to look at the quality of our water. On every measure, the Rivers Evenlode, Ray and Cherwell are severely contaminated.

At the same time, Thames Water is failing its domestic customers in my constituency. These include Mark Hamilton in Garden City, Kidlington, who purchased pumps to try to keep sewage out of his and his elderly neighbour’s home, but they were not enough; Colin Fletcher in Bladon, who had sewage flood into his garden in September and still awaits a repair from Thames Water; Ros Frangopoulus in Chesterton, who saw sewage lap against her house walls and was left with faeces and toilet paper in her garden when the water receded; and Martin Johnson in Yarnton, who could not use his toilet as it routinely overflowed into his home with sewage and now has a tanker stationed next to his house, loudly pumping 24/7 while Thames Water takes months to agree a sewer repair.

In short, we have a company that pollutes our rivers and waterways and the homes and gardens of its customers, while all the time rewarding its executives handsomely and spending an increasing share of billpayers’ money to service excessive debt. The Prime Minister told me that his Government would fix this mess, but I regret that the Water (Special Measures) Act does not go nearly far enough. We need a powerful, effective and public-interested clean water authority to clean up the water companies’ act.

Thames Water: Government Support

Calum Miller Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. My constituents in Bicester and Woodstock are fed up of Thames Water providing a poor service yet continually hiking the charges for it. I am thinking of constituents like Martin, who lives in Bladon, whose toilet floods regularly because of a collapsed sewer and who now has a tanker parked outside his house 24/7 because Thames Water has so delayed making the repairs. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a reset at Thames Water after years of financial and operational failure? Does he further agree that the Government are quite wrong to be resisting special administration, which would be the best way to ensure that the financial mismanagement of the past sits rightly with the vulture funds and bondholders and not with future bill payers?

[Luke Taylor]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the burden must lie on the vulture funds, and his comments are as wise as the residents of his Bicester and Woodstock constituency.

We Liberal Democrats have long called for action to reform this lousy company. It has been clear to us for a very long time that the current position is untenable. Recognising that it is fundamentally broken, we have no fear in stating exactly what we need: to rip it up and restructure it, so that it can finally work for our constituents.

To make my argument, I will begin by touching on the sheer mess that the company is in. Naturally, many of the points I make will come as no shock to the hon. Members across this House whose residents are flooding their inboxes as Thames Water floods our rivers with sewage. I will then outline why the Government must, with the utmost urgency, put this failing water company into special administration. Finally, I will argue that the only way that this Government can support Thames Water is by scrapping Ofwat and finally getting a regulator that uses its teeth.

Thames Water is knee-deep in a nightmare of its own making. In 2024, it set a new record by pumping 50% more untreated sewage into our waterways. In 2023, the company was named the worst performer in England and completely failed to meet its own performance metrics. In 2022, it made an extra £500 million in profit despite pipe bursts during a heatwave that caused a regional drought and a hosepipe ban. Untreated sewage now pumps through waterways in southern England like it is part of the furniture.

I fear that, were it not for the new Thames Tideway tunnel, which I was fortunate enough to visit recently, our river would be destined for the unmanageable decline that turns waterways into open sewers, like something straight out of a Dickens novel. Humans can choose not to go in the water, but flora and fauna have no such luxury. We are advised not to let our dogs swim in the river, because they may die from the pollution. Rare chalk stream habitats are being decimated by floods of untreated waste. These precious ecosystems are dying. They have no choice but to endure the toxic chemicals from Thames Water’s outflow pipes.

Thames Water’s sewage problems stem from a systemic failure to update its outdated, mostly Victorian infrastructure. High-risk infrastructure is given ad hoc fixes, with zero communication to customers. The company’s approach to fixing water facilities in Southwark, in London, is a prime example of this reckless approach. Last year, the chief executive had the audacity to blame excess storm overflows on climate change. Yes, climate change is real, and it is causing more intense rainfall and more regular storms, but let me ask Thames Water this question: how long have we known about this, and why did Thames Water not invest annually in its crumbling infrastructure to handle this well-known challenge?

Instead of prioritising the environment and local communities, Thames Water chose to line the pockets of its executives, its shareholders and the vulture funds that owned it. In 2023, the company paid £196 million in dividends, and over the past four years £62 million has been paid out to company executives in bonuses. This has been done at a time when the company is drowning in debt, which currently stands at a whopping £19 billion. Startlingly, more than 25% of customer water bill payments are spent on paying interest on the company’s debt. That is our money paying for the company’s mistakes.

Now, we are told not to worry; everything is in hand because US private equity group KKR—Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.—has been selected as the preferred bidder to take control of Thames Water. This is not a British company, and it has no stake in British communities. We have no reason to believe that a private equity group based in the United States will act as though it has any obligation other than to itself. Northumbrian Water, in which KKR has a significant stake, was responsible for more than 40,000 sewage spills in 2024. What will change if it takes over Thames Water? Enough is enough. The Government must step up.

Rural Communities: Government Support

Calum Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is right. It is long overdue. I have had detailed conversations already with colleagues in the Home Office about how we can take this issue forward, and there will be further announcements in due course. We have been looking at a range of issues that are important to rural areas, but we recognise that there are very specific challenges, a number of which have been touched on today. We also know that direct support through funding programmes is important. That is why we announced last week that up to £33 million will be directed to the rural England prosperity fund and used to help businesses in rural areas to expand. That will create jobs, kick-start the rural economy and help to improve local infrastructure and essential services.

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

Many of my constituents suffer some of the worst mobile and broadband coverage in the country. That is a particular concern for vulnerable households, who are no longer able to access copper-wire telephony and are forced to rely on internet protocols. What are the Government doing to make sure that vulnerable households still have access to phones in an emergency?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise that important point, which I will come to in a moment.

I was about to mention the £5 million in funding for capital grants for the refurbishment and development of community-owned assets such as village halls and community centres. That funding will also support rural housing enablers, who are very important in bringing forward sites to provide affordable housing. We are also providing further funding for Actions with Communities in Rural England to provide advice and support to rural communities and voluntary groups such as those that I mentioned visiting recently.

I recognise the descriptions from a number of colleagues of the need to travel further to access work, education and training. We fully appreciate that that can be much more costly and time-consuming, leading to the frustrations that have been described. I listened closely to my near-neighbour, the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), when she spoke about local bus services. She will know that the mayor of the combined authority in Cambridgeshire has used powers to move to franchising for bus services. We have set out wider plans for the future in our bus services Bill, which will give local leaders the tools they need to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of the communities they serve.

The digital issue, which the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has just raised, is central to our view of the future. It was also highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill). Through the shared rural network, which has helped to deliver 4G mobile coverage to 95% of the UK a year ahead of target, we are continuing to deliver 4G connectivity to places where there is the kind of limited coverage that has been described. We know that there are still parts that lag behind, and we will work with the industry to deliver improved coverage to those communities via the shared rural network.

Climate and Nature Bill

Calum Miller Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I pay huge tribute to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for securing this debate and giving these vital issues the parliamentary and ministerial attention they deserve. I know from my own time as a new MP, back in 2006, running the Children’s Food Bill through the parliamentary process, that it is a very steep learning curve. It is clear that there is much to learn about this process, and about how progressive change takes place in this House. In that case, I withdrew my Children’s Food Bill because I knew that the Government were going to do something later that would implement the things I wanted to do.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I am going to make a couple of opening remarks, and then I will take interventions.

For more than two decades, the hon. Lady has been a fearless environmental campaigner. Rowing the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, she understands better than any of us our planet’s beauty, strength and vulnerability to climate change, ocean acidification and global warming—as Storm Éowyn rages across the country, with the island of Ireland under a red alert, it is certainly not a day for anybody to be out on the Irish sea.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the twin issues of climate and nature with the hon. Lady today. As a former Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, I share her passion for measurable, specific, time-bound targets with clear Government plans to underpin them in order to achieve progress. What we can say, and what the Climate Change Committee has said, is that the previous Government were strong on long-term targets but very short on interim targets to get us to those places. We cannot will the ends without willing the means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend makes a great point, and I thank him for the sterling work he has done campaigning on those issues, not just in Leeds but nationally. He is right that when it comes to politics, it is all about show, not tell. I left this House in 2019, and these are subjects that I cared about even when I was not a Member of Parliament. The climate and nature crisis was what drove me to put myself forward for election again, because this is the place where we can make things happen. I heard what the hon. Member for South Cotswolds said about placards and protest, and about how the art of politics is about governing and choosing.

[Calum Miller]

It is clear that the Government do not wish to divide on this issue—in either meaning of that word—so can the Minister please reassure my constituents who desperately want to see the Bill adopted that there will be meaningful change in the Government’s approach and, in particular, binding commitments on the nature provisions, so that the backsliding we saw from the previous Government does not continue under this one?

[Mary Creagh]

I give the hon. Member my assurances on that. I want to make it absolutely clear that this is a long-standing problem. We have heard from both the Father of the House and the former baby of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). [Interruption.] Not the Father of the House—the almost Father of the House. From a grandfather to an almost baby.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Calum Miller Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The Conservatives had 14 years to fix the system and they chose to do absolutely nothing. They have left it to the incoming Labour Government to clear up the mess they left behind.

The truth is that the water sector needs a complete reset. It needs reform that puts customers and the environment first for once, and a new partnership with the Government to invest for the future and upgrade our water infrastructure.

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

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

[Steve Reed]

There is a process by which any company would go into administration. That situation has not yet arisen with any company. The Government are, of course, closely monitoring the situation with Thames Water, but as things stand the company remains viable and I reassure consumers in that area that there is no threat, and would be no threat, to water supply in any circumstance.

The Government have a three-stage plan to deliver change and bring in the biggest ever investment in our water sector. That started with the initial reforms I announced in the week following the general election. It continues with the Bill before the House today. It will be completed with the water commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, and further legislation that will follow on from that.

In my first week as Environment Secretary, I met water company chief executives and announced a set of immediate reforms to start the process of change. Money earmarked for investment to upgrade water infrastructure will now be ringfenced, so it cannot be diverted for other purposes, including paying bonuses or dividends. If it is not spent on what it was intended for, it will be refunded back to customers as discounts on their bills. Water companies agreed to formally change their company objectives to place customers and the environment at the heart of everything they do. They will set up powerful new customer panels to scrutinise key decisions. Customers who face frequent water outages—like the constituents my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) talked about—or contaminated tap water, as residents and businesses experienced in Brixham in Devon, will now receive more generous compensation and they will get it faster.

We promised in our manifesto to put water companies under special measures to clean up our water. The core provisions of the Bill do precisely that by strengthening the powers of the regulators and holding water companies to account for poor performance.