John Milne
MP for Horsham · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“Developers with options for the land bid against each other, with a price based on the highest possible outcome, but achieving that price means them having to build zero social rent homes and lots of highly priced, executive homes. That is a bizarre case of competition only ever driving prices up, not down.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. First, I thank the Minister for his assistance in progressing the local plan in my constituency. Horsham faced a unique problem with water neutrality, which the previous Government showed no sign of ever grappling with, and I am grateful for his personal involvement in that.”
“Local authorities have to take the word of statutory consultees as gospel; even where authorities know perfectly well that land will flood, if the Environment Agency says it will not, that is the end of it.”
“That formula is a terrible way to assess local housing need in practice, but its worst aspect is how it destroys local authorities’ negotiating power against developers.”
“It is astonishing that the decision for West Sussex has been postponed yet again. I understand that local council leaders received the information only this morning, in a six-minute phone call during which they were not allowed to ask questions.”
“The issue of enforcement is a serious one. An incinerator in south London has breached its air pollution limits almost 1,000 times in 18 months, but nothing has been done by the EA—no court proceedings, no licence suspension, nothing. A similar plant is planned for my constituency. Does the hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for John Milne, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 12.
“Therefore, this power could be applied inaccurately or incorrectly—it is inevitable that in a large organisation there will be mistakes—so I am concerned that the power seems both very extreme and, as I said before, not generally applied. It should be generally applied in order to be legitimate.”
“In the light of the Minister’s confirmation that this power does refer both to error and fraud, I am all the more concerned. Removing a driving licence can mean the removal of a means of income. It is almost like the old-fashioned debtors’ prison: someone is in debt, so they are put in prison, and then they cannot get out of their debt. It is a Catch-22 situation. I understand that the power has been used regarding the Child Maintenance Service. I have a case in Horsham where a constituent feels that he is being unreasonably demanded of; he is in trouble because he will potentially lose his job because of just such an order.”
“A few months ago, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said she would “move heaven and earth” to try to push that take-up higher, because we never seem to get past that 65% to 66% level. In that context, this feels like a retrograde measure, likely to depress rather than to encourage take-up.”
“In that context, the title of this Bill covers “fraud and error”, not “fraud and genuine human mistake”—which, frankly, is what goes on a lot of the time. I say that particularly in the context of our amendment 30 relating to pension credit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has described, pension credit is an area of relatively low fraud. However, there are more elderly and vulnerable people who are more likely to make an error, particularly in the context of the removal of winter fuel payments. There is a little extra onus on pension credit, and we are trying to push greater take-up. About a third of eligible people do not claim pension credit. Part of the reason is that many of them feel intimidated by the process and the feeling that they are getting something that they should not have. It is fear that holds them back.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. It is important for us all in this place to remember that, although we make legislation with the best of intentions, it does not always play out perfectly in practice. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I heard evidence a few days ago from a number of claimants who have had a very bad experience at the hands of the DWP. Their overall theme was one of antagonism and hostility from the service, and they described a number of serious problems. That is the attitude that, unfortunately, many claimants and many people across the country have. They think that the objective of the DWP is to catch them out rather than to help them—rightly or wrongly, that is what they feel.”
“Excluding that now does not affect the tax take or the potential benefit for the Government, and it seems an unnecessary and disproportionate power. I urge the Minister to reconsider the inclusion of that measure.”
“That was before my time and I was not even in the country, so I am afraid I cannot answer that question. It is very important that we should be pushing take-up, not sending it into reverse. For that reason, I ask the Minister to reconsider the need to include pension credit; that the upside—the amount of money that might be recovered from fraudulent claims—is relatively modest compared with the potential downside of putting more people off claiming. Regarding amendment 29, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, we have heard from many witnesses, such as Big Brother Watch, about the risk of mission creep and these powers being extended in too many directions. It seems to me completely unnecessary to simply give the Minister of the day the power to add whatever benefits he or she feels like at that time. There is no need for it.”
“As the Minister described, the powers in the Bill are already used by other parts of Government. Can she provide us with any evidence of their success? Are they doing the job they were made for? Have they led to a change in behaviour in the way potential fraudsters set up accounts or attempt to disguise beneficiary interests?”
“When local communities directly reap the rewards from community energy projects, it not only puts power—in every sense of the word—in the community’s hands, but demonstrates the benefits of a greener energy transition, which is important for our net zero targets and the planet. I urge the Government to put public consent at the heart of their energy strategy—indeed, I could say the same about their planning strategy, but that is a whole other debate. The best way to do that is to empower community energy schemes. Never mind Great British Energy, I want to see Great Horsham Energy and, indeed, Great Everywhere Energy.”
“It has had council backing for a community-funded project to put solar panels on the Bridge leisure centre for some time, and I am sure it will happen at some point, but it has taken a few years already and the whole process is much more difficult than it needs to be. We need a community electricity export guarantee to create a statutory right for sites with capacity below 5 MW that generate low-carbon electricity to export their electricity on their terms to an existing electricity supplier. We need a community electricity supplier services scheme to create a requirement on existing larger energy suppliers to work with community schemes so that they can sell the power they generate back to local customers. Encouraging community energy is the democratic way to determine local land use.”
“Furthermore, community energy companies have to sell the energy they produce at a fraction of its genuine retail value to registered suppliers. Absurdly, local communities are frequently unable to buy energy directly from the solar farm or windmill they can see from their windows. Communities are obliged to sell their energy back to the grid at a low price and buy it back at the marginal rate of gas, with transmission costs that had no need to be included. That is despite the fact that some community energy projects achieve a 75% reduction in per kilowatt-hour pricing. Those obstacles are part of the reason why Community Energy Horsham in my constituency is struggling to get its solar energy project across the line.”
“The great advantage of community energy is that it is generated locally, requires no unpopular transmission systems and benefits the very people who have to put up with the local infrastructure and the potential loss of green space. The best way to get local consent for a new solar or wind farm is to let local people benefit from the energy directly. Unfortunately, neither the previous Government nor this one have done enough to encourage the community energy industry. It remains too costly and bureaucratic for community energy companies to become energy providers. There is no sliding scale of fees to reflect the size or capacity of an energy project, which effectively rules out smaller enterprises.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. This country has been in need of a coherent national energy policy for a long time, as the lack of one has left us in a difficult place. Figures from June 2024 show that UK energy prices are 27% higher than those of our EU counterparts. That has made energy-intensive industries unviable and is a major problem for all of us. Many millions of households in England live in fuel poverty, and total energy debt across the country is estimated to be £3.8 billion—indeed, in my constituency, it is one of the biggest causes of people slipping into debt. The part of the solution that I want to focus on today is community energy. It is welcome that the Government are getting behind renewable energy projects, but they are paying little attention to gaining public consent.”
“It is a fundamental principle that legislation should not be retrospective, but here we have a tax that requires farmers to have acted seven years before they ever knew the tax was going to exist. It is fundamentally wrong and I ask the Government to withdraw the measure.”
“I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In my constituency, we are lucky enough to have a district council that is very well run and very well funded. For that reason, we have been able to preserve, for example, a theatre that is run and owned by the council, which would surely have been lost if it had been exposed to the bottomless pit of SEN budgets and adult social care. I am concerned that the loss of a two-tier system means that our wonderful institutions will be at risk unless they receive some kind of protection. Can the Secretary of State offer us anything for the future when we become a unitary?”
“I thank the hon. Member for securing this very important debate. In my Horsham constituency, a family has approached me who are kinship carers for their grandson. They feel they are discriminated against in a system that gives more resources and attention to children in care than to kinship carers. Given the shortage of places in foster care, does the hon. Member agree that we need to do everything we can to balance up the support that kinship carers receive?”
“In my constituency of Horsham, food bank usage increased by 25% last year, and it has increased by 700% over six years. In the light of that evidence of the pressures, will the Government consider putting a minimum level on universal credit?”
“In particular, we need to be sure that the savings predicted do not come from the blameless victims of departmental error, as happened with the carer’s allowance overpayment scandal. It is of huge importance that fraud be reduced, but until we are sure that we have learned the lessons of the past, we run the risk of damaging people’s lives for insufficient benefit. We are at risk of making the same mistakes again, but with fewer checks and balances. The sentiment of the Bill is welcome, but there are risks attached. I am concerned that it builds a narrative that assumes that the claimant is the guilty party, when it could be the Department that is at fault. I therefore call on the Government to apply all possible care before launching new regulations that, at present, would amount to a matter of trial and error.”
“Given that access to banking information is estimated to recover just 1.4% of the Government’s annual loss to fraud and error, do these powers of forced withdrawal represent a proportionate action? Before introducing new powers, it might make more sense for the Government to increase the efficacy of existing requirements on third parties to report suspicious activity, and for HMRC to share banking data on an annual basis. The Government have asserted that the Bill will save the public purse £1.5 billion, but in the absence of an impact statement, how do we know? If the DWP is to have the power to take people’s money, suspend driving licences and enter homes, we should at least be very confident that it is worth it.”
“What would have happened to those carers, who are paid very little for the huge service to society that they provide, if the powers in the Bill had been in place during those five years? They would probably have faced forced withdrawals from their bank account, the possible removal of their driving licence or even forced entry to their home by the DWP. The Bill will give increased powers to access private bank accounts. This requires careful consideration from a civil liberties perspective. However, the DWP already has the power to compel third parties to share data where criminal activity is suspected. The new powers appear to reduce the need for prior evidence and simply grant access at will.”
“I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say that putting a stop to fraud of any kind is welcome, especially at a time when public money is scarce. However, many of my Horsham constituents have contacted me to say that the powers outlined in the Bill are very far-reaching and, if abused, could have hugely detrimental effects on benefit claimants through no fault of their own. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) said, the carer’s allowance repayment scandal shows exactly what can go wrong when the state has high-level powers over debt recovery. Due to departmental error, not the claimants’ error, there were more than 250,000 cases of overpayment to carers in the last five years of the Conservative Government. That is an enormous number.”
“Q13. In my constituency of Horsham, my local council faces a tax bill of half a million pounds from the rise in national insurance, and my local hospice, St Catherine’s, has had to mothball a brand-new ward. What message does the Prime Minister have for all the public services that are outright losers at the hands of the very tax that is supposed to save them?”
“There are obstacles, particularly in rural areas such as the villages in my constituency of Horsham. I support the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and my constituent Jane by joining their call for the Government to take action. We should see an impact assessment of the various graduated driving schemes, many of which are already in operation around the world, so we can make the right choice for the 60% of the public who, as polls suggest, already support them. Finally, I thank Jane for bringing her heartbreaking story to me. It cannot be easy to campaign with a wound so recent. I would like Jane to know that it is only because of individuals such as her that we are able to have this debate, and perhaps because of them, change will come.”
“I persuaded my son not to drive with his friends in his car for the first month...I felt I could not request this for longer when his friends didn’t have such rules and it wasn’t law.” I remember myself, when I passed my test and first went out with a group of teenage friends, how intimidating that was. Why has the UK not taken action already? Under the coalition Government, the potential adoption of graduated driving licences was discussed, but various issues arose. One problem was the impact on less affluent young people, who may be more adversely affected by restricted driving hours—for example, working 17-year-olds who need access to a car to work at night or for early-hours shift work. How can young people who rely on carpooling to cut transport costs do so if there are passenger limitations?”
“I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for securing this important debate. Just a few weeks after my election, I received a letter from my constituent, Jane. She is a mother who has had to endure the unthinkable pain of burying her 17-year-old son. Will died in a collision in June. He was a smart and popular young man, with a passion for judo, maths and computers. My heart goes out to Jane and her family. Jane’s son had passed his test just one month prior to his death. She told me: “As a mother, I did everything I could to protect him.”
“Will the Minister confirm what compensating measures the Government will take, if airport expansion is to go ahead, to ensure adherence to carbon budgets? They must have already been agreed on by now.”
“On the funding of local arts and theatres, my constituency has a wonderful local theatre called The Capitol, which is owned and managed by the district council. However, our council is likely to be merged with some debt-laden neighbouring councils, with some of the responsibilities my hon. Friend has outlined, and that poses a severe threat to the theatre’s long-term survival. Does he agree that the Government need to look at inventive ways to reverse the decline in local funding? One option would be to emulate France’s patronage law, which provides for 60% tax relief on donations to art organisations.”
“The key stewards of our landscape for hundreds of years have been our farmers: no one has done more to make our countryside as beautiful as it is or has a bigger stake in protecting its health for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree that the path to net zero and sustainable local food production lies through our farming community, with the support provided by the Bill? If we are to get the best from our farmers, it is time to use rather more carrots and fewer sticks.”
“Farmers have made their inheritance tax plans in good faith, based on existing rules. In effect, the measure is a retrospective change to tax law, so will the Minister agree to at the very least delay its implementation until the effects are properly understood by both farmers and the Government?”
“Desperate to rescue his future, Sarah is now paying almost £500 a month for private tuition, and that is not the only cost; her son’s removal from full-time education means she no longer qualifies for the child element of universal credit, despite being his main care provider. Sarah is a single parent on a low, part-time income, and these are almost impossible obstacles to overcome. I recognise that this was not the present Government’s fault, but it is now their responsibility.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on calling this vital debate. EHCP provision is a national crisis, but how it plays out locally varies enormously. In East Sussex, 87% of EHCPs are issued within the 20-week target, but hop across the border to my area of West Sussex and it is just 3.6%—I thought that was the worst statistic out there, until I heard what is going on in Essex. This crisis is destroying people’s lives. Take the example of Sarah—not her real name—from my Horsham constituency. Sarah’s son was offered a place at Crawley college, where it was claimed the post-16 SEND provision would be just right for him. Within weeks, the college said that they did not have the resources to support him and that he did not meet the minimum grades. He was excluded.”
“Last week I met with a GP in my constituency, and she described very much what the hon. Gentleman is talking about: at the end of the day, after blitzing through 25 patients, back to back, she sometimes found herself sitting in her car, simply too tired to drive home for half an hour. Does he agree that we are expecting too much of our medical staff in relying on their dedication to go beyond the call of duty?”
“On the hon. Member’s earlier point about Age UK, it estimates that just in my Horsham constituency it will cost £150,000 per year to cope with the changes and the extra charge. Age UK is not a business and cannot raise its prices; it can only cut its service. Does the hon. Member agree that when one in five pensioners are adjudged to be living in poverty, this is the wrong time for such a measure?”
“T2. A farmer in my constituency tells me that even in a good year he is lucky to see much beyond £20,000 in profit. With margins as wafer thin as that, regular farming barely qualifies as investable at all. The risk of losing a huge slice of that farm to inheritance tax at random intervals would not only go to putting this generation out of business, but go a long way towards ensuring that they can never be replaced. Does the Minister agree that this measure—”
“The process as it stands involves a significant conflict of interest. I would also like to emphasise that the airspace modernisation process is entirely separate from the second runway application at Gatwick, although it is going on at the same time and naturally gets confused in the public mind. The airspace modernisation process will go ahead whether or not Gatwick obtains permission to expand and is in fact part of a national process also being conducted at 19 other airports across the UK.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential impact of the Gatwick airspace modernisation review on local communities. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. My constituency of Horsham lies to the west and south of Gatwick airport. I have brought today’s debate in order to represent growing concerns from residents regarding the airspace modernisation process around Gatwick, which is part of the future airspace strategy implementation south, known as FASI-S. Before I start, I would like to make it clear that I wholly support the modernisation process in principle. It is a vital step if we are to improve the efficiency of civil aviation, cut flight times and reduce carbon emissions. What I do question, however, is how we will get there.”
“The value of that increase in capacity is enormous, potentially hundreds of millions of pounds over the long term. Why should the change in flight path matter so much to my constituents? Because the sharper turns mean that thousands of flights a year will henceforth directly overfly the villages of Rusper, Warnham and Slinfold at a relatively low height, radically increasing noise pollution, loss of sleep and other negatives.”
“They are worried about the impacts the proposals will have on public health, the objectivity of the process itself and whether the three shortlisted choices actually represent any kind of choice at all. The proposed changes all involve using a new, previously not overflown flight path. Currently, planes taking off to the west climb for about 6k out before turning south to the coast. But the new route makes a much earlier turn south at about 2k out. The net effect of this change is to separate the western and southern route paths much earlier than currently, which enables a reduction in the interval between flights from two minutes down to 60 seconds. That in turn would enable the airport operator to build significantly more take-off slots into their schedules.”
“Indeed, as I will come on to, noise is the primary issue at stake here. Gatwick Airport Ltd, referred to as GAL, is a private company. As the operator at Gatwick, it has been tasked with masterminding the airspace review process. It is subject to oversight from a public body, the Civil Aviation Authority. Similarly, Heathrow and other airports across the country are carrying out their own strategy implementation consultation processes for their own areas. The assumption is that each airport knows its own patch better than anyone else, so they are the best qualified to do the job. However, in the case of Gatwick, serious concerns have been raised. Now that we have reached stage three, which is the public consultation phase, many of my constituents and parish councils are concerned.”
“Is it credible that by fluke all three have exactly the same financial benefit to GAL? It is no wonder that many residents have come to suspect that profit and share price is being put before people’s interests. The absence of an independent member in the design process leaves the outcome open to a perception of bias, at the very least. Perhaps the CAA has recognised this risk, because it proposes to set up a new UK-wide airspace change service that would serve to remedy the problem of “scarce expertise in the industry”.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Indeed, there is a suspicion that part of the motive behind this is to enable an expansion, which has not been permitted yet. In this new design, flights would be concentrated over a much narrower band of countryside. The introduction of satellite-based navigation, which is another part of the modernisation process, also has the effect of pushing flights along the same narrow route. GAL started out its review with hundreds of possible designs, but for the public consultation it has narrowed it down to just three. All three make that sharp turn to the south at 2k out. All three add millions to GAL’s potential income. All three create massive noise pollution for Rusper, Warnham and Slinfold. They are not three different options but one and the same.”
“Although that may be achieved as a whole in the FASI-S project, the reduction in emissions is largely achieved by the changes made above 7,000 feet. The emissions and their impact under 7,000 feet are simply not being analysed and nor are the potential harms, which are not even mentioned in stage two of GAL’s FASI-S consultation. The consultation process as a whole lacks transparency. There are many questions that I believe the public need answers to. No defined methodology for shortlisting flightpath options has been put forward for public consultation. Why is GAL allowed to pick and choose proposed flightpaths without independent review or scrutiny? As stated, the options show little or no variation. It is not three choices—”
“The impact was immediately disastrous, causing a storm of complaints—so much so that the CEO at the time said that the trial route would never be used again. Yet here we are, 10 years later, and ADNID mark II has arrived. Although Gatwick claims that these proposals would remove traffic from the existing pathway population swathe, not a single population centre would actually benefit from the change. For the first time, the options being presented to the public consultation bring in thousands of residents who were not previously overflown, contradicting GAL’s own policy of deconfliction. The forceful objections raised in 2014 are being ignored. Gatwick’s route selection cannot be justified on environmental grounds either. Airspace modernisation is designed to reduce carbon emissions from air travel through more efficient flying.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I am aware that he has been fighting this cause for a very long time. I certainly agree with his comments and the need for a truly national process on this. The problem is identified by the CAA as a “scarce expertise in the industry…leading to inconsistent standards and variable quality” in airport change process submissions. Unfortunately, the Gatwick review will be completed before this new body is even established. Could we be overestimating the negative impacts of this new route? Are residents exaggerating the damage it might do to their wellbeing? We can confidently say that it is no exaggeration, because the same route has already been experimented with before. Back in 2014 a trial was run called ADNID, following more or less the same line.”
“I urge the Minister to consider the process again and ensure an outcome that will be accepted as legitimate by the public as a whole.”
“Retaining the southerly route would make negligible difference to carbon emissions or efficiency, but the benefits to residents would be enormous. Public wellbeing is supposed to be a key part of this process, but it seems that we are sacrificing those three villages for no good reason. I therefore ask that the process be reconsidered such that all the communities around Gatwick and the other 19 airports can be presented with a credible and rational set of alternatives. That process must account for the findings of the recently published “Fair and Equitable Distribution Interim Report”, which was financed by the CAA specifically for that purpose. If we carry on as we are and take no action, we risk that important review being vulnerable to unwanted outcomes and a conflict of interest.”
“Why have alternative routes been dismissed on the basis that they conflicted, due to inter-airport conflict, despite there being a pre-agreed process to deal with that by using the Airspace Change Organising Group at a later date? That is not a basis on which to dismiss alternative options. Airport modernisation is a nationally important ambition: I certainly do not dispute that. Opportunities to make large-scale, comprehensive changes to the entire national network come only once in a lifetime. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we carry out the process using the most up-to-date guiding principles, with high levels of scrutiny and consultations that provide residents with a real choice. Without doing so, how will we obtain an outcome that is balanced and fair to both airports and communities?”
“That implies that the current model of individual airports designing individual strategies is not working. Is the current governing policy from the CAA, which is known as CAP1616, up to date? Does it consider modernisation of satellite technology and the impact that technology is having on flight concentration? If not, the modernisation of Gatwick could have serious environmental and health consequences for communities such as mine in Horsham. Why does GAL seem to be rushing for this consultation to be implemented in 2027 when full technical technological roll-out cannot be achieved by 2030 at the earliest, or by 2035 according to other estimates?”
“I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Indeed, part of the problem is that this process is in isolation from 100 other issues; infrastructure is very much one of them, because, as he says, it is already sadly lacking. As I was saying, the options show little to no variation from each other. It is not three choices; it is one choice repeated three times. Without sight of a genuine alternative that builds on the structure already in place—using routes that already bear traffic—how can the public understand the trade-offs of different pathways? It is worth noting that Heathrow has three clearly varying pathways, which differ in direction and geometric shape from each other, for the public to consider. If the Gatwick consultation is sound, why has the CAA launched a separate consultation about setting up a national body for the review?”
“I recognise that the Minister has not finished, but I am concerned that his points have, so far, been general. I wholly support the overall ambitions to reduce carbon emissions—I have absolutely no problem with that—but there are two issues. First, the consultation is not a genuine one because there is no real choice. Secondly, we are moving away from a route that is already used and is perfectly reasonable to one with significant resident impacts. I am concerned that the Minister has not addressed those two key issues.”