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 6 of 12.
“As a result, Horsham district council has been forced to accept a series of applications that contradict its local plan and that make complete nonsense of the strategic plan-led development that the Government always profess to support. Complications around water neutrality have prevented a new local plan from being passed, and that has prevented major new environmental provisions from coming into force. This legal nonsense has done huge damage to Horsham district and is set to do even more. The sudden lifting of water neutrality today leaves us exposed to wholly unconstrained development, which will do major damage to our environmental ambitions.”
“The immediate crisis for Horsham is how the changes affect planning and housing development. For the past four years, Horsham has been in the ludicrous position of having to obey two totally contradictory laws. One law says that we have to build circa 1,000 houses a year. The other law says that we cannot build any houses at all if they will use extra water. That is clearly quite a challenge. As a result, we have fallen from being an authority that exceeded our housing targets, even though they were very stiff, to being one of the worst performers in the country, with a land supply of less than one year. It is literally against the law for us to obey the law.”
“It concerns possible damage to a unique wetlands habitat on the River Arun, which is home to a rare species of snail and many birds. On a precautionary basis, Natural England has required a halt to any new development that would increase demand on the water supply abstracted at nearby Hardham. Natural England was wrong to impose such a draconian limit. The “not one litre more” rule prevented small businesses from building even the smallest project, and that seriously damaged the local economy. I do not have any confidence either in the abrupt lifting of all restrictions, as happened a fortnight ago. Southern Water promised to reduce its Hardham abstraction licence by a few million litres a day, but that will not make any difference, because it never used the whole allowance anyway—it was just a notional figure set many decades ago.”
“There has been great anxiety about the possible negative impacts on the environment of this legislation. Lords amendment 40 seeks to restore site specific protections for most cases where they do not involve wider issues, such as nutrient neutrality, but it has been opposed by the Government, as we have heard. Can we trust the Government to have their heart in the right place when it comes to nature versus development? We can pick up a big clue by looking at what has been happening in my constituency in West Sussex. For the last four years, Horsham district has been contending with the complications of water neutrality, which is often wrongly confused with nutrient neutrality. It is something that applies only to my district and a couple of neighbouring areas.”
“It is estimated that we would have to plant a forest twice the size of Greater London to cancel out all the extra emissions created by the expansions of Heathrow, Luton and Gatwick, next to my constituency of Horsham. Does the hon. Member think that that suggests the Government are entirely serious about meeting our carbon budget?”
“All of them were wrongly hounded by the DWP, which at least contributed to their deaths. It does not reassure me that part of the name of this Bill starts with “Fraud”, when the biggest cause of overpayment is departmental error. The DWP has a long track record of badly handled mistakes. That is a cultural failing, and it is wildly optimistic to assume that everything is suddenly going to be fine going forward. Do the Government really believe that this Bill has enough checks and balances to protect vulnerable claimants? One thing is for sure: there will be more DWP mistakes. Going forward, I would ask that the Government commit to making coroners’ reports automatically available to the public in every case where there is a link to the DWP’s actions.”
“The DWP even sent incorrect information to her local council, resulting in further letters and threats of losing her home. For months, Kristie was subjected to erroneous accusations of fraud and threats of losing her flat and the life she had fought so hard to build back. On her final call with the DWP, she was noted as being confused and tearful, yet no one even asked whether she was okay. No one flagged concerns for her welfare. All they wanted was the money. Kristie is an example of a person using the system that was designed to support her back into work, but was instead the victim of mistake after mistake. There are many others I could describe: Karen McBride, Stephen Carré, David Holmes, David Clapson, Errol Graham, Kevin Gale, Jodey Whiting, Roy Curtis and James Oliver.”
“Philippa wrote: “I’m not dying because I’m suicidal... I’ve been so trapped for so long, and then comes along the government people, who I had assumed are there to help. Since January the 11th 2019 my benefits have been severely cut”. I also want to share with the House what happened to Kristie Hunt. Kristie was training to become a nurse. She was 31. She had been on PIP and employment and support allowance until she rejoined the workforce after 13 years—admirable, considering her struggles with mental health. She, like Philippa, was basically a strong person. Kristie informed the DWP about her return to employment, but staff forgot to log her call, so Kristie was hounded by calls and letters from the counter-fraud team.”
“The letter by her side was the last of a long back-and-forth exchange with the DWP. During their final conversation about the DWP, Philippa said to her sister, “I’m done trying to fight them.” But why was she having to fight them in the first place? Surely this is a system that was designed to help. The coroner’s report identified 28 separate failings by the DWP and its private assessor, Capita. Errors were made from the very outset: her PIP claim form was lost, her mental health needs were not logged, and no attempts were made to communicate with her mental health team or her GP to ensure that the very system designed to help her would do just that. It is easy to see, with a system riddled with errors and seemingly devoid of compassion, how someone could be driven to just give up the fight.”
“Everyone accepts that we need to keep a handle on fraud, but the powers being taken in the Bill, including DWP access to people’s private bank accounts, go much further than anything we have seen in the past. Can we trust the DWP to exercise these sweeping new powers in a fair and responsible way? Unfortunately, past DWP errors have had the most tragic consequences. Philippa Day was 27 years old when she died. She was found unconscious next to a letter from the DWP refusing her request for an at-home assessment. Philippa had agoraphobia and anxiety, making it impossible for her to attend a personal independence payment assessment in person. Those at the DWP knew that—they were told by her sister, and they would have been told by her mental health team if they had bothered to speak to them, but they did not.”
“This Bill’s support for domestic abuse survivors is very welcome, but it is only half the story. In Horsham, one of my constituents arrived at court to see her abuser stand trial, only to be told at the courthouse door that the case had been pulled due to a lack of capacity. That trial was delayed for two years, by which time her abuser had breached two restraining orders. Does my hon. Friend agree that unless we see concrete measures to improve capacity above and beyond the recent increase in sitting days, this Bill cannot fulfil its promise to the public?”
“We would all like to see an end to the use of hotels, which is both wasteful and very unpopular in local communities. However, would the hon. and learned Member agree that the long-term solution to that, releasing pressure across the entire system, is a proper returns agreement with as many countries as possible, but definitely with France, so that we do not need to use any form of accommodation, large camps or hotels?”
“As my hon. Friend says, sustainable aviation fuels are being used by the Government to justify major airport expansions. One such expansion would be at Gatwick, adjacent to my constituency. A target of 10% SAF by 2030 is optimistic in the extreme, as the Climate Change Committee said. If the Government’s own advisers do not believe in this target, why should we?”
“In my constituency, we have seen promises of new schools and clinics repeatedly broken, but in every case it was not the developer or local council that let people down but national bodies such as the Department for Education and integrated care boards. They do it to save money by cramming more kids into existing schools and more patients into packed clinics. In the light of the 21,000 extra houses that have just been announced by the Chancellor for Horsham district, will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can legally ensure that key local infrastructure promises are met?”
“The Government have appointed Baroness Amos to lead the review. She commands great respect, and I have no question about her personal abilities or integrity. However, as I have said, the key issue here is trust, and in that respect she is not the right choice for Sussex. I ask the Secretary of State for Health to listen to what the families are saying in Sussex, which is that Donna Ockenden be appointed to oversee the review at University Hospitals Sussex.”
“Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who said that this is not about launching some kind of witch hunt, which could actually get in the way of preventing further tragedies in the future, because the key thing, and what we need to focus on, is avoiding blame and openly sharing and fixing problems. However, we must shine a light on past mistakes. In Sussex, Members of Parliament from across the House are working together on this issue, and I look forward to continuing those conversations with my colleagues locally later this week. However, the trust itself acknowledges that improvements are needed, and I welcome the work already under way to make maternity care safer. However, if this review is to succeed and to carry the confidence of the very people it is meant to serve, it must be guided by the right person.”
“Staff are working in a system stretched beyond capacity. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the countless clinicians, midwives and support staff who show up day in, day out. They, too, have been let down by the system; it is not just the families. Nevertheless, the fact remains that something has gone seriously wrong. Nine babies have died in circumstances that the families believe were avoidable, and thus far they have not had satisfactory answers. Fundamentally, this is about trust. Trust needs to be restored. For that to happen, we first need to fully understand what went wrong. I understand that things can go wrong in any profession—and my own father was an obstetrician—but, unfortunately, in obstetrics the consequences can be devastating. I very much support the words of the right hon.”
“I pay tribute to all the moving speeches we have heard so far tonight. There are few losses in life more devastating than that of a child—it is every parent’s greatest fear—but when a baby dies just as life is beginning, at the very moment when joy and expectation are at their highest, the pain is all the harder to bear. Chloe and Toby from my constituency of Horsham, along with nine other Sussex families, have gone through this unimaginable experience. Their babies died in the care of the University Hospitals Sussex NHS trust between 2021 and 2023. Chloe and Toby are not natural campaigners; it is not something they ever expected or wanted to do. They are simply grieving parents looking for truth, accountability and, above all, change. University Hospitals Sussex, like public services in general, is under immense pressure.”
“I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Sussex MP for her intervention, and I very much agree with her. Donna is a midwife herself, and she has been personally involved with the families in Sussex.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and yes, that sounds like a very similar situation. As I have said, this is all about trust. I understand that concerns have been raised about Donna’s workload and the risk of relying too heavily on one person, but Donna has indicated that she is willing to participate. I am sure that she would not say so unless she were confident that she could give this task the care and attention it needs. Unless we restore trust, we risk further harm, further delays and further grief, which none of us wishes to see.”
“My hon. Friend is right to point out all the problems. We are going to hear a lot about problems; there are also solutions. In my constituency, we have a wonderful school called Muntham House, which teaches high-needs autistic boys, 40% of whom go on to hold down a job and to be able to sustain themselves. That is what we can do if we do the job properly. Think of the saving to the state, as well as the huge reward for the families.”
“In summary, the purpose of the amendment is not to block the superfund option for schemes, but rather to ensure that the legislative framework is set squarely on the basis of protecting DB scheme member benefits and the security and soundness of the pensions system.”
“The amendment would allow actuaries to certify affordability over a 36-month horizon, providing a fairer and more flexible test. It would protect members by ensuring viable schemes are not shut out, while still requiring strong actuarial oversight. That is especially important in an environment where economic conditions and markets can move significantly and take scheme funding positions with them. Schemes have not always enjoyed the present funding levels, and today’s surplus is tomorrow’s deficit. We should have regard to that fact and approach the legislation in a manner that reflects it. In the assessment over a longer time period, the trustees would also be able to consider and respond to the situation in relation to dividends, changing investment strategies and expected scheme contributions, among other key factors.”
“I beg to move amendment 268, in clause 58, page 67, line 34, leave out subsection (a) and insert— “(a) that, as at the date of the application, the financial position of the ceding scheme is— (i) not strong enough to enable the trustees to arrange an insurer buy-out, or (ii) not affordable for the next 36 months following an assessment, certified by the scheme actuary, of all funding options to become strong enough;”. This amendment expands the onboarding condition to give an alternative to a single day snapshot of a scheme’s funding position. The Bill tests a scheme’s funding position on a single snapshot day. We feel that is too rigid and could unfairly exclude schemes. A scheme might just miss the mark on that day, even though funding prospects over the next three years are realistic and affordable.”
“I thank the Minister for his reassurance, but urge him to keep this in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“That change is designed to give people confidence and clarity about their pensions, and to avoid poor decisions that would undermine retirement security.”
“It is hard to persuade people to engage with the issue at a young enough age, and it is even harder for someone to grasp what would constitute an adequate pension many years before they might have to draw on it. The Work and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, has repeatedly highlighted this issue and examined ways to improve things. The intention of new clause 1 is to ensure that everyone—not just the financially literate or well advised—can make informed decisions about retirement. Advice would be offered at or around age 40, which is a critical moment for mid-life planning and pension consolidation, and again within six years of expected retirement, to support decisions about drawdowns, annuities and retirement income options.”
“We have tabled a number of amendments designed to improve people’s access to advice. As I said in a previous sitting, for me, the biggest missing link in this Bill is the absence of action on pensions advice. Relatively few people are able—or perhaps willing— to access paid advice, and that situation is not likely to change. We have to find another way. The purpose of new clause 1 is to help people to properly understand their pension options through universal access to free, impartial advice at key life stages. We previously debated how that might be funded—slightly ahead of time—but this is purely about the principle of that advice. Most people find pensions very complicated.”
“We are hoping to get agreement on the principle, though there are many ways to crack this particular egg. Moving on to new clause 40, this is about targeted advice access for under-saving cohorts. Its purpose is to put the focus on groups of people who have historically been among the worst served by our current pension system.”
“I thank the hon. Member for her question. We have to look at performance: over the years, most people—the great majority of people—have not been getting any advice. Those who do tend to be better off because they have more private pensions, so they are obviously far more engaged, but the majority of people, especially now we have many on auto-enrolment, have minimal engagement. There are some very good services on hand—such as Pension Wise advice, which is free; I will come on to that in another measure—but, overall, people are simply not accessing that advice. We are keeping the wording of the new clause reasonably open to establish the principle. There are many ways to solve the problem, and we will come to some of those in other new clauses.”
“That is why we have tabled it only as a probing new clause, to explore whether the Government will look at trials or further measures to boost guidance uptake. Auto-enrolment into a pension scheme has been a great success, so perhaps the next logical step is auto-enrolment into advice. Why not try it?”
“The proportion of pensions accessed after receiving guidance or advice has reduced by around 9 percentage points since 2021-22. Evidence from the DWP’s 2022 research shows that although most people start saving for retirement in their 20s and 30s, many do not start planning for retirement until their 50s. Auto-enrolment into guidance would therefore significantly increase take-up and improve retirement outcomes for many. Defined-contribution scheme members, in particular, often lack clear information about their options; Pension Wise would help fill that gap. New clause 43 leaves flexibility for the Secretary of State to determine the appropriate ages, processes and notification methods. We recognise that it would be a significant move, and that there would be technical issues to solve.”
“Pension Wise guidance is free, impartial and has very high satisfaction rates—94%—among those who have used it, yet uptake remains strangely low, which is an excellent illustration of exactly why the whole advice area needs urgent attention. Government data shows that of those who have accessed defined-contribution pension pots, only 14% have done so after receiving Pension Wise advice. That is despite various efforts, including a stronger nudge to encourage taking guidance before pots are accessed. Wake-up packs and other communications have shown limited effectiveness, and the evidence shows that savers will need more than passive information; they need action-oriented support. If anything, the situation is getting worse.”
“Those individuals will tend to be much better off and with multiple pension pots, which is precisely why they will end up needing more advice. Placing a ceiling on the advice available would ensure that the free advice was targeted only at those who needed it most. New clause 43 is a potential solution to the information deficit that we are trying to address. It would enable auto-enrolment into Pension Wise as the vehicle for giving advice. We tabled it as a probing amendment to provoke the Minister’s consideration. The purpose of the new clause is to help people properly understand and engage with their pension by auto-enrolment into Pension Wise advice at key stages, with the freedom to opt out.”
“This is really about trying to place the Minister’s attention on this important issue—we will not press the new clause to a vote. It is about focusing the Minister’s mind on the task at hand. The undersaving groups include, but are not limited to, women, ethnic minority groups and others affected by long-term pay or pension gaps. The new clause would provide mechanisms to fund and deliver targeted support. New clause 41 is designed to put a cap or ceiling on the amount of free advice accessed by any individual saver. It is a subset of new clause 1. Some individuals have very complicated financial affairs, which threaten to take a disproportionate amount of effort to decipher, in the event that we were to provide free advice.”
“This is not just about giving advice on the best way to make use of one’s pension through auto-enrolment or whatever; it is about alerting people at a young enough age—40 or whatever—to the fact that what they have is not going to cut the mustard in any way. It is not going to deliver the standard of lifestyle they want. They still have time at 40 to do something about it, whereas at 50 or 60, they have what they have. I am 65, so my fate is sealed. That needs to be part of any solution. On underserved cohorts, WASPI women are the classic example—a group of people who were tragically under-informed, who received inadequate letters from the Department for Work and Pensions and so on. That led to terrible distress and is a problem to this day.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. I take his comments about trying to reduce complexity. That is a wholly good thing for all concerned, not least us. Other contributors asked, how necessary is this? Are there not services already out there, or is this not the direction of travel? Do we really need to take this action now? In answering that, I will turn the Minister’s argument about mandation back at him: if it were not necessary, it would have happened already. That is very much the case. People are not taking advice, and sadly, they are reaching retirement very inadequately prepared for it. That, indeed, is the other half of this question.”
“That is a very fair comment—I will not repeat it. Overall, we would like to press new clause 1 to a vote, in order to put it on the record, without necessarily expecting victory. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“Further to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay on the new clauses, and as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North commented earlier, pension Bills come along once in a generation, so we are taking this opportunity to bring a number of long-standing issues under scrutiny, hopefully for comment.”
“(4) The panel must report its findings and recommendations to the Secretary of State and lay a copy of its final report before Parliament within 12 months of its establishment. (5) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the publication of the report under subsection (4), lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to that outcome.”— (John Milne.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the pension losses incurred by former employees of AEA Technology. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“(2) The review must examine— (a) the extent and causes of pension losses incurred by affected individuals, (b) the role of Government policy and representations in the transfer of pensions during the privatisation of AEA Technology, (c) the findings of the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Select Committee, (d) the adequacy of safeguards provided at the time of privatisation, (e) potential mechanisms for redress or compensation, and (f) the estimated financial cost of any such mechanisms. (3) The review must be— (a) conducted by an independent panel appointed by the Secretary of State, with relevant expertise in pensions, public policy, and administrative justice, and (b) transparent and consultative, including engagement with affected pensioners and their representatives.”
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 8 Independent review into pension losses incurred by former employees of AEA Technology “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission an independent review into the pension losses incurred by former employees of AEA Technology who— (a) transferred their accrued pension benefits out of the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) public service scheme to AEA Technology (AEAT) on privatisation in 1996, and (b) suffered financial losses when AEA Technology went into administration in 2012 and the pension scheme entered the Pension Protection Fund (PPF).”
“To summarise, the new clause would ensure that lessons were learned and safeguards were strengthened for future privatisations and pension transfers. We move it in the hope that the Minister will put his thoughts on the record, so that campaigners can at least see them—like them or not, they will know where he stands.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into pension losses suffered by former employees of AEA Technology. It focuses on employees who transferred benefits from the UK Atomic Energy Authority to AEA on privatisation in 1996, and who later suffered losses when the company went into administration. Many former employees experienced significant losses due to circumstances beyond their control, and this review would ensure a transparent, evidence-based assessment of what went wrong. It would also hopefully provide a structured way to explore redress or compensation options for affected pensions.”
“(6) For the purposes of this section— ‘state deduction’ means any provision within a defined benefit occupational pension scheme that reduces pension entitlements by reference to the member reaching state pension age or by reference to any state pension entitlement; ‘defined benefit pension scheme’ has the meaning given in section 181 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993; ‘Midland Bank Staff Pension Scheme’ includes all associated legacy arrangements and any successor schemes administered by HSBC Bank Pension Trust (UK) Ltd.” — (John Milne.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into clawback provisions in occupational defined benefit pension schemes, in particular, the Midland Bank staff pension scheme. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“(5) Within three months of laying the report before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish a written response setting out the Government’s proposed actions, if any, in response to the report’s findings and recommendations.”
“(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the person or body appointed to conduct the review— (a) is independent of HSBC Bank plc and its associated pension schemes; (b) possesses relevant expertise in pensions law, occupational pension scheme administration, and equality and fairness in retirement income; and (c) undertakes appropriate consultation with— (i) affected scheme members, (ii) employee representatives, (iii) pension experts, and (iv) stakeholder organisations. (4) The person or body conducting the review must— (a) submit a report on its findings to the Secretary of State within 12 months of the date the review is commissioned; and (b) the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament and publish the report in full.”
“(2) The review must consider— (a) the origin, rationale and implementation of state deduction in the Midland Bank Staff Pension Scheme, (b) the clarity and adequacy of member communications regarding state deduction from inception to present, (c) the differential impact of state deduction on pensioners with varying salary histories, including an assessment of any disproportionate effects on— (i) lower-paid staff, and (ii) women, (d) comparisons with other occupational pension schemes in the banking and public sectors, and (e) the legal, administrative, and financial feasibility of modifying or removing state deduction provisions, including potential mechanisms for redress.”
“I thank the Minister for his observations, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 9 Independent review into state deduction in defined benefit pension schemes “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission an independent review into the application and impact of state deduction mechanisms in occupational defined benefit pension schemes.”
“The review would examine the history and rationale for the deductions, assess the clarity and adequacy of member communications over time, analyse differential impact on pensioners with varying salary histories, and compare state deduction practices with other occupational schemes in banking and the public sectors. It would also consider the legal, administrative and financial feasibility of modifying or removing state deduction provisions. Finally, it would be an independent and consultative process. The clause would ensure transparency and fairness, and it would provide Parliament and Members with clear, evidence-based guidance on the way forward.”