John Milne MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Last November, as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I asked the Secretary of State when we could expect to see a decision on compensation for WASPI women. She replied: “There is lots of information to go through. We need to get it right but I want this resolved as soon as possible.” I asked about a timescale and she said: “If I gave you a date then I would have sorted it, and it needs to be sorted, but I will do it as soon as humanly possible.” No one would have suspected that “sorting” the issue meant an outright refusal. So where did this shock handbrake turn of a decision come from? I suspect it has more to do with the Treasury than with any objective measure of fairness. In justifying her decision, the Secretary of State made repeated reference to one particular statistic: the DWP survey from 2006 found that 90% of women understood that the pension age was rising. She repeated the 90% figure like a mantra in her presentation to the House and the media, but the survey was based on a tiny sample of perhaps 170 women who could not possibly be taken as fair representation of the entire female population. Furthermore, the survey was contradicted by multiple other studies conducted both before and after. Research from the following year found that half of women whose pension age had in fact risen to between 60 and 65 still thought it stood at 60. On what grounds did the Secretary of State put so much faith in the 90% figure, rather than the 50%? None that I can see, except that it was cherry-picked to support the conclusion that she always wanted to reach in the first place. What is more, it is clear that the DWP itself attached far greater weight to a later survey. An internal memo from April 2007 described the research findings as “depressing reading”. It continued: “we still have 50% ‘ignorance levels’ with three years to go. [The Ombudsman’s] first question will be what are you proposing to do about it?” That turns out to have been a really prescient question. To further justify their decision, the Government have argued that earlier warning letters would not have worked anyway, but writing letters is exactly how much of the Government communicate to this day. It is sheer nonsense to argue that the standard method of communication across all Departments would have been useless in this one circumstance of WASPI women. I accept that there are financial pressures on the Government. They could have said: “We accept the ombudsman’s findings, but we are not currently able to respond,” or “not able to meet the full levels suggested.” What is not reasonable is to undermine the ombudsman, which is a highly unusual and constitutionally worrying move, and to pick through the evidence to support the conclusion that they always wanted to find in the first place. Fundamentally, it was neither safe nor reasonable for the Secretary of State to rely so completely on the 90% figure, to the deliberate exclusion of multiple other statistics, which showed a much lower level of awareness. In my constituency, 5,000 women have been affected by this decision; many more of course have been affected nationwide. I call on the Government to respect the vital constitutional role of the ombudsman and think again.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Mental Health Support: Educational Settings · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my speech, I referred to West Sussex county council but neglected to mention that, as declared in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am still a member of that council. I want to put that on the record—my apologies.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Mental Health Support: Educational Settings · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing this important debate. It is time to acknowledge that special educational needs and mental health provision in schools is one of the great crises that we face today, although I do appreciate that there is a lot of competition for that particular accolade. Financial pressures have significantly impacted CAMHS funding in my constituency of Horsham. Despite a modest 0.6% fee uplift for Sussex, the sector has faced a mandated 15% funding reduction—approximately £1.6 million—and that is coupled with rising staff costs due to higher national insurance contributions and an increase in the national living wage. Meanwhile, demand just keeps on going up. Since September 2020, Sussex CAMHS has experienced a substantial rise in referrals, attributed to the pandemic and the easing of lockdown restrictions. This surge has adversely affected waiting times for initial assessments and treatment. The crisis is even sharper at the local education authority funding level. My local authority, West Sussex, has a dedicated schools grant deficit scheduled to go past £130 million by April. It is allowed to keep this off the balance sheet for another year, but there is only so long that we can maintain the fantasy that this service can be afforded without major central Government intervention. Most of all, the pain is being felt at the school level, and by the children and families who experience the many failings and gaps in service. I have been contacted by no fewer than five schools in the past fortnight alone regarding this issue. Typical of their message is this from Holbrook primary school governing board: “Schools, trusts and local authorities are overwhelmed by the rising number of pupils who are seeking additional support and the ever-increasing costs of providing assistance. Urgent action is required now to help solve the crisis in SEND, so the future of our children is not blighted by a system that is not fit for purpose.” Having visited many schools recently, I noted that teachers are verging on desperation. I noted too their love for the children they are looking after. They desperately want to help them, but they are in an impossible situation. There is, I am afraid to say, an element of physical danger in some cases. This is not the children’s fault; this is our fault. Horsham schools are asking for health services to take on more of the strain, because they are at breaking point. Although mental health provision in schools has clear benefits, we must ensure that this provision does not fall on school budgets. Mental health support teams cover about 44% of schools in the UK, and come from NHS budgets, not school budgets. That should become 100% coverage. The pressure on schools to cope with more and more SEN children, with little or no extra funding, is set to undo every gain we have made in educational standards over the past decades. I appreciate that the Government are taking at least some action to assist the situation now, but I urge them to use every lever at their disposal to avert this crisis before it spins entirely out of control.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I used the word guilt, but can we forget that? I am referring to a case in which a claimant was investigated, so costs were incurred, but they were found not to be at fault, rather than guilty.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Clause 84 states that costs incurred by the Secretary of State in taking recovery actions can be themselves recovered. Will the Minister clarify what happens in a case where the claimant is found to be not guilty? What happens to the costs then? Are they borne by the bank, the DWP or the claimant? Will he also clarify how the cost of the general trawl through all the accounts is apportioned? Secondly, to go back to the issue of fraud versus error, and how they seem to be treated as pretty much the same throughout the Bill, will the Minister clarify whether, where it is the DWP’s error, a claimant would still end up paying the administrative charge? If that is the case, it seems quite unreasonable, so it would be great if the Minister could clarify those points.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Sustainable Farming Incentive · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister explain to farmers in Horsham why he did not feel any need to consult any farming stakeholders in advance of this announcement?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Jeremy. I am again raising concerns about a serious power to make direct deductions from people’s bank accounts. Life does not always come in neat paragraphs; it is messy. I have had a number of letters from constituents in Horsham setting out the kind of errors that can happen. A lady called Marianne, who is a universal credit recipient, received a small inheritance, which she tried to report by phone and email, but that still resulted in her wrongly losing her UC for a period. Another constituent, Hannah, said: “I have zero hours contract and work between 9-11 hours a week at just over minimum wage. At times I have had a back dated pay rise which pushed me over the allowance limit (I wasn’t informed in advance this was happening). I’m also at the mercy of someone else submitting my hours, so if they aren’t submitted on time they roll over to the next pay period causing me to exceed the allowance limit.” At no time did she ever come anywhere near the allowance limit in real earnings; nevertheless, she was caught up in the rules. Does the Minister feel that we have sufficient safeguards to avoid that kind of inadvertent administrative error? Mistakes have happened in the past and will continue to happen, but this is a very strong power that could cause real distress.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises the issue of the burden on banks; there is also the potential burden on the claimant. Banks sometimes have very large administrative charges, well in excess of the actual costs of whatever it is they do. Can the Minister give any assurance that there is some upper safety limit on excessive charging by banks? For instance, will a bank be able to charge for its corporate cost centre—a contribution towards its head office or functions—as can be the case with other charges? Basically, I seek clarity on the balance of how the charges will be administered.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am uncomfortable with this proposal, because it seems unfair that one group of people should be liable to a punishment and not another. If someone cannot drive or they do not have a car, this punishment means nothing to them, whereas another group who do drive are affected—and some of them very deeply, depending on their lifestyle, such as living in the country or other necessary means. I am fundamentally uncomfortable with what seems to be a punishment that falls on only one group of people, when it should be levied equally.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am simply concerned that there should be some control of, or protection against, excessive charging. In the past, institutions have inflicted disproportionate charges that bear no relation to the actual cost of servicing whatever action had to be remedied. I am therefore seeking confirmation from the Minister that there is some protection in that direction as well with regard to the costs on the banks, as we said earlier.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay said, the amendment is about checks and balances. We appreciate that the Bill has been introduced in the context of the Government’s desire to cut the benefits bill, but the Treasury deeming something to be financially necessary does not necessarily make it right. The percentage lost to fraud and error is relatively modest, but of course the sums are huge because the overall number is huge. We need to remember that these measures will not get anywhere near recovering all that money, so the question is: is the action proportionate, considering the sacrifice we are making in terms of civil liberties? It is vital that we get the best value from public money, but the amount expected to be recovered is just 2% of the estimated annual loss to fraud and error of £10 billion, and just a quarter of what is lost to official error at the Department for Work and Pensions. As drafted, the clause empowers the Minister to appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of the Secretary of State’s function under schedule 3B to the Social Security Administration Act 1992. There is no external oversight, and that undermines the credibility of the role. Our amendment states: “Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons”, which means “a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.” Without proper scrutiny, the role’s independence is undermined, potentially damaging trust in the process. The Committee previously heard evidence from Dr Kassem of Aston University, who stated: “I would recommend a board rather than an individual, because how sustainable could that be, and who is going to audit the individual? You want an unbiased point of view. That happens when you have independent experts discussing the matter and sharing their points of view. You do not want that to be dictated by an individual, who might also take longer to look at the process. The operation is going to be slower. We do not want that from a governance perspective—if you want to oversee things in an effective way, a board would be a much better idea.” –– [ Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 13, Q15.] A board would ensure that the appointment is truly independent and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We therefore propose that the Minister must consult the relevant House of Commons Committee before making such an appointment. That simple steps would ensure genuine independence and parliamentary scrutiny, and would strengthen transparency and public confidence.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My colleague has just partially asked my question. While we broadly welcome the clause, we are concerned by the absence of the code of practice. Could the Minister give any indication of the kind of guidance that it might contain? Also, at what stage of the parliamentary process will there be scrutiny of it, given that it will not be during this Committee?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Children in Care · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Airport Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Young Drivers · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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? 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.