John Milne MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Education, Health and Care Plans · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Welfare of Doctors · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 19 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 18 Dec 2024 · Gatwick Airspace Modernisation Review · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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”.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Gatwick Airspace Modernisation Review · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Gatwick Airspace Modernisation Review · Hansard source

  More

  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 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.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Gatwick Airspace Modernisation Review · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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—

• 18 Dec 2024 · Gatwick Airspace Modernisation Review · Hansard source

  More

  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? 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? 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? 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. 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.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Gatwick Airspace Modernisation Review · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, the word “WASPI” made it into the Collins English Dictionary, which is a credit to the campaigners behind it. Does the Secretary of State agree that she has gone through the ombudsman’s report with, to use her own words, a fine-toothed comb, in order to get the answer that she always wanted to find in the first place?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Lobular Breast Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for raising this vital issue. Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for women worldwide, and many, if not all, Members will know somebody who has faced the frightening prospect of breast cancer treatment, which is unfortunately all too common and impacts the lives of millions, whether directly or indirectly. What is fortunate is the progress in detection and treatment, which has provided many patients with positive outlooks and a healthy future life with their loved ones. Sadly, this prospect is often not afforded to the 15% of breast cancer sufferers diagnosed with invasive lobular cancer. Survival prospects for those with ILC can be relatively good, but only for those who are diagnosed early, before the cancer has spread. I repeat the calls of other Members and Breast Cancer Now to publish the findings of the UK national cancer screening review into breast cancer risk stratification. If improvements are made so that we can detect more elusive forms of breast cancer, tens of thousands of lives could be saved. However, improved detection is not enough by itself. Women diagnosed with ILC face another issue: the treatments they are provided are not tailored or specific to their cancer. In short, they are treated for a disease they do not have. One of those women, as has been mentioned, is Dr Susan Michaelis, who lives in my constituency of Horsham, where I met her earlier this year. Susan is an incredible woman who has campaigned tirelessly on invasive lobular cancer treatment and research. She was diagnosed with lobular cancer in 2013, but the treatment she then received was designed for ductal cancer, which is the most common form of breast cancer. As a result, Susan’s condition evolved and became resistant to the treatments now available. Someone less determined might have given up looking for answers, but instead Susan went out and started the Lobular Moon Shot Project and, yes, I have already planted my Susan Michaelis rose. She met research experts to build an idea of the cost of research into the basic biology of invasive lobular cancer in the hope of improving outcomes for those yet to be diagnosed. The Institute of Cancer Research has deemed that £20 million is enough to make significant progress, and Rob Clarke of the Manchester Breast Centre will head up that work in conjunction with world leading experts. That is all agreed. Since then, Susan and the Lobular Moon Shot Project have lobbied MPs and Government Departments. Hundreds of MPs have supported the application for funding. In the last Parliament, the number was 247; there have already been almost 200 in the current term, and I am sure that many more will join the call. The team at the project should be commended for all their hard work and amazing, ceaseless energy. Given the Government’s recent announcements about taking a firm business approach to funding within Departments, research into lobular cancer makes for a strong business case as well. Breast Cancer Now research shows that the cost of breast cancer to the UK economy is £2.6 billion. That is set to rise to £3.6 billion by 2034. Ongoing cancer treatment is expensive, with each patient requiring approximately £10,000 a year, whereas the £20 million research request equates to £240 per lobular cancer patient over the next 10 years. Early detection and better treatment can reduce the overall time the NHS needs to support patients. Put simply, research into lobular cancer saves both lives and money. If the human arguments are not enough for the Government to commit to this vital research, then let us talk about the money. The previous Government included lobular cancer research in their women’s health strategy for England 2024 and acknowledged that there was an urgent, unmet clinical need. I ask the new Secretary of State to renew that commitment and to fund the Lobular Moon Shot Project’s call for research, which will enable the NHS to offer specific treatment to lobular cancer patients and end the one-size-fits-all approach. Dr Susan Michaelis and the lobular ladies hope that they will be the last generation to go through the experience of insufficient treatment and poor outcomes, and I hope that this Government can make that a reality.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Improving Public Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) on her maiden speech, which was lovely to hear. She kept on the theme of buses as well, which is very impressive. There is a puzzle with rural bus services that needs to be solved. Local residents will all say they are desperate to save their village bus service from closure, yet the local operator will say that footfall keeps going down year on year, and there simply is not enough public subsidy to fill the gap. If everyone wants to use the bus, why are they not actually doing it? The answer is a mix of two things. It is partly the price, but, even more so, it is the service. Service frequency does not sufficiently meet the needs of residents, so they do not take the bus. Bus services have been in decline ever since Thatcher’s privatisation in the 1980s. While increased car use was always going to have an impact, bus services should have bottomed out years ago. In practice, what we have left today are mostly legacy routes designed to meet the needs of communities from decades ago. We have seen a process of death by a thousand cuts, with incremental cuts in frequency making the bus option less user friendly every year. Across many villages in my constituency of Horsham, it is just not practical any more to rely on buses to get to work. When surveyed in 2021, more than 80% of West Sussex residents said they did not use the bus due to a lack of route options or the infrequency of services. Gradually, anyone who needs dependable public transport is forced out of rural areas to be replaced by car users, which, in turn, reduces bus usage even further—and the downward spiral continues. As a result, in Horsham and across West Sussex, the local authority has for many years presided over a policy of managed decline, with no serious attempt to reverse or even stabilise things. This summer, the residents of Partridge Green, a village in the south of my constituency, were surprised to discover that they were about to lose their direct link to Horsham via the No. 17 bus. They learned this with just a couple of weeks’ notice. Nobody consulted them or warned them; they found it out only by studying the new bus timetable when it was issued. Public anger was mainly directed at the local bus operator, but I have to ask: what do we actually expect to happen? It is a private company that needs to make a profit, and the figures said that the cut had to be made. We cannot expect private companies to behave like social enterprises. Partridge Green residents reacted to the news with an impressive public campaign, which is still ongoing. I attended a large public meeting that had a fair percentage of the entire village population crammed into the local church, and something I heard there really struck me: if only the residents had known the service was in danger, they would have got together to help it, either by using the bus more frequently themselves or by finding some other compromise. However, West Sussex county council gave the residents no warning, so they never had a chance. This is the killer app we are missing out on: we need to harness the passion of communities to protect their local amenities. Loss of bus services is not the only problem these communities face. Villages are suffering from the removal of banking services, shops, pharmacies, post offices, pubs—you name it. They know they are in a battle, but they are also really motivated to help if only we actually ask them. That may be part of the answer to the long-term decline in service. We need to start by asking what kind of service residents actually want, and what they would use if it actually existed. I welcome Government promises of increased local funding and control over public transport, but I hope the Government will be realistic in their assessment of local authority capability, when two fifths of councils are on the verge of bankruptcy. We have been fighting a long defensive battle, and, frankly, we have been losing. If we are to have any hope of reversing that, we need a mechanism to go back to the people who actually live in these villages today, and reconstruct the services from the ground up.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Future of Farming · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. My constituency includes a mix of rural and urban areas, but this tax hurts both, and that is the key point that I want to make. Local farms do not exist in isolation; they are part of an ecosystem of businesses that depend on each other to thrive. A local farmer, James, has told me about his farm, which has been in his family since all the way back in 1904. James supports his young family and elderly relatives. It is not just a full-time job, but three full-time jobs. That is because to operate the farm successfully, James now runs three businesses: a fallen stock collection business, a pet cremation business, and the farm itself. Without diversifying, he might have gone under a long time ago. Farming alone often is not enough for many farmers to keep their heads above water. Now James faces a national insurance hike, a sharp acceleration in the phasing out of direct payments under the basic payment scheme, and the removal of APR and business property relief. How many businesses do we think one farmer has to run before they simply break? Yes, there is a problem with non-farmers investing in land to avoid tax, but this family farm tax is not the way to fix it. There is too much collateral damage. It is going to hit too many farmers like my constituent James with a family to support, a business to run on slim margins, and a community that relies on them. The tax comes on top of the pressures imposed by a botched Brexit and trade deals that threaten to bring down the high standards of British farms. The money raised by the tax will not go anywhere near plugging the Budget black hole. We need to recognise that a strong farming community is our best ally in moving towards a sustainable food system and job-filled rural communities. I call on the Government to work with the farming community to build a national food strategy that benefits farmers in the fields and the shoppers in our supermarkets.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Cross-Boundary Housing Developments · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Horsham, we are almost entirely surrounded by other areas that, for one reason or another, have constrained housing targets—they have areas of outstanding natural beauty, are in national parks or are already built up. As a result, under the duty to co-operate, Horsham has to take a very unfair proportion of housing to serve the whole area. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the duty to co-operate system needs to be revised to stop freak results happening in constituencies such as mine?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  This Budget was strongly promoted as a blueprint for growth, so it has come as a considerable surprise to find that the growth forecast for the second half of this Parliament has actually gone down. Somewhere hiding here is a much better Budget trying to get out. The Government have tried to target what are supposed to be bastions of wealth and privilege, but caught in the crossfire are all kinds of people they never meant to touch. The winter fuel payment cut is supposed to fall on wealthy pensioners who do not really need the money, but it will also hit vulnerable people on a basic £11,500 state pension. VAT on private schooling is supposed to tax the Etons and Harrows of the world, but it also hits hundreds of small schools such as Pennthorpe preparatory school in my constituency, which plays a key role in providing for SEND children, and Christ’s Hospital, a remarkable school that takes 70% of its pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. The changes in inheritance tax are aimed at wealthy farmers, but also threaten to wipe out a fantastic tradition of family farming that has literally shaped our countryside over generations. Wherever we look, there is just too much collateral damage, but the biggest rise, the one that is doing all the heavy lifting, is the jump in employers’ national insurance. Surely it was not the Chancellor’s intention to undermine GP surgeries, hospices, independent care homes and growing businesses, yet that is exactly what is set to happen. I realise that the last Government left so many public services in crisis that it would be impossible to fix everything at once. They raided vital investment funds for day-to-day spending. They never understood that strong public services are just as essential to economic growth as business-friendly regulations. The last Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), behaved recklessly when he twice cut employee national insurance rates in the teeth of warnings from the International Monetary Fund. He dug the hole, and now the country has slid gently into it. However, swinging from one ideological extreme to another is not the solution. This Budget feels suspiciously like Labour circa 2000, but at that time the country was in better shape, and the same plan will not work twice. This Budget is a serious attempt to deal with the crisis in public services, and I respect that, but the original vision has been lost in translation. This is a growth Budget, but without the growth. I urge the Chancellor to refocus around her original first principle: growth.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to the neglected issue of water neutrality, which is often confused with nutrient neutrality, but which requires different solutions. For the last two years, the local planning authority in my constituency has faced the impossible task of obeying two entirely contradictory laws. One says that we have to build more than 900 houses a year, and the other says that we cannot build anything because of water neutrality considerations. The bizarre legal stand-off causes enormous difficulties. Will the Leader of the House find time to debate the issue of water neutrality, so that we can find a fair and rational solution for my community?

• 16 Oct 2024 · Access to Primary Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  The ongoing crisis in GP access is as acute in my constituency as elsewhere. That is not simply because there are more patients, but because today’s patients have greater health challenges and need to see their GP more frequently. That is why simple comparisons with GP ratios from the past do not work. We need a health service capable of meeting today’s needs, not those of 20 years ago. In Horsham, it has become routine for surgeries to fill all available appointments within minutes of opening. Relatively junior staff are obliged to spend the rest of their time saying no to frustrated, anxious and—not infrequently—angry patients. The danger is that we might enter a spiral of decline whereby demoralised staff leave, piling more pressure on to those who remain and scaring off replacements before they have ever had a chance to settle. We must get working conditions right, and that cannot be achieved in a state of permanent understaffing. We must also get more from the services that we already have. Unleashing market forces on the NHS, and setting pharmacies, GPs and hospitals against each other, was a mistake. Effectively, they are in commercial competition to provide more of the treatments that pay well and less of those that do not. Only integrated care boards are in a position to take a holistic view of patient provision, but that is not really happening yet. There are any number of alarming statistics relating to our health service, but I will conclude on one that is a bit more positive. As mentioned by one of my colleagues earlier, studies by the University of Cambridge and others suggest that where patients are seen by the same GP over 15 years, the average mortality rate declines by 25%. That is a remarkable level of improvement, more than could be expected from almost any other intervention. Let us give GPs the space to do their job properly, and let us support this motion.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Jeremy Quin, who represented Horsham for the last 10 years. He was a dedicated MP, and in my first couple of months I have heard praise from many constituents for his past help. An MP’s best work is often unsung and behind the scenes, and I intend to continue his campaigns on issues such as child trust funds. I would have to go back very much further to find a fellow Liberal MP to celebrate—144 years, to be precise. Being a rock-solid safe seat in a first-past-the-post system is not great for democracy. So many people have come up to me since the election and said it is the first time their vote has ever counted. Horsham’s turnout was over 70%, and if we had proportional representation, we would see that level of engagement everywhere. For most of my life, I worked as a creative director in advertising, before becoming a local councillor five years ago. I would especially like to thank my family, who are up in the Gallery today, for supporting me in this unexpected career change, because this is a huge journey for all of us, not just me. Most of Horsham is open farmland, with patches of ancient woodland and villages that retain a strong sense of community. Horsham town itself is pretty enough to be charming, but not so temptingly chocolate-boxy that it gets overwhelmed by tourists. As the name suggests, Horsham was once a home for horse trading, and to this day it is a centre of excellence in the equestrian industry. Horsham is also where our great national poet Percy Bysshe Shelley grew up. With luck, we will see him around town again soon if fundraising for a statue in his honour is successful. We have high-achieving schools, both state and private, and we want to keep it that way. Many of them have approached me with concern over the VAT imposition. Although Horsham has never been the site of a major battle, it is where the Dalek invasion of Earth started through the work of Ray Cusick, the BBC theatrical designer and long-term Horsham resident. But perhaps the jewel in the crown of the constituency is the Knepp estate, the UK’s leading rewilding enterprise, which now has international fame. This is no frozen museum of conservation; it is a living, breathing experiment in flora and fauna, where nature herself is the key architect. Of course, Horsham is not immune to national challenges, from a creaking health service to cuts in public transport and crumbling roads, but today I want to focus on the positives. Horsham is a great place to do business. It is hard to believe it now, but Horsham was once a centre of England’s iron industry. Later we became a leading brewery town, and today that tradition is carried on by energetic start-ups like Hepworth, Weltons, Kissingate and Brolly Brewing, which rather enterprisingly came up with a Lib Dem-branded beer during my campaign. We are home to Creative Assembly, one of Europe’s largest video game designers; Schroders, a world-class investment company; and innovative tech businesses like Metricell, which might one day help us solve our pothole problem—that would surely be worth a Nobel prize. Whereas many high streets have struggled, Horsham’s is bustling—a shopping destination for not just local residents, but visitors alike. I urge Members to join us at the Carfax bandstand on a Friday evening in the summer, where the district council has pumped new energy into the town with a series of free events themed on everything from ska, ABBA, Pride and Bollywood to German oompah music. After a quietish first 1,000 years, Horsham is learning how to party. Whereas other communities have been losing their local theatres, ours is getting a multimillion-pound investment to help the council reach its net zero targets. After the last revamp, under the Tories, the theatre reopened with that surefire box office attraction, “An Evening With Ann Widdecombe”. I wonder if she is still available. As a constituency that is now half town, half rural, Horsham plays a lead role in striking a balance between competing needs. We have large areas of productive farmland, making a valuable contribution to food security, but the same land is under pressure to provide housing and renewable energy installations. All of these are positive things, but the same land cannot do them all at once. If there is one thing I would like to focus on during my term, it is housing. I strongly support the new Government’s house building ambitions, but I am surprised and disappointed to see that they are using the same flawed system to fix local targets as before, except with a bigger stick. The standard method, as used since 2018, has been shown to be a hopelessly inaccurate way of assessing local need, nor will it ever make housing more affordable. In Horsham, the average price of a new house is higher than that of the existing stock, so the more we build, the higher our target goes—the exact reverse of what is supposed to happen. Horsham already has 13,500 unbuilt permissions. We will be forced to continue building houses that people cannot afford to satisfy a local need that does not exist, while heaping further stress on to already overloaded local services— and then we are surprised when people say they do not like it. Just to make things more complicated, Horsham has its own unique challenge, known as water neutrality, which restricts water use for environmental reasons. We are caught between two Government directives that completely contradict each other. One rule says we have to build a fixed number of houses per year, but the other rule says we are not allowed to build any houses at all because we cannot use any more water without damaging the environment. We are being punished for failing to build the houses we are not allowed to build. This is a planning system devised by Kafka, not Beveridge. For all the challenges, I would like people to see Horsham as a place of opportunity. For everything that is going wrong, something else is going right. It is a huge honour to represent the people of Horsham—one that I never expected to have. As someone who campaigned on a promise to serve as a constituency MP, I could not ask for a better constituency to work for.