John Milne MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Oct 2025 · New Housing Developments: Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps he plans to take to ensure that new housing developments have adequate access to infrastructure.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his clarification, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 9 would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the application and impact of state deduction mechanisms in occupational defined benefit pension schemes. It focuses specifically on clawback provisions in the Midland bank staff pension scheme and associated legacy arrangements. We believe that a review is needed because state deduction provisions can reduce members’ pension entitlements, sometimes in ways that are complex or unclear. There are concerns about fairness, transparency and disproportionate impact, particularly on lower-paid staff and women. A review would ensure that members, regulators and Parliament had clarity about the origin, rationale and effect of such provisions. 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.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 10 Use of electronic mail for direct marketing purposes relating to pensions “(1) Section 22(3) of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 is deemed to apply to unsolicited electronic communications relating to pensions when the sender is— (a) a firm authorised to provide Targeted Support under Article 55A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 issuing a Targeted Support communication, or (b) a qualifying pension scheme, as defined in section 16(1) of the Pensions Act 2008. (2) Subsection (1) applies when the recipient is— (a) a customer of the firm under subsection (1)(a), or (b) a member of the pension scheme under subsection (1)(b).” — ( John Milne .) This new clause would require that the provisions relating to the use of electronic mail for direct marketing purposes under the Privacy and Electronic Communications *(EC Directive) Regulations 2003 would apply to communications from firms providing targeted support on pensions or from qualifying pension schemes. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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). (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. (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.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Any changes to the BCSSS pension scheme rules require Government action; trustees can only act within their current rules. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), who has been working hard to raise his constituents’ voices in relation to this urgent issue, and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). This is another one of those cases where time is not on the side of the claimants. We believe that six members are dying every day in relation to illnesses contracted from mining. Time is literally running out for members, so this is an urgent issue.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his clarification. I emphasise that the new clause is as much for industry’s comfort as Parliament’s; nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 44 Administration levy “(1) The Pensions Act 2004 is amended as follows. (2) In section 116 (grants), leave out from ‘expenses’ to end of section. (3) Omit section 117 (administration levy). (4) In section 173(3) (Pension Protection Fund), before subsection (3)(a) insert— ‘(aa) any sums required to meet expenses incurred by the Board in connection with the operation or discontinuance of the Pension Protection Fund,’ (5) In section 188(3) (Fraud Compensation Fund), before subsection (3)(a) insert— ‘(aa) sums required to meet expenses incurred by the Board in connection with the operation or discontinuance of the Fraud Compensation Fund,’.” —(John Milne.) This new clause abolishes the administration levy and provides for the expenses of the PPF and the FCF to be met out of their general funds. It would enable FCF expenses to be covered by the FCF levy. Brought up, and read the First time .

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously, all mine were absolutely above board. Currently, the privacy and electronic communications regulations do not clearly cover pension-related marketing from schemes or targeted support firms. This new clause seeks to close that loophole. People should be able to trust that communications from their scheme or adviser are genuine and not just spam dressed up as guidance. We would position this as a balance, so that legitimate communications to scheme members remain possible, but only within clear safeguards. In summary, it is a simple consumer protection measure that would protect savers from nuisance emails and potential mis-selling.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the Velux pensions case. It would require him to report within 12 months on how occupational pension schemes exclude certain employees based on job classification or their start date. The report would specifically “examine…employees and former employees of Fife Joinery Manufacturing (a subsidiary of Velux)”. It would review whether affected workers were genuinely offered the chance to join the pension scheme. The report would assess “the adequacy of record-keeping and employer accountability” and explore possible “remedies to ensure equal access to workplace pensions.” The measure addresses concerns from shop-floor employees who joined before 1998 and were denied pension access despite repeatedly asking for it. The workers dispute claims that they declined pension membership and say they were told that they were not eligible. Attempts to engage Fife Joinery Manufacturing management have been unsuccessful. Workers have been advised to consider approaching the ombudsman, although none has done so yet. The new clause would hold the Government accountable to investigate and push for fairness and transparency. It is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife and my Liberal Democrat colleagues. To summarise, the new clause is a key step to ensure fairness and equality in workplace pension access and to prevent similar exclusions in the future.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his encouragement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn . New Clause 47 Report on Pension Scheme Eligibility and Access “(1) The Secretary of State shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report into the operation of occupational pension schemes where certain categories of employees have been excluded on the basis of job classification or employment start date. (2) The report must examine the case of employees and former employees of Fife Joinery Manufacturing (a subsidiary of Velux), including— (a) whether affected workers were provided with opportunity to join existing pension schemes, (b) the adequacy of record-keeping and employer accountability, and (c) potential remedies to ensure equal access to workplace pensions.”— (John Milne.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the Velux Pensions case. Brought up, and read the First time .

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time. This new clause would abolish the administration levy, which allows the Pension Protection Fund and Fraud Compensation Fund to meet their expenses from their respective general funds. PPF administration costs could instead be recovered from the wider protection fund, while FCF administration costs could be met from the FCF fund, funded through the FCF levy. The levy has in any case been suspended from 2023 to 2025. Many in the industry expected that this would lead to full abolition, especially given the clear recommendation from the DWP review in 2022. The Society of Pension Professionals, which originally composed this amendment, remains a strong supporter, and its view is widely shared across the pension sector. Discussions with the PPF indicate that it has no objection to this proposal and would be content for its administration costs to be met from general reserves. Given industry support and PPF agreement, we feel that the Government should implement this change without any further delay. The levy raises only a relatively small amount, but it adds unnecessary complexity and confusion to scheme finances and risks undermining broader reforms, especially efforts to reduce the risk-based levy to zero, which have been widely welcomed. Overall, this amendment provides the Government with the necessary powers to eliminate an outdated levy, which would streamline pension scheme funding. It is a small but meaningful reform that aligns with wider pension reforms that are all aimed at reducing red tape, simplifying funding and ensuring efficient use of scheme resources.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. (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. (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. (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. (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.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 45 Transfer of British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme investment reserve to members “(1) Within 3 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the transfer of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme investment reserve to members of the scheme. (2) Those regulations must include— (a) a timetable for transferring the total of the investment reserve to members of the scheme, and (b) plans for commissioning an independent review into how future surplus will be shared. (3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” —(Kirsty Blackman.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a timetable for transferring the whole of the BCSSS investment reserve to members and committing to review how future surplus will be shared. Brought up, and read the First time .

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I feel I ought also to thank everyone, and the Minister especially for a superb performance. I think we can all agree that this is a very good Bill, with lots of really good things in it. I am particularly interested in the investment side of it, with the greater resources to invest in UK plc, which we certainly do need. Sadly, I expect the Bill will not receive the publicity that many do—it has not been in the headlines so far—and that is a pity. Much more trivial and ephemeral stuff, frankly, gets all the headlines, while something that is interesting and dynamic, like the measures in this Bill, will probably be displaced by the latest resignation.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 98 Regulations: general Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would have the effect of making pension scheme trustees truly independent of the sponsoring companies so that they can protect scheme members’ interests without any conflict of interest. Trustees should act solely in the best interests of their members, not those of the sponsoring employer. Currently, conflicts of interest can arise where company-appointed trustees also have personal or financial ties to the scheme sponsor. The new clause seeks to strengthen independence, excluding conflicting trustees while still allowing member-nominated trustees. Members deserve trustees who are free to challenge employers and prioritise pensions over corporate interests. Having strong, independent trustees means stronger protection for savers’ retirement security.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Overall, this Bill has wide cross-party support, as evidenced by the fact that we have been rattling through it at such a pace. However, the power of mandation is undoubtedly the most controversial aspect. To be briefly Shakespearean: to mandate or not to mandate, that is the question. The new clause would require that the provisions in clause 38—the mandation powers—be enacted only through secondary legislation. It is an attempt to square the circle between two competing views. The Liberal Democrats have concerns about the implications of mandation, frankly, as has much of the pensions industry. For example, Pensions UK, which is a signatory of the Mansion House accords, has stated: “We believe that the best way of ensuring good returns for members is for investments to be undertaken on a voluntary, not a mandatory basis. We also note powers being taken to specify required investment capability for schemes, and to direct LGPS funds to merge with specific pools. All of these powers will require careful scrutiny.” Similarly, the Society of Pension Professionals has said: “The SPP does not support the reserve power to mandate investment in private market assets and recommends its removal from the legislation. The mandation power creates significant uncertainty, including questions about legal accountability for investment underperformance and how eligible assets will be defined. The threat of mandation risks distorting market pricing and could reduce public trust in pensions, as savers may fear that financial returns are no longer the top priority.” The Minister has stated on a number of occasions that mandation should not be necessary, that he does not expect to have to use it and that the Mansion House accord demonstrates the industry’s willingness to act voluntarily. The obvious response is that if that really is the case, and that UK private markets truly offer the best option for pension savers while meeting the fiduciary duties, the industry should not need any prodding and mandation will not be required. The Minister’s response on previous occasions, and no doubt today, has been to observe the history and point out that thus far, the industry has been slow to make that change. We recognise that the Minister is wholly committed to the path of giving himself mandation powers, whatever we or anyone else says. Indeed, he sees it as core to the legislation. For that reason, we have proposed the new clause as a halfway house. The power would be put on the books, but it would require secondary legislation to be enacted. It would give the Minister the ability to have access to mandation powers at short notice if he deemed it necessary, without needing primary legislation, but in the meantime, it does not hang over the industry like a sword of Damocles. It may seem just a psychological difference, but psychology matters, and there are other advantages. Somewhat counterintuitively, sometimes having too much of a stick can be a problem in itself. The Minister would be under pressure to use the stick for the sake of consistency in every case where any company went slightly over the limit or was under the limit, even when he might prefer to take a softer, more conciliatory approach. We therefore see this new clause as a way to help the Minister exercise the powers he needs, but without stepping too heavily on industry’s toes. As he has said, he does not believe that he will ever need to exercise the power, so let us keep it at arm’s length.