John Milne MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think there is evidence that fiduciary duties are not interpreted in a way that optimises outcomes for pensions savers? If so, would you support any change in legislation to help? Christopher Brooks: Yes; I think a lot of schemes do not interpret it broadly, so they probably take things literally regarding financial materiality—that is obviously very important, but they could probably do more. I think there is a very strong case for reform in fiduciary duties, just to make it clear in the law what it actually means. It is more of an enabling tool for providers, I think, rather than anything restrictive. When there needs to be some direction for schemes to invest in particular ways, I think there is sometimes a bit of reticence. That is true of investing in the UK, maybe with some private finance and maybe with regards to climate change. The larger schemes no doubt do understand it, but all schemes need to understand that they can invest in these things and that that is possible. I am no expert on this, but, as I understand it the fiduciary duty is all over the place in the law, and sort of hinges on bits of case law and bits of very old legislation, so clarifying that would be a really good move. Jack Jones: I would agree with that. I think there could be statutory guidance to make it very clear to trustees what their fiduciary duty actually involves, and that it does go beyond that kind of narrow interpretation. As I say, you should take into account your members’ quality of life more generally—for example, investing in ways that support the UK, when that is where your members are, is something that is in their wider interests, and managing systemic risks such as climate change is obviously very material financially, but also has an impact on the kind of world they will be retiring into. As I said before, we do hear fiduciary duty occasionally being used as a reason not to do the hard stuff and not to think through that. There is nothing inherently problematic there, but clarifying and making sure that trustees are fully aware of the breadth of fiduciary duty would be helpful.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q From your perspective, what would be the main obstacles or difficulties in fulfilling the value for money requirement in the Bill? Dale Critchley: From a practical perspective, producing all the data. We need clarity in the regulations and clear definitions, so that everyone is producing the same data in the same way so that it can be compared. Setting practical considerations aside, one of the risks is that there is a disjoint between the market and value for money. Value for money is looking at value. We still see lots of evidence in the market in terms of looking at price—“We want the cheapest thing possible”—not necessarily the best value. There is a potential tension there. Longer term, there is the risk we pointed out around herding: if you set benchmarks, that creates a behaviour which, instead of optimising outcomes for members, produces an average. An example of that is in the metrics around service that are currently being thought about. They are what I have described as 20th-century metrics. Rather than metrics that are looking to engage members to drive decisions through electronic engagement, they are measuring, “How long does it take to change someone’s address? Have you got their national insurance number?” We think we could stretch things further, but that creates some challenges for some providers. Colin Clarke: One of the other things that the industry as a whole needs to consider is around capacity. The value for money framework, if it is managed and regulated effectively, is going to result, ultimately, in members being moved into things that have the potential to deliver better value. All those kinds of projects take a lot of work and a lot of resource, so it would need to be managed carefully to make sure that the industry has actually got the capacity to manage the high volume of traffic that is going to be going through as funds consolidate.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think that the finance industry has a clear understanding of how to apply its fiduciary duty? Do you think the Bill makes that clearer or muddies the waters, or somewhere in between? Patrick Coyne: I think that fiduciary duty is a powerful force for good. Across the Bill, this is about giving those trustees the tools for the job. I think there are a number of areas where that is true. Within the value for money framework, at the moment, it is very difficult for employers or schemes to effectively compare performance. As an anecdote, I was speaking to a provider recently. They were pitching for new business. They came in and pitched their investment data, and the employer said, “You’re the third provider today that has shown us they are the top-performing provider.” That cannot be right. Then, when you are looking across the Bill towards the DB space, because of the funding reality that many schemes are facing at the moment, there is choice in end game options—so, “How do I enhance member outcomes at the same time as securing benefits?” Actually providing a statutory framework for super-funds as another option is a good first step, as is allowing the release of surplus, if it is in the members’ best interests to do so.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think that the proposed value for money framework could have the unintended effect of causing excess caution or short-termism in investment decisions? If so, what mitigations would you suggest? Zoe Alexander: There will of course be metrics in the value for money framework that look at the longer term, and looking at longer time horizons is really welcome. One concern at Pensions UK is about the intermediate rankings in the value for money framework meaning that schemes cannot accept new business. That may well result in schemes doing everything they can, at any cost, to ensure they do not drop from the top rating to the intermediate rating. That could cause damaging behaviours in terms of herding. We want to ensure that people in the intermediate ranking, whether that is within a couple of intermediate rankings—perhaps you have a top one and then a bottom one, but somewhere within that intermediate scale—you can continue to take on new business, and the regulator will perhaps put you on a time limit to get back into the green, back into the excellent rating. We think that if it is so binary that as soon as you drop into intermediate, you cannot take on new business, that will heighten the potential downside risks of investment behaviours that you are describing. Rob Yuille: I agree with that. I strongly support the value for money framework—I think both our organisations do—and the intent to shift the culture away from just focusing on cost and to value for money more generally, but yes, there is that risk. There are multiple trade-offs here: it is about transparency and how much you disclose, versus unintended consequences of that. We want high performers but, for high performance, you need to take risks. As well as what Zoe says, which we might build on, we do not want a one-year metric. One year is too short a period; pensions are a long-term business. There should be a forward-looking metric, so that firms can say how they expect to perform over the longer term and then regulators and the market can scrutinise it. On the points that were raised about intermediate ratings, this is another area where there is a potential combination of two bits of the Bill. There is provision for multiple intermediate ratings. It was originally conceived as a traffic light system, so there would be three ratings. If there were four, it would be okay to say to schemes, “You are not performing; you need to close to new employers,” but if there are three, firms will do everything they can to play it safe and make sure they get the green. So the interaction of those is really important.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The DWP argues that the funds are on the public balance sheet and therefore they object to using them for this purpose. Do you think that is fair, given that the funds were not acquired by the taxpayer? Michelle Ostermann: To clarify the word “using”, as I think it is important, the PPF is an arm’s length body and those assets are ringfenced. Our board has independence over those. It was set up that way—arm’s length—20 years ago to make sure that it was a dedicated protection fund for that industry. It so happens that we do fall under some of the fiscal measures, so both our assets and liabilities do show. However, there is a bit of a conflict there in that we manage them in the prudent, almost in a trusteed fashion, on behalf of our members and all of our stakeholders. But the use of them would have to be prescribed by the board, legislated, and then approved by the board for its affordability, so as to not put at risk the rest of the industry that we are backstopping. The ability for us to be able to afford that and the risk to the organisation is the primary, most sacrosanct thing that our board does. We have very complicated actuarial models to figure out the affordability of all the risks that we take on in the entire industry. That is why we have gone through quite a bit of work to build, just recently, a much more sophisticated model to estimate both the asset and liability implication to us and have even started to form a plan for how we might implement it. So we stand at the ready, but it is beyond our responsibility to be able to legislate the necessary change for it.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The Bill makes the notion of using pension money for macroeconomic benefit—investment in the UK—an explicit objective. Other countries seem to have done this already. Did they do so explicitly and deliberately, or was it just an accidental outcome of good investment decisions? Did it take a conscious effort to make it happen? William Wright: I think it is a mix of both. It very much depends on what sort of assets we are talking about. For example, if we are thinking about the UK stock market or domestic equity markets, we tend to see that markets such as Canada and the Netherlands have an even lower allocation to domestic equities, whichever way you look at it, than comparable UK pensions have to the UK market. Ultimately, this comes down to what you might call the accidental design of the UK system. It has evolved over 20, 30 or 40 years, whereas the systems with which we like to compare the UK system, or large parts of them, were actively designed anything from 30 or 40 to 50 or 60 years ago. We are now seeing the benefits of that active design in those systems. Their focus on scale enables them to invest in a far broader range of assets at a lower unit cost. Going back to the value for money point, UK pensions have ended up in the worst of both worlds. Fee pressure, particularly in terms of winning and transferring new business between providers, is driving down fees, but the average fees on DC pensions today are very middle of the pack: 45 to 50 basis points a year. That is much higher than much larger schemes in Canada, such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the big Canadian reserve fund, and much higher than large UK schemes, such as the universities superannuation scheme, but they are stuck in the middle: they are actually paying higher fees, but because of the fee pressure they have a very vanilla, almost simple asset allocation. As Tim Fassam from Phoenix pointed out, that tends to steer people towards the lowest cost investment option. Active design, focusing on scale and sophistication, enables pension schemes to take a much longer term and much broader view of what they should invest in and where they should invest in it, whereas in the UK we have tended to accidentally move from one system to another.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Pension scheme funding ladders can go up, and they largely have done in recent years, but also they can go down. Do you think that the proposals and the framework in this Bill for surplus extraction have the right balance of risk versus actually achieving the objective? Helen Forrest Hall: From a principles basis, yes, and just to address the funding point, they absolutely can. I know there will be a number of us in the room who have either experienced or been subject to the outcomes of what has happened when those significant events have taken place. In the context of where we are with DB now, a significant proportion of schemes are employing investment strategies that really do protect them against the kind of volatile market movements you might see. The provisions in the Bill strike the right balance between, as I said earlier, giving trustees greater flexibility to exercise their fiduciary duty in discussion with employers, while also ensuring that they are considering the best interests of the members. One of the key considerations for trustees in that conversation is: how confident are we that our investment strategy would withstand significant market movements at the point when we might release a surplus? That is a key consideration. We have seen that a number of pension schemes did not benefit from September 2022 in the way that others did, and that was because they had decided to protect themselves against that kind of market movement. There are things that schemes can deploy to give themselves that level of confidence. Sophia Singleton: We were very pleased to see the stringent funding safeguards that are in the Bill in order to allow a surplus to be released. One thing I would say is that, as Helen says, it is giving the trustees the tools to properly exercise their discretionary power and, in a sense, fiduciary duty, but it has created an opportunity for trustees to negotiate and agree a win-win situation, in a sense. The conversations we are having with schemes is that they are now more likely to be able to feel comfortable in paying, and be able to pay out, discretionary benefits than they would have been before the Bill was in place. It gives schemes the opportunity to run on and for the employer to access the service, but also for members to have more access to discretionary benefits and to additional benefits.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think you have answered all my questions already. We have tabled an amendment, and I would really appreciate your input on whether we could improve it or argue around it between now and when it is raised in Committee. Roger Sainsbury: Thank you.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Auto-enrolment is a great success story. It has certainly got lots more people investing in a pension than would have done otherwise. However, the fact remains that large numbers of them are nowhere near on course to have a reasonable pension in retirement. Small pot consolidation helps, but we have to admit that it is going to be a modest contribution to solving that problem. Do you think we are missing a trick in the Bill? Is there something else that could or should be there to help—or is that a job for another day? Ian Cornelius: That is where we welcome the Pensions Commission. It has been set up to actively look at adequacy: what is right, and are people saving enough? There is no doubt that many people are not saving enough and there are a lot of people who are still excluded from retirement savings. There is a big issue and challenge with the self-employed. There is a challenge for the industry and the Government to work on, but the Pensions Commission creates the right environment to do that. Auto-enrolment has been a big success, but it is only a job half done. Completing that job through the Pensions Commission is incumbent upon the Government and industry.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q So to summarise, you approve of the attempt to take control, as it were. William Wright: Absolutely. One of the huge challenges in the UK pensions debate over the past 25 or 30 years has been that we sort of knew what was not working and where corporate DB pensions were going to go, and then there was a hiatus and no real active design of what was going to replace them. Auto-enrolment did not start to kick in for a couple of decades, and now we are beginning to see the benefits of that, but the opportunity to actively redesign the structure of the defined-contribution pensions system in this country, and the structure of public sector DB, is long overdue.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Earlier, you were touching on possible investments in local matters, such as affordable housing, which have a strong and desirable social benefit. Could it not be argued that there are extra interests for a local investor? Basically a council could both own the houses and effectively supply the customers via its housing lists, so there is an extra reason for investment from a local government pension fund versus other investors. Alongside that, do you think the Government need to help create these investment vehicles so that there is a sufficient pipeline to invest in? Councillor Phillips: The Government have a responsibility to support the strategic authorities in developing the pipeline and the vehicles for investment. Affordable housing is probably one of the best examples to use. The pensioner receiving a pension or paying into a pension from the local government sector would be quite proud of the fact that some of their pension money is being invested in providing homes for the next generation of key workers. That is probably one of the best examples you can ever get of local investment. There is real potential, but I go back to the fact that it has to provide the necessary returns. Just as you have to be careful about some of those controversial ones, there is one that you can absolutely lap up.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Is there anything you think should or could be in this Bill that would help? Patrick Heath-Lay: I completely agree with what Ian just said. The review is the right way, and we need to look at the interaction between saving rates, state pension and the general economic conditions. One thing that we were concerned about with the Bill is this. There is a lot in here that is trying to create better value in the industry as a result of the transformation, but what we have very much seen over the last few years is the rise of retail consolidators, which encourage people to consolidate their lost pensions towards them and effectively put their pensions on their phone. They have taken control of that future. That is a positive thing in terms of people acting and doing something about the number of small pots they have. The issue is that the Bill ignores the rise of that market. From our own research, we know people are consistently moving their pensions to these types of vehicles, which are much more expensive and, for an average earner, effectively mean that they will retire three or four years later than they could have done, because the value delivered through those models is not going to be anywhere near the level of the competitive workplace market as it operates today. We would like to see the extension of value for money and those types of issues into that market as soon as possible, as there are some bad outcomes where well-meaning people are trying to do the right things and do not understand the consequences of what they are doing. There is not sufficient obligation on providers in that market to make those people aware of the consequences of their actions. Ian Cornelius: I wholly welcome the Bill. It will increase and improve standards across the workplace pensions market—but only across the workplace pensions market. The pensions landscape is already pretty complicated with contract-based schemes, trust-based schemes and personal pensions. Consumers do not understand the differences between those—and why should they? The fact that the changes only apply to workplace schemes, and that things such as value for money do not apply across personal pensions, is an issue for consumers. They will be confused and will not necessarily make the right decisions. We need to think about how the landscape can be equalised and made as simple and clear as possible for consumers.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q But would you agree that that could have very stable returns—say a 5% return for affordable housing, or for a care home—because effectively the customers are also coming via the local authority? Councillor Phillips: There is great potential in all the activities that local government can do, but the fiduciary duty is where we need that clearly spelt out and some guardrails put in for that. Robert McInroy: Where the LGPS can potentially bring an advantage to bear is by tapping into its local connections and local expertise—when it can see local investment opportunities that others potentially cannot. To come back to affordable housing and the fiduciary duty, if you are the asset owner, you have to be looking at the returns, and that is a difficult challenge for LGPS funds, particularly when it is in their local areas. You are talking about, for example, whether you push up rent and potentially displace a family or basically taking a lower return as a result of that. It is a very difficult thing to stack up. It is new to the LGPS. We need to make sure there are guardrails around it. Within the Bill it would be useful to bring fiduciary responsibility into the elements of local investment and how that overrides any of the local considerations.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It has been a long-standing battle over pre-1997 compensation rights. Would you agree that this Bill is perhaps an opportunity to at last address that issue, perhaps by a judicious amendment or two? Do you think that that is feasible, and what framework might that take? Michelle Ostermann: We have been progressing on this quite a bit lately. It is one of the most prevalent discussions, both with our board and with our members. We speak very often with the entirety of the industry. Several are very strong advocates for it as well, a few of which are here today, and we have taken quite a bit of humble feedback. We have worked as best we can with the Work and Pensions Committee to estimate a significantly complex set of potential scenarios for making good on historical indexation needs for pre-’97. They range in price, are quite expensive and would require us to incur or crystallise a liability. They are not cheap. It would be difficult for both us and the Government to be able to afford. The taxpayer would have an implication to some of these, depending on how they are formed, and it is beyond our prerogative to make that decision but we have been facilitating and encouraging it to be made. We would welcome progress on that. I understand, in fact, an amendment was tabled earlier today in that regard, so I was warmed by that.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Since my election last year, I have visited most of the schools in my constituency. That has been one of the nicest parts of my new job, but it has been less nice to hear about the tremendous pressure that schools face in coping with the ever-increasing demands of special educational needs. The crisis has now extended well beyond the SEND sector into mainstream schooling. I heard how children who have been refused a place in specialist schools because their needs are considered too great have instead been placed in ordinary mainstream schools. If a specialist school cannot cope, how on earth do we expect a regular school to manage? The stats from my local education authority, West Sussex county council, do not look good. For the last full calendar year available it completed just 3.4% of EHCPs within the statutory 20-week deadline, which is one of the worst rates in the country. Even if a child is lucky enough to get an EHCP, that does not mean they are guaranteed the support they are supposed to get. West Sussex has been run by a Conservative administration for many years; I would argue that it has always prioritised lower council tax bills over running adequate services. Despite that caution—that ingrained cost-cutting inclination—it has still run into severe financial difficulties. It has a deficit of £59 million from 2023-34 for the high needs block, and that is forecast to rise to an unsustainable overspend of £224 million by next year. Every week I see the human cost of that; problems with SEND access are the single biggest issue in my postbag. Last Friday at my surgery in north Horsham, I met with yet another distressing case. Graci is 14 years old. She has a diagnosis of autism, ADHD, dyslexia and suspected postural tachycardia syndrome, and she experiences significant pain, fatigue and sensory overload. But she is a bright girl with great potential, and she has already managed to take two GCSEs, despite the fact that she is now fully home educated. The local authority has twice refused to even assess her, which leaves her entirely without funded support as she approaches year 10. Her mother says that Graci needs an immediate, meaningful intervention if her future is to be preserved. At the age of just 14, Graci feels that she has been written off and left to put together her own DIY education, funded by her lone parent—her mother—who has to work full time. In terms of Government action, we must not see a repeat of what just happened with the welfare Bill, where they tried to solve demand for personal independence payments by simply cutting access. We need to rediscover the value of investing in people, not just things. Children such as Graci are not problems; they are fantastic assets to society, if only we can give them the break that they need. We need to sort this issue out.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  Not entirely, although I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The standard method was intended as an objective way to calculate local housing targets. It is objective in the sense that it is mathematical. However, the question has to be asked: does it give appropriate targets? I would say it very much does not. The reason for the pressure on the green belt—there could be 1,000 reasons—is that the mathematical calculation does not actually calculate housing need; it is a proxy for housing need, which is completely inaccurate and has been the cause of many problems. So it is very disappointing to see that the standard method has been retained by the current Government, and in fact made even worse by another round of mathematical jiggery-pokery that has very little to do with calculating genuine housing need. The policy of reducing house prices by sheer number of planning permissions did not work for the last Government, and it will not work for the current one. It will do irreversible damage along the way to local communities before it will inevitably be changed again. An extra layer of difficulty has been added by local government reorganisation. In many areas, such as my constituency of Horsham in West Sussex, the forthcoming abolition of district and borough planning authorities means that the local plan process will be even more remote from the community. It really is hard to see what role, if any, remains for neighbourhood plans in future. Why would anyone bother with all that work when they do not have any obvious statutory role? Neighbourhood plans can take years to draw up, and most of that is unpaid. The only clear benefit seems to be as a way of securing the higher rate of CIL, or community infrastructure levy payments, but to me it no longer makes sense to incentivise neighbourhood plan making in this way. Perhaps the Government should simply remove that hurdle and make the higher rate automatic. It is extraordinary to see the complete absence of any mention of neighbourhood plans and their role in the new legislation. We can draw no other conclusion than to assume that the Government’s intention is to let them wither away altogether by a gradual process of neglect. To repeat: at their best, neighbour plans are a remarkable demonstration of people power—but not the people this Government want to listen to, apparently. The Liberal Democrats believe that the best way to get Britain building the housing infrastructure we need and bring down costs is to give local communities a real voice and a real stake. To do so we want to ensure that strategic planning authorities consult on a statement of community involvement, which guarantees the right to be heard at an examination; that the Secretary of State takes this consultation into account when deciding an application for development consent; and that parliamentary approval is required for the removal of statutory consultees from the planning process. The Liberal Democrats would also like to see planning committees retain their current powers. When we look at this alongside the emasculation of neighbourhood plans and all the measures that take away or compress local consultation, it is clear that this Government believe that local residents are just a nuisance who need to be locked out of the room while the grown-ups make all the decisions. We are deeply disappointed by the Government’s lack of commitment to boost nature’s recovery and tackle climate change in the planning process, despite promising in their manifesto that changes to the planning system would create places that increased climate resilience and promoted nature recovery. Neighbourhood plans have played a particularly effective role in identifying and protecting existing green spaces, which often have unclear legal status—lost in the mists of time—and are now under threat from the rapacious development industry. Overall, the sidelining of neighbourhood plans in new legislation fits into a pattern of diminishing local power and representation. The Government believe that it is a sacrifice worth making for the sake of pushing faster house building, but all it will do in practice is to pile on more unbuilt planning permissions to the 1.4 million that we already have. It has been demonstrated plainly that permissions by themselves do not bring down prices. Developers simply stop building any time prices start to fall. Mandating an ambitious annual delivery of social housing would be a faster and more effective, environmentally friendly and, above all, consensual way to achieve results. That is why the Liberal Democrats are asking for a guaranteed 150,000 new social houses a year. Neighbourhood plans should be retained and strengthened as a key part of the drive to build consensus in development—not compulsion.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  The targets are centrally driven and set by the standard method. In many areas, they are extremely difficult to fulfil, and that is why we get pressure on the green belt or protected conservation areas. That is the fundamental cause. Across the country, many councils of many different persuasions all face the same problem. That can break councils, because they are forced to allocate housing in areas where they really do not want to. The fundamental issue is the standard method, and we will never solve the issue of building on brownfield or greenfield sites until we properly replace it.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for drawing attention to this often-neglected area. For many years, planning has been the subject of intense argument and dispute, both locally and nationally. Part of that argument is around environmental protection, but in particular there have been battles over the need to find ever more housing sites. The Government are clearly approaching neighbourhood plans from that perspective. As Liberal Democrats, we believe that the starting point for any planning reform should be public consent. That cannot mean a right of veto in every circumstance, because the needs of society as a whole may outweigh local considerations. However, the best results can be obtained when we go as far as possible to allow local residents genuine involvement in their own future. Neighbourhood plans were brought in following the Localism Act 2011 under the coalition Government. As such, Liberal Democrats have always supported them. At their best, they represent the strongest form of community involvement, control and consent in local development. They are a unique co-production between ordinary members of the public and planning professionals. Judging by the number that have been undertaken over the years, they have been very successful, especially in rural areas. When one considers the amount of voluntary work that residents have to put in, they are a remarkable exhibition of people power. I pay tribute to all the residents in my own constituency of Horsham who have sacrificed so much for their communities. Cutting locals out of the process, as the Government’s new Planning and Infrastructure Bill does in so many ways, is a violent break with this past. The main strategic goals for an area need to be set by professionals, but alongside them, ideally in genuine partnership, residents bring a unique local knowledge and emotional commitment in a way that can never be replaced by professional planning officers. As such, it is disappointing to see that this role has been entirely ignored in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that is currently making its way into law. In July 2024, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) asked the Secretary of State, “could she confirm that where local residents have complied with her mandatory targets through a neighbourhood plan, rather than a local plan, the neighbourhood plan will reign supreme and will not be trampled over by planning inspectors subsequently?” —[ Official Report , 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1191.] The Secretary of State replied: “I can confirm that neighbourhood plans and the protections will remain, which is really important.” —[ Official Report , 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1191.] Now that the full text of the Bill has come to light, exactly how true was that statement? Neighbourhood plans are usually created on completely different timelines to local plans. They are usually adopted at different stages and they allocate housing for different periods. Although a neighbourhood plan can meet a housing target at the time it is approved, if a subsequent local plan sets a higher target, the neighbourhood plan will be overruled. That was already a problem under the previous Government. The introduction of the standard method for calculating local housing targets created a parallel but contradictory process for deciding house building, and that has caused endless confusion and dispute ever since. I say to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth that the real cause of the problems with his local council is the standard method. That is the source of the top-down targets. The standard method is not a solution to the housing crisis, but it is a major contributory factor. It is very disappointing—

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  That is a gross generalisation. There are local factors everywhere. The hon. Gentleman really cannot make generalisations like that.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendment 36. Over the past weeks, I have met numerous disability organisations, from Parkinson’s UK to Action for ME, and heard directly from those living with complex fluctuating conditions. I have also seen the impact at first hand as an employer of people with long-term invisible disabilities. What I have heard, seen and lived is simple: the current proposals risk unacceptable consequences for those who are already among the most vulnerable. The Government’s redefinition of “severe conditions” hinges on the word “constantly”—a single word that is of dubious clinical value. I appreciate the clarification given to other Members, but it is very late in the day to be getting such important information. Conditions such as ME/chronic fatigue syndrome, MS, epilepsy and bipolar disorder do not operate on a schedule. They are unpredictable and they fluctuate, yet the Bill would exclude many individuals who have them from vital support, simply because their symptoms do not comply with a Government definition. Amendment 36 would ensure that our assessment system respects the United Kingdom’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. This affirms the principle of non-retrogression so that we do not roll back hard-won rights. It insists that we take invisible and episodic conditions seriously, and it protects people from falling through the cracks. The Bill has had an extraordinary passage through Parliament, and at this point the most obvious course of action would be simply to pull it altogether and start again. I realise the political difficulties that that may involve, but vulnerable people’s lives are at stake. When the Government come to look again at some of the deleted clauses via the Timms review, it is essential to approach the issue from a “needs first” angle, not a “how much can I save?” angle, because so many Government cuts in the past have ended up costing more than they have saved. I accept that the Government do not have infinite funds, but the PIP proposal represented an arbitrary change in eligibility—the four-point rule—with the crude objective of making a predetermined saving. It has all been the wrong way around: we should wait to understand needs first, and only then consider to what extent the Government can afford to meet them.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot agree with the hon. Member, and I will partly explain why in a moment. We need a more honest assessment of the overall financial situation that is being used to justify these drastic cuts, because the wrong diagnosis leads to the wrong solutions. The dramatic rise in PIP claimants is at least partly driven by other Government policy; perhaps one quarter of the rise is simply due to raising the pension age. Large numbers of people who are older, and therefore more likely to be disabled, have been pushed out of pension support into benefit support. The state pension is paid out of current taxation, not past contributions, so the impact is immediate.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree that that is an additional concern. The implication has been made, both by this Government and the previous one, that much of the rise in claims is down to benefit chasing and people simply exaggerating their conditions. This is an assumption that needs serious interrogation because it looks to be substantially untrue. For all these reasons and more, the best course of action would be to pull the Bill now and to make a fresh start. Denying adequate support today will only shift the burden tomorrow on to social care, the emergency services and our already overstretched NHS. We have been warned by the UN not once, but three times, that our welfare system is failing disabled people. Amendment 36 is a chance to show that we are listening.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Court Backlog and Pre-trial Waiting Times · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Horsham, I have been asked to support a woman left in limbo regarding the trial of her ex-partner on a domestic abuse charge. When she was finally given a date, the trial was pulled as a result of an administrative error as she sat waiting in the courtroom. A new date was set for a whole year later. She suffered emotional distress and had to take time off work, which cost her £500. She installed CCTV at her own expense and endured months of further intimidation. Will the Minister undertake to set clear guidelines about maximum waiting times for trials to solve the problem now and in the future?