John Milne MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, people understand the importance of Gatwick to the local economy—not least because many of them have a job there. However, the way that public consultation has been handled over the last decade has created deep anxiety about what changes to airports and airspace will mean for them, their families and the communities they live in. It is on their behalf that I am asking for the introduction of a dedicated aviation ombudsman, especially in the context of the need to lay out new flightpaths. I am wholly supportive of the need for airspace modernisation, which is being carried out across the whole of Europe. It will bring welcome improvements in both emissions and safety. As part of that process, Gatwick Airport Ltd is looking for a change to a particular currently agreed flightpath, such that planes leaving west and turning south to Europe will be able to do so almost immediately after take-off, instead of building up height first. In doing so, Gatwick will inflict major noise pollution over north Horsham and three rural villages that are not currently overflown to a great extent. When the same route, known as ADNID, was trialled 10 years ago, it provoked an explosion of public distress. The then CEO swiftly withdrew it and promised never to introduce it again. However, lo and behold, in the last round of public consultation—subsequently cancelled—Gatwick gave Horsham people a choice of three airspace plans, all three of which contained that identical route. It was less Gatwick’s choice, more Hobson’s choice. Why did Gatwick do that: simply because it would enable it to increase the number of take-off slots, which are potentially worth millions. That is a clear conflict of interest, and I have great difficulty believing that the financial incentive had no influence whatsoever on Gatwick’s thinking. Either way, at the very least it risks the perception of bias. What is particularly aggrieving is that the route is not necessary. Given all the other changes going on at the same time, it would make a negligible contribution to efficiency, emissions reduction or even capacity, seeing as Gatwick is heading for a huge increase in capacity owing to a second runway and other measures. Unfortunately, the voice of the consumer plays such a small part in the process that no one is able to add up the pros and cons. It is all on the side of industry. I therefore asked the then aviation Minister to include an independent member as standard on airspace review panels. He declined, and now the whole process has been restarted anyway, but we still have a situation where the citizen has no power to challenge major changes that will affect their lives. Another CAA reform further illustrates my point. The Department’s new air navigation guidance, published last month, lowers the altitude up to which noise must be prioritised over efficiency from 7,000 feet to 5,000 feet—I referred to that in a previous question to the Secretary of State. That means that fewer people will be able to argue against such a route on noise grounds. That happened in the same year that the CAA’s own new research—the aviation noise attitudes survey and the aviation night noise effects study—found that the noise level at which people become highly annoyed is 43 dB, rather than 54 dB, as previously advised. Communities are more sensitive to noise than the Department’s own evidence said a decade ago, yet the response has been to shrink, not extend, the altitude band where noise takes priority. Where is the voice of the resident in that? It will have a material impact on decisions in my area, as well as at other airports. Why is the CAA allowed to mark its own homework when no one else is? There already is an alternative dispute resolution available for consumer complaints—such as a refund for a delayed bag or cancelled flight—but it is not a usable tool for regulatory decisions, such as where a flightpath goes, how the noise is distributed or which homes end up underneath it. The Government’s written answers confirm that dissatisfaction with a CAA regulatory decision cannot be pursued through the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman; it can only go to internal or judicial review. For the great majority of residents, neither of those is a realistic option. We have been here before. Water is another industry that touches growth, employment, the environment and people’s daily lives, and where trust has been totally destroyed. The Government’s answer to that issue was that there should be a new legally binding water ombudsman. Like campaigners the length and breadth of the country, I believe that aviation deserves the same treatment. The Minister has written to me arguing that there is already a consultation process, but most residents will be left completely unaware of major changes, and, even if they were aware, they would be unable to do anything significant about it. As proposed, the process is so completely dominated by the industry voice that even a modest request, such as not repeating the same mistake on flight paths around Horsham, can never get any kind of hearing. I think that the Minister is wrong to assume that the industry always knows what is best in all circumstances. Fairness and objectivity should be offered on CAA regulatory decisions and on consumer and passenger rights alike. I therefore ask the Government to look again and to shore up this Bill with an independent ombudsman for aviation.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  With regard to noise specifically, the Government recently reduced the height at which noise is considered an important factor, from 7,000 to 5,000 feet. Noise between 5,000 and 7,000 feet now has less impact on decision making. That change was not meaningfully consulted on; it was just made and enforced on everybody. It has an impact in my constituency, and perhaps in many others. Will the Secretary of State comment on how that decision was reached and whether it is changeable?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), and I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse. This Government have rebuilt the local government funding formula and launched an ambitious devolution agenda, both in the name of fairness and moving power closer to the people. I question how that is working. Ministers say that the new funding formula matches money to need, and that by the end of the settlement, the most deprived places will receive 45% more funding per head than the least deprived. Nobody disputes that deprivation matters, but measuring deprivation in rural areas is not straightforward. According to the County Councils Network, county authorities will receive only £345 per head in grant funding against a national average of £526, and will therefore have to find more than 90% of any budget increase from council tax alone. That means they will receive roughly 2p of any additional Government money for every £1 of new cost pressure, while metropolitan boroughs will receive 42p. That is an enormous difference. Although individual councils vary, the Rural Services Network shows that rural residents already pay 70% more council tax per head than urban residents, despite lower wages on average. That gap is projected to widen every year of this settlement. As others have pointed out, the Government removed the remoteness indicator from every part of the funding formula except adult social care. How does a remote child cost less to reach than a remote adult? Part of the current recovery grant is also still allocated using 2019 deprivation figures, even though updated 2025 data already exists and is used elsewhere in the very same formula. That makes no sense and perhaps the Minister can explain. There is an unspoken assumption that needs correcting: rural does not necessarily mean rich. Research into so-called pretty poverty in Cornwall shows real deprivation hidden behind a scenic view. Measures built to track deprivation in cities simply fail to spot it. The Government’s new devolution programme has the same design fault. Evidence that I have heard this year from rural bodies and local leaders is consistent. Combined authority structures, funding pools and business rates growth incentives were all built around city region economics first and do not necessarily work in the same way in rural areas. One flagship funding tool, full retention of business rates growth, was piloted in Greater Manchester. Will the Minister say whether that model has been tested where the business rates base is small and slow growing, as it typically is in rural England? Again, in honour of my Cornish colleagues, Cornwall tried a version of full retention in 2018, and it had to give up its rural services grant as the price of entry. I would not want rural authorities steered towards a tool that rewards growth but lacks the tax base to successfully generate it. If the Government are serious about devolution, it has to mean something for parish and town councils, not just mayors and unitary authorities. There is no proper funding settlement and no training offer for the clerks and officers who will be increasingly asked to take on responsibilities that have been devolved down from a disappearing district tier, as in my area of Horsham. With the best will in the world, they are not properly equipped for that. The fundamental assumption of the fair funding formula is that more deprived, mainly urban authorities have had a raw deal compared with rural shire counties, but the clear fact is that every type of council has been struggling over a long period. My county council of West Sussex is carrying almost £200 million in debt under its dedicated schools grant for special educational needs. Even with the proposed 90% reduction in SEND debts, which is welcome, that still leaves £20 million to be stripped out of a general budget that is frankly already buckling under the strain. The Government’s policy risks forcing yet more cuts on services that have already been cut too far. Two thirds of spending in West Sussex is ringfenced, which means portfolios such as highways or buses—transport—have to bear the whole burden of any savings. The new funding formula risks condemning councils across the country to failure, but they are mostly not Labour councils and it is hard not to see a political angle. Does a pothole cost more to fix in a deprived area than in a wealthier one? No, it does not. The cost of many council services is not related at all to deprivation, so it is wrong to build an entire funding formula around that one criterion. Local councils are not the main cause of deprivation, and neither can they be the main fix. This Government promised to help working people and to devolve power. Rural authorities are still waiting. I hope the Minister will commit to using 2025 data consistently, to reinstating remoteness across the whole formula, and to properly funding and training parish and town councils so that devolution reaches the communities it is meant to serve.