John Milne MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I have great respect for the experience and intelligence of the Ministers behind the Bill, but what we have left in front of us today is no more than a clumsy salvage operation. How on earth did we end up here? The Government say that the cost of disability benefit is spiralling out of control. They say there is no option but to make cuts. However, the premise behind this argument is too simplistic. Overall, the cost of in-work benefits as a percentage of GDP has not changed much, because every time a Government try to cut one benefit, another rises in its place to compensate. Before any changes were proposed, there should have been a serious analysis of what is driving the surge in PIP claims, but Ministers have made little attempt to understand why—it is just a curve on a spreadsheet that needs to be flattened. We are left with the implicit assumption that the Government believe that hundreds of thousands of people are currently receiving benefits that they do not really need and do not deserve. However, there are lots of factors driving this increase, some of which are actually a direct knock-on effect of other Government policies. For example, many of the extra claimants are the result of a recent rise in retirement age; the Government have simply shunted one benefit cost—pension payments—into another—PIP. Another big slice of the increase comes from people who are unable to access healthcare in a timely fashion, especially since covid, and have therefore fallen out of the workplace. Perhaps most of all, people are driven towards benefits by the terrific rise in the cost of living—they just cannot get by any more. Fundamentally, life costs more for people who are disabled. Besides the impact on daily living, many treatments and aids are not available on the NHS. Overall, there are three telltale signs that what we are looking at is a botched compromise. First, we have the new four-point rule for PIP assessments. Any question that scores a one, two or three will not make any difference to the outcome. If someone cannot undress their lower half and needs help to go to the toilet, incredibly, they will not qualify for help. There is literally no point in asking half the questions on the form. The whole four-point rule has been dreamed up not because anyone thinks it is a good way to assess hardship, but to hit an arbitrary cost saving. Secondly, we have the incomprehensible proposal to change PIP assessments next year, without waiting for the outcome of the Timms review. I quote from the Commission on Social Security, which has written to the DWP: “The circus around the proposed changes to PIP and universal credit are a classic example of what happens if policy makers do not work with those whose lives are profoundly affected by Government policy.” Thirdly, we have the decision to give higher benefits to existing claimants than to new claimants, as if someone’s needs were somehow less because they applied after 2026. I do not know how anyone can stand over this as a credible policy. Even on the most optimistic forecasts, only a relatively small minority of current claimants will be able to find jobs, and no account at all has been taken of regional employment blackspots. For every disabled person who can be helped back into work, there will be others moving in the opposite direction. About a third of ME and MS sufferers who are currently in work will be unable to continue as a direct result of losing PIP support, but they do not figure in the Government’s back to work estimates. We also have the 150,000 people who will lose their carer’s allowance, which is likely to rebound on the health service and wipe out whatever savings the Government had hoped to make. The Secretary of State has set high standards to be judged by, saying: “For me, this is a moral mission because I believe that there is a better future for people in so many parts of the country. It is absolutely not cruel.” Well, it might have been a moral mission, but it is certainly not a moral outcome. This is not fairer and more compassionate, as the Secretary of State has claimed. It is harsher and more chaotic. The Bill can no longer be considered a serious attempt at welfare reform—it is just a cobbled together scheme to get us through the next 24 hours. I urge all Members to vote against it.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Day · Hansard source

  More

  We owe a huge debt of thanks to the whole of the world war two generation, but I would like to pay special tribute to a remarkable local hero from my constituency, Jack Dark, the last surviving member of the Pathfinder squadron. The Pathfinders played a crucial role in world war two, flying ahead of bomber formations to mark targets for attack. To say it was a tough mission is an understatement: Pathfinder crews survived for an average of just six weeks. Against all the odds, Jack will celebrate his 102nd birthday on 11 August—an extraordinary milestone that speaks to his incredible spirit and determination. I am very much looking forward to meeting Jack in person tomorrow, and I hope the hon. Lady will agree that his story is a powerful reminder of the bravery and resilience of all our armed forces.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Recognition of the State of Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  13. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of recognising the state of Palestine.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Recognition of the State of Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  What is happening in Gaza is hard enough to watch, but if we are to prevent the west bank from going the same way in a few years’ time, we must act today. Does the Minister agree that recognising the principle of a Palestinian state, without making any judgment for the moment on its borders, is the strongest and most effective way to reaffirm the UK’s long-standing commitment to a two-state solution, while there is still territory left to form it with?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Personal Independence Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Recently I met Kathryn from my constituency who had to give up a £90,000-a-year job in order to care for her husband. With 150,000 carers set to lose their allowance due to PIP eligibility reforms, some of our country’s most hard-pressed households face losing £8,000 a year. Will the Minister confirm that even if the welfare reforms work out to the most optimistic expectations, there will be far more net losers that net gainers among PIP claimants?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In her March Green Paper, the Secretary of State promised to provide an additional £1 billion in funding to help benefit claimants back into work, but only £400 million has actually been allocated, and even that will not come until 2028-29. We have heard some talk of efficiency savings, which is practically the definition of a magic money tree if ever there was one, so will the Minister confirm that the promised £1 billion for employment support will be all new money, and not cannibalised from other vital DWP services?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is good news that the rural prosperity fund has been extended for another year, but it has been reduced to £33 million this year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a firm, long-term commitment to solving the challenges of rural infrastructure provision?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Banning Conversion Practices · Hansard source

  More

  15. When she plans to bring forward legislative proposals to ban conversion therapy.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Banning Conversion Practices · Hansard source

  More

  Previous Governments have promised to bring forward legislation to ban conversion therapy, but it has not happened yet. Eris, one of my constituents in Horsham, tells me that recent headlines have created fear and uncertainty within the trans community, increasing their sense of isolation. Will the Minister show the LGBTQ community that they are not ill or something to be converted, and commit to action within the next 12 months?

• 12 Jun 2025 · SEND Funding · Hansard source

  More

  SEND provision in our schools is in a state of deep and growing crisis. In my area, West Sussex county council is already struggling with a £130 million SEND deficit this year—a figure likely to rise to £224 million by next year. That huge figure is one of the worst in the country, but what is truly concerning is that so much overspend has not even bought us a satisfactory service. Complaints from parents and schools have filled my postbag ever since the election. Only half of EHCPs nationally are issued within the legal 20-week timeframe. In West Sussex it is even worse: just 12% now meet the deadline—and that is after a big push to get the waiting list down. It is hard to believe that slow processing is not a tactic. An EHCP gives parents the right to access educational support, but that support does not actually exist, so the local authority’s solution is to create deliberate bottlenecks in the system so that many families will never get all the way through. That is particularly unfair at the nursery level, because educational psychologist assessments can take so long that the child is all the way through school before they get one. More and more families are forced to go to appeal—tribunal appeals are up 53% in one year—but the fact that councils lose almost all those cases tells us that things should never have got that far in the first place. In effect, that discriminates heavily against parents who, for whatever reason, are less able to fight their case all the way through the system. I have met many parents with SEN children and the emotional cost is enormous. Sometimes I feel like I myself need counselling afterwards. Parents have to watch their children drift away from mainstream schooling when early intervention might have saved them. Families are breaking up under the strain. One couple told me that a third of marriages do not survive the experience. Of course, the pressure on staff is no less severe. Our teachers—particularly SENCOs—are exhausted, unsupported and leaving the profession. One Horsham SENCO told me: “We are seasoned professionals, but we are at breaking point.” Mainstream schools face manifest injustices. One school told me about a child who was refused by a specialist school because their needs were said to be too great. What happened? The child was allocated to an ordinary mainstream primary without any specialist support. I realise that the demands on the Government’s budget are endless, but I hope that the current review will lead to swift action. Any further delay means we risk losing all the educational progress that teachers have worked so hard to deliver over the past 10 years.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s decision to widen access to free school meals—a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy—but Castlewood primary school in my constituency tells me that it is currently losing 56p for every single meal it provides. Will the Chancellor undertake to fully fund school meals, or else is she asking schools to choose between teaching and eating?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to speak about my new clauses 46 to 48. The Bill concentrates entirely on removing perceived barriers to development. Unfortunately, in the Government’s view those turn out to be nature and the general public, and to that end the Bill proposes a huge reduction in the ability of local residents and councillors to make their voices heard, or to have any meaningful influence over outcomes. That is such a pity, because gaining consent is not an impossibility. Neighbourhood plans were introduced under the coalition Government. Done well, they represent the best version of local knowledge and local wishes, but there is not so much as a single mention of them in the entire Bill. Nothing could reveal more effectively how far the Government’s focus is from the views of local residents, who are to be treated as “hostiles” who must on no account be allowed to have their say. For that reason I have tabled new clause 48, which would require neighbourhood plans to be taken into account in decision making. Otherwise, I am not sure why they exist at all. I have also tabled new clauses 46 and 47, which are directed at the need for local infrastructure. New housing development comes with two key promises: that it will bring affordable homes for local people, and that the extra funds it brings will mean more civic amenities. Both these promises are routinely broken. For the last decade, the pace of house building has been rapid in my constituency. Residents have been asked to support large-scale development because, they have been told, it will bring new schools and clinics along with it. In reality, they have seen the houses built but not the services. Why does that keep happening? People usually blame greedy developers, but the real fault usually lies with the Government. Incredibly, although a school may in good faith be written into a local plan, signed and sealed via a section 106 agreement, that guarantees nothing. When the time comes to build the school, the Department for Education will often withdraw its support, and no DfE support means no school. Similarly, an apparently solid commitment to build a new GP surgery is so many empty words if the integrated care board later decides that it does not want to staff it. As budget pressures increase year on year, Government bodies will decide that it is cheaper to cram more children into existing schools, and more patients into existing clinics, than it is to add new ones. Unfortunately, the Bill does little to fix those problems. Every time the Government mention supporting infrastructure, it turns out that they mean big national infrastructure. That is important too, but it does not solve local problems. The Government are viewing this problem through urban eyes. Urban centres usually already have sufficient infrastructure in place, but in rural areas such as Horsham, settlements are literally doubling in size, but with the same level of services. As a former local councillor, I have experienced at first hand how hard it is to shape development to meet local needs when planning authorities lack control over so many of the essential factors. No wonder residents object to new housing, when all they see is more strain on services that are already at breaking point. I hope the Minister will support my amendments. They are intended to improve this Bill, not to sabotage it. Local participation is not something to be feared; rather, it should be embraced.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I agree that such sites can be in remote locations where there are fewer resources. As I will say later in my remarks, fire officer training is very much part of what I am recommending. There is a strong case for mandating water-based suppression systems, off-gas detection, ventilation systems and thermal runaway mitigation as design conditions. Unfortunately, that is far from the case today. The guidelines for planning approval are imprecise and vary across the devolved nations. Currently, the burden of responsibility falls on individual local authority planning officers who have no specific training or background in lithium-ion technology—and why on earth would they? For reasons that are hard to understand—perhaps the Minister can explain—fire and rescue services have not been made statutory consultees for planning applications. The current guidance states that applicants are “encouraged to engage” rather than required to do so, but even compulsory consultation is not enough by itself because the fire services themselves do not always have the expertise. Within the last fortnight, Henry Griffin, Suffolk’s deputy chief fire officer asked for fire services to be given new powers, saying: “I’d like to see a power that is akin to a regulatory order like those for a commercial property, where we would have the power to enforce safety measures on those sites.” He explained that the fire service is currently just a “contributing partner”, able to give “direction and professional advice”, but not necessarily to require what it might like. The result is inconsistency, which is destructive both of public trust and of the success of the industry. In my own constituency of Horsham, the local planning authority has rejected a BESS application, while a similar site, just half a mile away, across the border in Mid Sussex, has won approval. Such inconsistencies show alarming parallels with Grenfell. The Grenfell disaster was the end result of many failings by both individuals and companies, but at heart it was a failure of regulation. The rules left things wide open for exploitation by cost-cutting developers, which is exactly what happened. Just as with lithium-ion batteries, a new technology—in that case cladding—was being used at scale for the first time, without proper understanding of the risks. The time to act is now because the number of BESS applications is expanding exponentially.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House recognises the unique challenges posed by lithium-ion fires in battery energy storage sites; and calls on the Government to bring forward enforceable national regulations for their design and construction. I have asked for this debate in order to highlight important issues associated with lithium-ion batteries when deployed at grid scale. These installations are known as battery energy storage systems, or BESSs. In particular, I am calling for clear national regulations that could be applied in the same way in every part of the UK. We need legislation, and I hope that this debate will push the Government further along the road to passing it. The UK has set a target to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. To achieve that, many wind and solar farms have been constructed and permissions are being sought for many more. I fully support the drive towards renewable energy; the enhanced regulation that I am suggesting today is intended to secure the industry’s future, not to create more obstacles. I think it is perfectly possible to draw up regulations that will not stand in the way of BESS roll-out, and which in the long term could actually save the industry from a wholly avoidable setback in the event of an accident. BESSs solve the classic question of what to do when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow. They provide a number of highly useful functions, including load balancing, peak shaving and energy arbitrage. Above all, they make it practical to meet a much larger percentage of our national energy needs from renewables. However, every energy system carries some kind of risk, and most BESSs currently use lithium-ion battery technology. In the event of an accident—and sooner or later there are always accidents—lithium-ion batteries catch fire in a different way from other materials, in a process known as thermal runaway. It is important to note that most BESSs now rely on lithium iron phosphate or LFP batteries. This chemistry is much more stable than lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide or NMC cells, which are common in consumer uses. That means fewer incidents, but those incidents can still be dangerous. In the future, there will undoubtedly be other chemistries, so we need to leave space for innovation. Thermal runaway generates very high temperatures and requires different firefighting methods. It is usually best not to try to put out the fire, but rather to control the spread. Firefighters also have to contend with severely toxic gas emissions, the risk of an explosion, soil contamination and damage to watercourses. To repeat, I am in no way suggesting that battery energy storage systems are inherently unsafe. The risks they entail may be different from those of traditional systems, but they are perfectly controllable.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is better acquainted than I am with the way that devolution works, but yes, I hope that the Minister will be able to set out whatever course of action is required to get to that point. It is essential that we build battery energy storage sites to proper safety standards so that we do not find ourselves facing the need for a massively more expensive retrofit, with consequences for the entire energy network. What accidents have there been so far? In September 2020, a fire at a BESS site in Liverpool created a significant blast and took 59 hours to extinguish. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service said that the blaze on Carnegie Road “appears to be the first significant fire of its type to occur within the UK”. However, this was only a small BESS, with just four containers and a modest 20 MWh output in total.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response and all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. Wherever we stand on renewable energy, we can all agree that we must have the highest possible safety standards—that is an absolute given. From the conversations I have had with industry, clear national guidance would be widely welcomed because what we have now is not felt to be sufficient. What industry most wants is clarity, so any rules can be integrated from the start, at the design stage, when the cost impact is minimal. Regulations are clearly a live issue in many constituencies with so many applications across the country, as Members have said. However, everything is progressing in a random and unco-ordinated way. The fact that the Government do not know which Department should answer questions on the subject is revealing. I am concerned that Parliament does a weaker job of scrutiny on niche subjects like this one because they are so technical. We are currently placing part of that responsibility on the shoulders of local councillors and council officers, who cannot possibly have the relevant expertise. In her remarks, I noticed that the Minister was still using the term “encouraged” in relation to consulting with local fire officers. That is not enough as such consultation should be mandated and I am disappointed not to hear that there will be mandatory consultation, which is what we all want. I stress again that incidents will be rare, but a single incident can bring down an industry. I hope that the Minister will not make the same mistake that was made over cladding regulations: let us make this a tragedy that never happens. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House recognises the unique challenges posed by lithium-ion fires in battery energy storage sites; and calls on the Government to bring forward enforceable national regulations for their design and construction.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  The issue of site choice is closely associated with grid capacity, so that is a factor. That is why some of these sites are ending up in otherwise somewhat improbable and very un-industrial settings. Rules around the pollution of watercourses are one of the most important measures to be brought in, and a wider discussion of land use is going on that could help with that. There was another accident in February this year. Essex firefighters dealt with a fire at a BESS project that was still under construction and therefore not even operating at full power. The most serious incident internationally, which caused serious injury, was in McMicken, Arizona in 2019. As a result, America, along with Germany, has some of the most effective BESS protocols in the world, which I think could be copied. Overall, BESS fires are high risk in their impact but low in incidence. The Faraday Institution estimates that only one in 40 million battery cells will experience failure resulting in fire. That is an exceptionally high standard of safety, but there are millions of batteries, so there will be accidents—and, of course, in a BESS scenario one battery can trigger another. Grenfell was one fire in one building, yet the ramifications continue today. It has left us with the huge cost of retrofitting large numbers of high-rise buildings across the UK built with similar cladding methods. Even a single failure can therefore undermine an entire industry if it turns out to be the result of a systemic mistake in design. The UK’s regulatory approach to BESS safety relies on performance-based regulations such as the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Building Regulations 2010. They place the responsibility on the responsible person—the site owner—to ensure that adequate safety measures are in place, but they lack specific provisions tailored to BESSs. Too much reliance is being placed on individual owners to mark their own homework. The National Fire Chiefs Council provides guidance for the fire and rescue services, but that needs to be more comprehensive and updated constantly in line with changes in technology if it is to serve a proper regulatory purpose. On fire response regulation, recent changes to the International Electrotechnical Commission standards suggest a global shift towards mandatory water-based suppression and proactive risk mitigation, but that has not yet been echoed in UK law. There are also the environmental impacts. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Water Resources Act 1991 provide a general framework for managing environmental impacts but, again, they do not specifically address the challenges posed by BESS fires. Existing regulators do not seem to know whose responsibility this should be. In a recent application for a solar park at Cleve Hill in Kent, which includes battery storage, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero stated that the Health and Safety Commission should be consulted on safety advice, but the HSC itself said that commenting on battery safety management plans was not in its remit. That confusion is not exactly reassuring. It is important to note that if the batteries themselves are not manufactured in the UK, the Government have limited scope to regulate. However, because batteries are produced under controllable factory conditions, their failure rate is low. The focus of UK regulation should instead be on the processes that can happen in this country, especially the design of the battery containers and the overall site. I understand from the Electricity Storage Network, which is the industry group for electricity storage in Great Britain, that it is currently talking to officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about a new permitting system. It is also talking to the British Standards Institution about laying down new standards for design and emergency response. However, the Government have responded to all questions from myself and others saying that they consider the present regulatory regime to be “robust”. I am tempted to say that pride comes before a fall. In the last few weeks, a spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has stated: “Battery fires at storage sites are rare in the UK. We already have high safety standards in place that require manufacturers and industry to ensure batteries are safe throughout their lifespan.” That is just too complacent. Fires as a result of cladding were also incredibly rare, but that did not save 72 lives at Grenfell. I and others have been asking for action for some time, but so far without success. It feels like the message still is not getting through. It is very concerning that many questions are passed from Department to Department, with no one seeming to be sure exactly whose responsibility it is. Because of inadequate regulation, some BESS units have already been fitted with inappropriate fire suppression techniques, which might actually make the problem worse, but they were installed in good faith by operators looking to do the right thing. Why are the Government so reluctant to act? I hope that the Minister will explain. Perhaps the Government are worried that regulations would slow down the planning process, but I would argue that clearer rules will actually make life easier for planning officers and councillors. Currently, they have to grapple with a complex technical subject for the first time each time—that is too much to ask of non-experts. I further suggest that it would be easier to win public consent if there were more clarity and consistency. Perhaps the Government fear stifling innovation in a new and rapidly changing industry. I wholly agree that any regulations need to be carefully drafted and have sufficient flexibility. Any guidance needs to cover a number of areas, including the transportation of batteries to the site, design and construction, firefighting, ongoing inspection and decommissioning. In the short term, if the Government are—for any reason—still reluctant to regulate, perhaps they could issue clear national guidelines that are capable of being updated annually. Enforcement might then take place through the insurance industry, which would be likely to insist that any new applications follow such guidelines. As no project can go ahead without insurance, this would be enforcement by the back door. Grenfell was a wholly predictable tragedy. A similar fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, which killed six people, should have made us understand the risk, but that warning was not heeded and history took its course. We cannot go back in time to stop Grenfell, but we can act now to avoid making the same mistake again with battery energy storage systems.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Locked Child Trust Funds · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent has been through no fewer than eight Justice Secretaries, looking for a solution to the problem of locked child trust funds; he has had to start over again each time from scratch. Will the Minister give me and Mr Turner a clear understanding of what exactly the legal impediment is to a solution, and of what part of Government the objection is coming from, so that we can make a legal challenge to it, if necessary?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Locked Child Trust Funds · Hansard source

  More

  4. When the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services plans to meet the hon. Member for Horsham’s constituent Andrew Turner to discuss locked child trust funds.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  For many years, rural bus services have been dying a slow death by a thousand cuts. In my constituency of Horsham, we have lost about a third of our services since 2010, and funding has fallen by as much as 43% in some areas. This is how it works: we cut the timetable, which means fewer people use the service, so we cut the timetable again—rinse and repeat. In many villages, it is simply impossible to live without a car. Even if we did put a bus service back into those villages, no one would use it because the only people who live there are car users. It is no wonder that economic inactivity in rural communities is nearly 2.5% higher than in urban centres. Good jobs and an education are literally out of reach. How can we reverse this downward spiral? It is clear that if local authorities step back and rely on commercial operators to decide routes by themselves, it is not going to work, but that is exactly what we are seeing in West Sussex. Commercial operators have to keep to their timetables or face a fine, but to achieve punctuality on the No. 17 route meant that the village of Partridge Green had to be dropped altogether at certain times of day. Pensioners now have to walk over a mile to the nearest stop or pay for expensive taxis. Residents were not consulted about the cuts, and they found out only a few weeks in advance, with no time to make other arrangements. Half the village turned out to a church meeting to protest, and if only we could have harnessed that enthusiasm in time, we might have saved the service, but of course it was too late. Now the same thing is happening all over again, with cuts to the No. 63 bus through another village, Slinfold, which will make it impossible for local commuters to link to Horsham station. Again the excuse was punctuality, again there was no consultation and again residents had just a few weeks’ notice. This gets to the heart of why our rural bus services have been in terminal decline. County councils, the bodies we would expect to have residents’ interests at heart, can all too easily hide behind a commercial bus operator and say that it is all out of their control. No one wants to admit responsibility. We all keep saying that we want to take traffic off the roads and cut pollution, but in reality, local councils such as West Sussex have been presiding over a policy of managed decline. Will the new Bill do enough to reverse it? The Bill certainly moves in the right direction by empowering local authorities to franchise routes, run their own bus companies and trial demand-responsive transport schemes, which are good building blocks for a more flexible, responsive system. However, when I look at West Sussex, it is clear that these freedoms by themselves will not be enough, even if there was more dynamic leadership in the council. Setting up its own bus service is a high-risk, high-investment strategy for a council. I can see how big urban centres may have the wherewithal to take advantage of these new rights, but more rural authorities such as my own are already on budgetary life support and there is no way they can take on such a gamble. This is going to take something more from the Government, and that something is more funding to kick-start a revolution. So let us fund bus services properly, empower local councils to make the right decisions and ensure that affordable, accessible transport remains a lifeline for all our communities.

• 22 May 2025 · Access to NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  Since being elected to represent Horsham, I have been approached by many residents facing impossible prices for urgent dental treatment. Annie is 67 and caring for a husband with terminal bowel cancer. You would think that she has enough things to worry about, but given the state of dental services in the Horsham area, she has been unable to find an NHS dentist within a 20-mile radius. Forced to go private, she paid £80 for an assessment and was then quoted £150 for an extraction. She asks simply: “When will an alternative to private dentistry be available?” I also heard from Sally. Her family were denied NHS root canal treatment, with an £800 private option as the only alternative. She asks: “How can we trust their advice when it feels like it’s all about the money?” Of course, this is a crisis not of dentists, but of dentistry. The NHS contract—based as it is on units of dental activity—is simply no longer fit for purpose, if it ever was. The conflict of interest between public and private is the result of more and more dentists being forced to subsidise their NHS contracts through private work. The Government have committed to providing more support and more urgent appointments, but it is hard to get enough new employees through the front door when so many continue to leave by the back door. In the area covered by my local integrated care board, there are more people leaving than joining across many key dental roles. Over a six-month period to the end of March last year, there were 41 general dentists in and 43 out; one orthodontist in and two out; 48 dental nurses in and 60 out; and 48 receptionists in and 54 out. In fact, five out of nine roles in dentists’ clinics have been losing staff faster than they can get new ones. The result is ever-declining access to NHS dental services, with children losing their teeth before they even reach the age of 10 and the horror stories of do-it-yourself dental treatment. I will leave the House with the words of the West Sussex local dental committee, which contacted me just weeks after my election last year regarding the NHS dental contract. Its warning was simple: “If we don’t act quickly, there may be very little NHS left to adopt a new NHS contract.” I accept that the present Government were not responsible for causing this problem, but they are responsible for fixing it.

• 22 May 2025 · School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations · Hansard source

  More

  Over the last six months, I have visited most of the schools in my constituency, and the message I am getting loud and clear is that they are on the brink, especially over special educational needs and disabilities provision. That threatens to throw into sharp reverse any progress on educational standards. I ask the Government to be honest about the real state of funding, and not to make statements that are not fully funded. That applies to statements on existing services, such as SEND provision, and on the cost of school dinners. I hold the new Government to a higher standard, and I ask the Minister to be completely honest about the real state of affairs.

• 21 May 2025 · Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Like others, I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing the debate. We say that at the start of every debate, but this is different—it really matters. She has done a fantastic job since our visit to Ukraine, on which I joined her, not just by bringing the issue to national attention—we now see it in the national news—but by ensuring that it gains international traction. Until my visit, I knew nothing about this issue, and of all the things I saw this was the most shocking. I learned many things on the trip. The first thing, of course, was the hospitality. Wherever we went, there were fantastic people and such warmth—it was unforgettable. I learned also that life goes on; it is incredible how people can continue. There have now been three years of war, with drones dropping from the sky. We all downloaded an app that warned us about drone attacks and, believe me, it was going off all the time. Yet people went about their everyday lives: they went to work or to restaurants as if it was not happening. It was incredible. I was impressed by the ingenuity of the Ukrainian people, particularly at a secret drone factory that we visited. Ukraine has become the world leader in drone design and manufacture. It is the future of warfare, so we have a lot to learn from them, and we should be grateful to them for their work. We would not necessarily have expected that level of entrepreneurship in an ex-Soviet bloc state, which shows me that Ukraine belongs in the west and in Europe. I was struck by the commitment to cause. President Putin and others put about unpleasant stories that this was Zelensky’s war, that the people of Ukraine were not behind him and that he was forcing them into war. That is untrue. In every single community there are flags, memorial centres and graves. It is not hidden. It is in full and present view everywhere, and it is all the more impactful because, in the habit of the Orthodox church, they show pictures of the fallen. We also visited two hospitals where we saw young men in rehabilitation with very difficult injuries. I also took from the visit something more practical, which relates to international security. We have talked about the need for a European army, because of the pressure we are under, but that is our army: it is larger than all the western European armies put together already. Given the time it will take us to get an army together, we need to support Ukraine’s army, because that is our defence. There were lighter moments on the trip. I will never forget a night we had in Kyiv. We were in a lovely hotel, but unfortunately we spent half the night in a bomb shelter because of warnings. One of the MPs managed to get his laptop out, and we watched “Darkest Hour”. The parallels between 1940 and where we were in Ukraine were very striking. At the start of the war, I did not believe that it could get like this. Putin was putting out the story that Ukrainians and Russians were brothers—that they were the same people. I never imagined that things could get as violent, destructive and vicious as they have, but they did straightaway, as we discovered. The Bucha massacre, near Kyiv, was in the first days of the war. It is not as if it grew to that moment; it began with that moment. The worst crime of all, as we have heard today, is the systematic theft and abduction of all these children, clearly with the knowledge and instruction of President Putin. He brings shame on Russia, which is a great nation. I cannot imagine what it is like to know that your child is alive but with another family. I will say one last thing: besides all the other requests that have been made today, it has to be a precondition that there is no peace without the return of these children.

• 19 May 2025 · UK-EU Defence and Security Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  2. If he will make it his policy to negotiate a defence and security agreement with the EU.

• 19 May 2025 · UK-EU Defence and Security Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  The ill-advised decision to leave the EU in 2016 saw us leave the European Defence Agency at the same time. With defence expenditure rising at record rates across Europe in response to the invasion of Ukraine, the EDA has a vital role to play in our national security. What plans do the Government have to secure a more effective working relationship with Europe’s defence procurement strategy and to form stronger links with the EDA?