John Milne MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Child Savings Accounts (Mental Capacity and Disability) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about access to matured child savings accounts in the name of a young person who lacks capacity; to require the Secretary of State to review savings provision for children and young people with disabilities including those who lack capacity; and for connected purposes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to tell you about a family. When Mikey Turner was born, his parents did what so many parents do. They saved for him—not much; a little here, a little there—because they loved their son and they wanted to give him the best chance in life. They put money into a child trust fund, the Government savings account that existed for children born between 2002 and 2011, topped up with £500 of public money as a foundation for every child’s future. However, what they did not know at the time was that Mikey would grow up to have profound disabilities. He lacks the mental capacity to manage money independently. When his child trust fund matured on his 18th birthday, something absurd happened: the money that his family had saved for him, because of him and out of love for him, was, in effect, locked away. His parents, who have cared for Mikey every single day of his life, who are recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions as his appointees, who manage his benefits and who make decisions on his behalf, were told that they could not practically access their own child’s savings account. Instead, they were pointed towards the Court of Protection. The Court of Protection exists for good reasons, but we are talking about a process that can take over a year, cost hundreds of pounds in fees, require lengthy medical assessments, and demand a level of legal navigation and sophistication that would daunt even the most confident of us. This is a family seeking access to a few thousand pounds saved in their own child’s account. For a family already stretched by the daily demands of caring for a severely disabled child, this is, frankly, an injustice. Mikey’s father, Andrew Turner, is my constituent. It is six years since Mikey’s 18th birthday, and for all that time, Andrew has campaigned on this issue, both for himself and for all the other affected families. In that time, he has had to make his case 10 different times to 10 different Justice Ministers, seven Conservative and three Labour—with perhaps another coming soon, although I hope not. Such is the churn in ministerial positions. OneFamily and Contact have supported him throughout, and I want to thank Una Summerson and Maria Scholey at Contact for everything that they have contributed. Together, Andrew, the industry and campaigners have brought this Bill to the House, and the strength of support for it from across Parliament speaks for itself. Andrew’s is far from being the only such case. An estimated 80,000 disabled young people face, or will face, this same barrier, and that number can only grow, because junior individual savings accounts, the successor to child trust funds, will begin to mature before the end of the decade. Junior ISAs have the same fatal flaw, and some children with junior ISAs will also, sadly, grow up to be unable to manage their affairs. If we take no action, we will see the injustice repeat itself, but on an even greater scale. There is an extra twist. Many families have been told that while the money remains inaccessible to them, its existence can disqualify their child from any entitlement to benefits. Heads you lose, tails you lose. This is a scandal that must not be allowed to continue. These are not families trying to access large estates, or complex financial portfolios. They are parents who have saved a few hundred or a few thousand pounds because they believed in their child’s future—and I stress that this is not a demand for Government compensation; it is families’ own money. What makes this so frustrating is that a solution already exists. A number of financial institutions—OneFamily, Nationwide, Santander and Foresters Financial—already operate their own processes, using evidence of Department for Work and Pensions appointeeship and appropriate safeguards, to release these funds to families. They have helped thousands of families to access millions of pounds. However, they need a proper legal framework; without one, not every financial institution is willing to act. I acknowledge that Ministers and officials are engaging seriously with this issue. A meeting has been convened for 8 July. It will bring together the Government, the finance industry, charities and campaigners to work towards a solution, and that is very welcome. I want to particularly recognise the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), who was a real champion for Andrew and families like his during her time on this brief. I am glad that the noble Minister who now holds the brief has continued that work and understands that this issue will not go away, but engagement is not legislation. Warm words, however sincerely meant, will not unlock a savings account. This Bill asks for something straightforward: it asks the Government to establish a clear, proportionate and statutory route, so that a parent in Horsham gets the same answer from their bank as a parent in Harrogate. It asks that protection does not become prevention, and it asks for a review of wider savings provision for disabled children, because the principle at stake—that disabled young people should be able to save on equal terms as the rest of us—matters, and goes beyond this one scheme. Andrew Turner has fought for six years for his son Mikey, and he is far from the only one. Claire Stockton waited more than a year and navigated a complex court process, all for the sake of a modest £1,000 in savings belonging to her disabled child. Another parent, Michele Creed, was able to access the savings, but has been obliged to take on the responsibility and bureaucracy of ongoing financial deputyship. This is crazy. The child trust fund is her daughter’s only asset. Only the most skilful and determined families will ever find their way through this legal quagmire. I respect the high amount of protection for trust funds. I understand that senior lawyers are reluctant to make an exception, even in a case like Mikey’s, and that this reluctance has frustrated 10 successive Ministers so far, but I repeat that this is not the Government’s money; it is the Turners’ money. When Andrew first approached a lawyer for help, he was told that all he could do was wait for Mikey to die, and then he could access the fund. That is absolutely unacceptable. These families had already cared for a disabled child, at great personal sacrifice, for 18 years by the time they realised that they could not access the fund. The mere suggestion that parents might abuse their position and spend the money on themselves is appalling, yet that is the implied position of the law. Thousands of families are waiting. The solutions are before us. The industry is ready. The cross-party support is here. What is needed now is for the Government to act—not to review further, or to consult again. If they need legislation, let this Bill be it. I know that the chances of a ten-minute rule Bill making it into law are vanishingly slim, but the Government can make it happen, if they wish. Families have waited long enough. I commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That John Milne and Ed Davey present the Bill. John Milne accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2027 , and to be printed (Bill 106).

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department for Work and Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  Right now, it is hard to get through a day without someone, somewhere, saying that welfare spending is ballooning out of control. For example, the Conservatives’ alternative King’s Speech tells us: “For the first time ever, the total welfare bill is now higher than total receipts from income tax.” Western civilisation is at an end, it seems—until we realise that it is not the first time at all. It has been that way for 13 years, most of them under the Conservatives. Then we discover that the ratio is about to go into reverse: for the next few years, welfare is forecast to be lower than income tax receipts—panic over, then. Remarkably, as a percentage of GDP, the amount we spend on welfare today is roughly the same as it was under Maggie Thatcher 40 years ago. Today’s welfare bill is simply not the cause of our economic problems, and neither can it be the sole solution. Although moral panic is an overreaction, we should not relax. Cost control is always crucial, so long as we understand that today’s budget pressure is less to do with welfare and more to do with NHS demand and a general weakness in the economy. “New benefit claimants are suffering from mild anxiety,” we are told, “The need isn’t real. Why don’t they just man up?” The neat thing about this angle is that we can be mean to people in need but still feel good about ourselves. But this is a misreading of the data. Most claimants have more than one condition. If a claimant who cannot walk also has mild anxiety, they are counted only in the mild anxiety column. It is a false characterisation of a scrounger culture, and that itself is part of the reason we never fix things. Most attempts to cut the benefits bill fail. They hardly ever save as much money as they were supposed to and they can even end up costing more than they save. I fully recognise the need to control costs and that a healthy economy is the root of a healthy benefit system, but basing national policy around the minority of claimants who do not want to help themselves is the surest way never to fix our benefit system.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Identifying Local Vulnerability · Hansard source

  More

  7. What progress his Department has made on the “identifying local vulnerability” project.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Identifying Local Vulnerability · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister knows all too well, the DWP’s shortcomings can end in tragedy. Errol Graham was a benefits claimant who starved to death without heating, electricity or adequate food. His local council, his housing association, his GP and the DWP all held information highlighting risk, and if only they had been able to share it he would be alive today. The ILV project can show the whole picture, but the trial has faced delay after delay. Will the Minister commit to a firm delivery deadline?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  The effectiveness of any carbon budget relies on two things: accuracy and attainability. If the numbers are wrong, the budget is meaningless, and if the plans are unrealistic, the budget is undeliverable. If the public lose confidence in either of those things, they lose confidence in the wider environmental project itself. That is why I want to focus less on any individual target and more on the credibility of the framework. When goals are repeatedly missed or look unachievable, there is always a temptation for Governments to adjust the assumptions, alter the methodology, or redefine success. That satisfies nobody: it frustrates environmentalists who want genuine emissions reduction and emboldens sceptics who claim that the targets were never realistic, and it leaves the public wondering whether we are solving problems or simply moving numbers around on spreadsheets. What we need is a reset to ensure that we are having honest conversations about emissions, environmental challenges and climate policy, based on sound data. That is why I question the overconfidence in the budget in carbon capture and storage. The budget makes it clear that CCS plays a significant role in the pathway towards meeting future emissions targets, and I recognise that it does have an important role to play in industries that are genuinely hard to decarbonise, such as chemicals, cement and the heavy industrial processes. The Liberal Democrats have always been willing to support emerging technologies in such cases. However, we should be honest about what is being assumed. Much of the proposed CCS roll-out is tied to large gas-powered infrastructure projects, which means that we are effectively locking ourselves into gas infrastructure for decades to come. The problem is that the North sea cannot possibly supply our gas needs, no matter how much we drill and no matter what we do. The more we rely on gas-backed CCS assumptions in the budget, the more we are locking ourselves into imported fracked LNG, mostly from the US. That contributes to global warming, whether it happens in Texas or Teesside. Yet UK carbon budgets are, of course, primarily territorial in nature—and that is precisely the sort of accounting contortion that can undermine public confidence. People are not interested in whether the emissions have disappeared from a spreadsheet; they want to know if they have disappeared from the atmosphere. The same problem exists in aviation. The Climate Change Committee warned that aviation is likely to become one of the largest sources of UK emissions by 2040 because other sectors are expected to decarbonise more quickly. The committee stated that demand management remains the most effective way of limiting aviation’s impacts, but at the same time, we continue to debate expansion at Gatwick, Heathrow and Luton. Many people struggle to reconcile those two positions, and it is not hard to see why. Communities in my part of Sussex—in villages such as Warnham, Slinfold and Rusper—face the prospect of increased aircraft noise and new flightpaths. While the people bear the brunt, the industry is rewarded. We need stronger accountability within the aviation sector, including the creation of an independent aviation ombudsman. If we want support for climate action to endure, honesty matters: honesty about imported emissions, honesty about LNG, honesty about airport expansion and honesty about the role and limitations of carbon capture and storage. The greatest threat to environmental progress is not ambition, but the loss of public faith that the targets and pathways are credible.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No.457) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member and entirely accept that the issue is not of this Government’s making, although as ever it is this Government’s obligation to sort it out. The regulations are a positive move in the right direction, but I am lamenting the state of affairs in general, not necessarily blaming it on Labour Members. The SSAC has rightly raised concerns about the impact on claimants who have worsening conditions. Such claimants may now go longer without a reassessment and could therefore miss out on a justified increased award. That is why simply taking no action is not a satisfactory position; we have to do something. We have consistently called for PIP assessments to be made more transparent and for unnecessary reassessments to be stopped. Properly implemented, longer award periods could reduce claimants’ anxiety and the bureaucratic burden on them, but only if there is a clear and accessible route for people whose needs have changed to request a reassessment without potentially having to wait years for it. In conclusion, we support the measure, as a matter of legal necessity if nothing else. It will put PIP extensions on a legal basis, although we regret that that was not already the case years ago.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No.457) · Hansard source

  More

  We hear lots of talk in politics and the media right now about the need to cut benefits. Of course, control of spending is always a priority, but the first question that we should ask about any benefit is whether it is doing the job it is supposed to. A PIP is a lifeline, not a luxury. It is designed to support disabled people with the extra costs of daily living resulting from their disability. It is not specifically an in-work benefit, but in practice it does help many people keep their jobs, which is, of course, what we want. That is why, as Liberal Democrats, we believe that any change to how PIP awards are managed must put the needs of the claimant first, not the administrative convenience of the Department. We are deeply concerned by the DWP’s admission that it has been extending PIP awards on an ad hoc basis without clear statutory cover—that was potentially unlawful. Disabled people deserve a system that operates within the law with proper safeguards, not one that has been quietly patched up in a Heath Robinson fashion, and which is only now being regularised through secondary legislation. The regulations were introduced without a vote in Parliament and without referral to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Yet changes of such significance, which affect hundreds of thousands of disabled people, deserve proper parliamentary scrutiny, not secondary legislation slipped through without a vote. We welcome Government assurances that the regulations cannot be used to shorten existing awards or to cut the rates paid, and we welcome the retention of appeal rights, but the fact that the regulations are necessary at all is not positive. If we had the proper capacity to carry out PIP reviews on schedule when they were required, there would never be a need for extensions.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No.457) · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister knows, I sit on the Work and Pensions Committee. About a year ago, we heard evidence that in fact there was little statistical difference between the approval rates for face-to-face interviews and for remote interviews. The figures may have been updated since, but that is the evidence we heard then. I am in favour of face-to-face interviews—they seem intuitively better—but there may not be quite the difference that everyone might reasonably expect; that is what the figures show.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, scammers have managed to impersonate the council to demand bogus penalty charges from vulnerable residents. Meanwhile, the world’s leading deepfake expert, Hany Farid, says in The New York Times that he can no longer trust his own eyes. If he cannot, what chance do the rest of us have? Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to compel tech companies to crack down on deepfakes and establish an AI regulator to enforce a statutory code of ethics?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Green Book Wellbeing Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, Chess Dynamics, part of Cohort, is a world-leading developer of counter-drone and air defence technology, yet like much of the defence sector, it has been left waiting for clarity on future investment. Given the recent turmoil at the top of the Labour party, can the Minister assure us that the vital defence investment plan will not be pushed back even further and finally give defence manufacturers the go-ahead—

• 16 Jun 2026 · Community Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met the chief executive officer of the newly combined Surrey and Sussex integrated care board, and urged her to consider the potential for expanding Horsham community hospital on Hurst Road into a neighbourhood hub, including a women’s health unit, to mitigate the lack of a general hospital in the area. Sadly, her first task has been to reduce her staff by more than half. Does my hon. Friend wonder, like me, what happened to the extra £29 billion that the Government invested into the NHS? It does not seem to have got anywhere near Horsham.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for shining a light on this important subject, which causes such distress for residents of West Sussex. The Department for Health, like many Government Departments, has promised a consultation, as well as extensive reform of the dental contract. I appreciate that the Minister wants to get this right. He has said that the dental system is complex. He has also made it clear in the past that these changes will not be rushed. Speaking to dentists across my constituency and beyond, very few people would say that taking two years just to start a consultation could be called rushing. The Government need to be clear with both dentists and patients. Dentists were told that the consultation would come last year; then they were told that it would come before the start of summer—but summer is more or less upon us, and we are still waiting. At this rate, the Government risk making no meaningful reforms to dentistry within this Parliament. This sense of political inertia is, of course, not confined to one Department, and we do not have to look far to imagine the reason for that. Alongside those delays sits an equally serious issue: funding. The Government have been clear that no new funding is available for dental reform; I imagine that the Minister himself finds that deeply frustrating. Only about 40% of adults are effectively provided for within the current NHS dental budget, and even that is propped up by an estimated £1 billion cross-subsidy from private provision. The Public Accounts Committee was clear in its assessment: without frontloaded investment, meaningful reform has no chance of success. What does this mean for residents in my constituency of Horsham? The honest answer is that we do not fully know, which is frustrating to say the least. Under the previous Conservative administration, West Sussex county council had not carried out a comprehensive oral health survey since before 2019. I have written to the new Lib Dem-led council asking it to ensure that West Sussex is included in the next survey, because without reliable data, we simply cannot design effective or targeted reforms. The data that we do have is deeply concerning. A quarter of children in West Sussex are at high risk of tooth decay compared with a national average of roughly half that level. From an early age, we are sending out the message that oral health is not a priority. At the same time, we are seeing a growing reliance on urgent dental care, but as a substitute for routine check-ups. Preventive dentistry—the very foundation of a sustainable system—simply cannot function under those conditions. We risk raising a generation that engages with dental services only at a moment of crisis, and that will have profound long-term health consequences. I am very much seeing the impact of this in my Horsham casework. One of my constituents, Gail, was recently removed, along with her daughter, from the dental register. It was not from any fault of her own, but simply because there are not enough dentists left who are willing to operate on NHS contracts. That is distressing enough for patients, but it is also deeply frustrating for dental professionals, who find themselves forced to turn away patients who they can see are in urgent need. Another constituent, Medi, does have access to a dentist, but not locally, and we have heard the same from other Members. She has to travel three hours for her appointments in another part of the country completely. She suffers from arthritis, so the journey is not just inconvenient, but very painful. However, she cannot find anyone closer, and even the waiting lists are vague about when a place may eventually be available. I have also heard directly from dentists in Horsham. One practitioner, who has worked in the NHS for over 15 years and has trained NHS dental graduates, told me that, each year, funding has become more constrained and the administrative burden continues to grow. Without proper support for preventive care, he warned, dentists simply “don’t stand a chance”.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree that this is a national crisis. Some local authorities or local ICBs are better than others, but this is basically a national problem and needs national action. The dentist I mentioned has told me that many of his peers have already stopped offering NHS services, and the ones left are increasingly considering doing exactly the same. That tells us that the entire dental system is slipping into freefall. The broader figures reinforce the local picture. Only 40% of adults in West Sussex have seen a dentist in the past two years, which is a fall of 7%. Among children, the figure has dropped from 63% to 58%. Over the past five years, the number of residents per dentist in West Sussex has increased by a fifth. That is a huge jump, and further evidence that the system is heading for collapse. From my conversations with the chief executive officer of the newly merged Surrey and Sussex ICB, I know that dentistry is a priority area for her and that the team are doing their best to introduce flexibility where possible. However, they face cuts of up 50% in budgets and staffing, which are enormous challenges not just for the leadership, but for the NHS teams on the ground. There is real concern that, unless we change now, dentistry risks becoming an expensive luxury, rather than a universally accessible service. To conclude, the combination of delayed reforms and reduced funding is leaving patients without access to care and professionals without the support they need to provide it. Oral health inequalities continue to widen. I appreciate that this Government are once again picking up the pieces from their Conservative predecessors, but the obligation now falls on today’s Ministers. Unless we see a change in trajectory, we will be left with exactly what the Public Accounts Committee warned us about—no money, no reform, no teeth.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Road Adoption · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, we have to deal with increasing numbers of unadopted roads, either because the developer wants to leave the road with an estate manager, which means an annual charge, or because the road does not meet the construction standard to satisfy the local highways department. Both issues are ripe for the exploitation of residents. Will the Minister consider issuing guidance to control those abuses?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Summer Rail Travel · Hansard source

  More

  Train travel to the south coast increases significantly in the summer months, but Horsham sits on a line to the south that faces severe delays and cancellations. Govia Thameslink’s forecasts show demand continuing to rise sharply. Without a resolution to the notorious Croydon bottleneck, we risk undermining economic growth and confidence in public transport. Where does Croydon sit in the Government’s priorities, and will the Minister commit to finally advancing these long-promised, endlessly postponed works?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Summer Rail Travel · Hansard source

  More

  4. Whether she is taking steps to incentivise summer rail travel.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Secondary Breast Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I want to focus on something that sits at the heart of improving outcomes for people living with secondary breast cancer: data, research and recognition. That especially applies to people suffering from lobular breast cancer. Last year, my office asked the Government whether the new national audit of metastatic breast cancer would provide a breakdown by breast cancer subtype and hormone receptor status. The response from the Department of Health and Social Care was striking. The Government have effectively admitted that the data is simply not there in any complete or meaningful form. There is still no clear national picture of how many people are living with different forms of secondary breast cancer, what treatments they receive or the outcomes they face. That matters because, if we cannot accurately count metastatic breast cancer patients, we cannot properly plan services, understand needs, target research funding or develop treatments. We cannot fix what we do not measure. That is especially true for lobular breast cancer. Invasive lobular carcinoma is the second most common form of breast cancer. Twenty-two people are diagnosed with it every day in the UK, yet it remains chronically under-researched and poorly understood. Unlike ductal breast cancer, lobular cancer often does not form a distinct lump. It grows in thin, single-file patterns, making it much harder to detect on standard mammograms and often leading to delayed diagnosis. Secondary lobular breast cancer also presents further challenges because it tends to be found in untypical places, such as the liver, lungs, brain, bladder and even the eyes, whereas other types of breast cancer spread mostly to the bones. Despite those key biological differences, there is still no specific treatment pathway designed for lobular breast cancer patients. That is extraordinary, considering how many women are affected. For too long, secondary and metastatic lobular breast cancer has existed in a blind spot. Historically, cancer registries have focused on primary diagnoses and have often failed to track recurrence or progression properly. Mandatory reporting has improved matters somewhat over the last decade, but huge gaps remain. That is why the work of campaigners and researchers has been so important. I especially want to recognise and pay tribute to Dr Susan Michaelis, founder of the Lobular Moon Shot Project. She was one of my Horsham constituents, and she sadly died of lobular breast cancer almost a year ago. Susan was relentless in pushing this issue into public view. She understood that, without data, dedicated research and recognition that lobular breast cancer is different, progress would remain unacceptably slow. Her work has already helped encourage NHS England to release the first dedicated statistics on lobular breast cancer, but much more needs to happen. This is about more than statistics. It is about people living for years with secondary breast cancer while feeling invisible within the system. Better subtype data would help us understand metastatic disease properly. Better research would improve diagnosis and, ultimately, dedicated treatment pathways for lobular breast cancer could help us move closer to what patients want to hear most of all: that their cancer is not just treatable, but curable. The Lobular Moon Shot Project is looking for just £20 million over five years to fund research into the basic biology of lobular breast cancer. Researchers at the Manchester Breast Centre are ready and willing to take on the mission—they could start tomorrow. The Lobular Moon Shot Project is supported by more than 460 sitting MPs, more than can be found on any other single issue. All it needs now is for the Government to press the button. While we wait for that, women face poorer outcomes and require medications that were actually designed for other types of cancer, which cost upwards of £3,000 per month. Now is the time for the Government to commit to front-loaded funding to save lives, save money for the NHS and, most of all, demonstrate to those women that they matter. I ask the Minister for her support in finding the modest investment required to find answers for this very common but, sadly, much-neglected disease.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I have submitted a series of precise written questions to the Minister for Trade to confirm whether the terms of licences for UK arms exports to Israel are being adhered to. Each time I have received an evasive answer. I am driven to conclude that if the Minister is correct that he is genuinely unable to usefully answer any of those questions, he must also admit to having no clue about the final use of sensitive military materials, which would mean that the whole notion of Government control over arms exports is an illusion. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate so that we can establish once and for all if the UK arms export rules—whether to Israel or anywhere else—are doing their job?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I want to bring a case of injustice in the visa system to the attention of the Minister. It concerns two residents in my constituency, Mary and Geoff—not their real names. My office has tried every means of finding a solution through the Home Office, but without success. We now face a very pressing time constraint. That is why, in desperation, I have taken the opportunity of this debate to raise the matter. Mary is British. Her husband, Geoff, was born in Zimbabwe but later became an Australian citizen. They now live together in Horsham. Mary relies on her British citizenship, and Geoff on a spousal visa. When Geoff’s spousal visa was approaching renewal, Mary tried to contact the Home Office for advice. It took her a month to get any kind of answer, and after she finally got through, she followed that advice and submitted what she reasonably believed was a correct visa renewal application. Unfortunately, it was not. She had been incorrectly told to apply for an e-visa, rather than a spousal renewal. That was invalid, so Geoff passed his renewal date unaware and was informed that he had overstayed. That was not a matter of carelessness or neglect; they tried to follow the rules, but the Home Office is a very difficult organisation to get to talk to, even for MPs. To resolve the issue, Mary and Geoff instructed a lawyer and submitted a fresh application, along with supporting evidence. The Home Office has since accepted that Geoff meets all the substantive conditions required for him to stay, but it again refused him on the single ground that he was declared to have overstayed—the very problem that it created itself in the first place by giving them the wrong form. This is going round in circles. It took more than six months to get that decision, and the nine-page refusal gave no recognition of their circumstances, their good faith or their deep family ties to the UK. They have been forced to appeal again, but have been told that it could take up to 12 months for a tribunal hearing. They simply cannot last that long, because they now have no income. This whole time, Geoff has been unable to work. He is a skilled mechanical engineer and a key worker in a local industry, but he is not permitted to work. His employer, very considerably, has kept his place open, but that cannot go on forever. The couple face the real prospect of losing their home, and have spent £7,000 on legal fees, but the view of the Home Office is that they should simply go back to Australia, where they have no ties and no income. Mary is not sure whether she would be able to face that, so frankly their marriage is also at stake. Members across the House agree that we need a robust immigration system with clear rules, but when well-intentioned people who have done everything in their power to comply fall foul of those rules, that cannot be a fair outcome. In all likelihood, the Home Office will find in Mary and Geoff’s favour at the appeal 12 months from now, but by that time they will not be in the country anymore. It will be too late, but there is nothing in the system that allows us to expedite the case. I hope the Minister will agree to work with me and meet me to ensure that Mary and Geoff can remain in their home, contribute to their community and continue supporting their family here in the UK.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s youth guarantee scheme; something similar operates in a number of European countries. However, under the proposals, it will not kick in for 18 months. If someone is unemployed for 18 months, the damage is already done. Will the Government consider acting earlier?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Clean Power · Hansard source

  More

  To get the best out of intermittent energy producers such as wind and solar, we need to invest in battery energy storage systems. However, these face new safety challenges. The National Fire Chiefs Council recently issued guidance that understandably concentrates on firefighting techniques rather than design. The Minister has kindly met me in the past, but will he agree to a further meeting to specifically address the unmet needs in national construction standards?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners · Hansard source

  More

  The CIL rules manage to be too inflexible and too vague at the same time. My constituent Ruth has had to pay a £38,000 CIL charge because unfortunately her husband did not submit the correct forms, as a result of what turned out to be Alzheimer’s. As my hon. Friend said, any potential refund would be technically against the law, and the Government say they cannot intervene in the case because the correct rules have been followed. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while waiting for further legislation, the Minister needs as a matter of urgency to issue new national CIL guidelines and give councils clarity, consistency and the ability to correct injustices where appropriate?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Defence Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  4. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the effectiveness of the defence industrial strategy.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Defence Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Horsham, Chess Dynamics, which is part of Cohort, is a world-leading developer of counter-drone and air defence technology—exactly the capabilities that we need. Yet Chess, like much of the defence industry, has been kept on hold since last year, awaiting clarity on the defence investment plan. Without it, it cannot commission new air defence systems, leaving the next generation of Royal Navy frigates potentially exposed. It needs to know now. Will the Minister agree to meet me and Chess Dynamics to provide certainty on the investment that everyone says we need, but which simply is not happening yet?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disabled People: Benefits Reassessments · Hansard source

  More

  My disabled constituent Joanne was holding down a good job, but delays in Access to Work resulted in her not receiving the necessary support to stay in it. The Government’s new “right to try” initiative is a positive move, but will the Minister commit to resourcing vital support services like Access to Work, and to eliminating its backlog of over 62,000 cases as a matter of urgency? If not, we will find ourselves in the same position a year from now.