Sojan Joseph MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I declare that I am a registered nurse. I have worked in the NHS for many years, and I have used patient records throughout my career. The Nursing and Midwifery Council code requires nurses, midwives and nursing associates to respect patient confidentiality, share information appropriately and ensure that patients are informed about how their information is used. That is the existing system, and every nurse, midwife and nursing associate has to follow the code of practice. A similar code is there for the General Medical Council for doctors, and all other registered professionals follow those codes. On top of that, information governance in the NHS ensures that patient data is handled legally, securely and ethically, providing a framework for data protection and confidentiality. We have numerous different digital systems in the health system currently. Before anyone gets access to those digital systems and patient records, they all have to go through information governance and data protection training. They are then given access to patient records. That is the existing system. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, has just mentioned the Nottingham incident, which is a good example. It is a clear example of where those who accessed the records were able to be identified. There is a clear audit trail, and I have my own experience of taking people through disciplinary proceedings for accessing patients’ notes when it was not relevant to those staff. The existing patient data systems do have provisions to safeguard and monitor who is accessing patient records.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My understanding is that the single patient record is just a single place where all of a patient’s medical records will be kept. It will not necessarily change the ways in which they access healthcare services, such as A&E, the GP or a dentist. Those ways of accessing healthcare will stay the same, whether we have a single patient record or not.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that we are never going to have 100% proof. There will always be people accessing records. What I am talking about is the existing system, which does have provisions. What we need to strengthen is the training and the audit trail. All staff who do the training are aware that they are not supposed to check patients’ records unless it is relevant to them. Those who access records inappropriately should be identified and action should be taken. Just because we are moving to a single patient record system, it does not mean that everybody is going to access everything they want. People working in the healthcare system are given access based on their role. Not everybody is able to access everything. Systems are in place, and we need to strengthen those systems and the training. We should not be scaremongering by saying that, because we are moving to a single patient record, everybody will be able to see their records.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know whether there will be the same system in Scotland, but my understanding is that in the north of England doctors will be able to see the same system. Again, we can hear more detail from the Minister. A single patient report has the potential to transform patient experience and safety by ensuring continuity of care, by reducing unnecessary repetition, by enabling better informed clinical decisions and the smoother discharge of patients, and by creating a more efficient and joined up healthcare system.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My patient record is currently kept by different organisations or providers, which cannot see each other. If I speak to the GP about my blood sugar and then end up in A&E, they cannot see that record. If I go to the mental health service, they cannot see what medication I was taking. When I get discharged back to the GP, he will not get the information on my medication. That is the clinical aspect I am talking about, although I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I hope the Minister will address some of those issues. The responses I collected demonstrate how disparate and fragmented digital record systems are within just one local area. I do not think any of our constituents are aware that their data is kept in different places and that the services do not talk to each other. That is what the Bill is trying to address. All that information will be available for doctors, nurses and any other healthcare providers so that they can see patients’ history and medication and those patients will be more safe. Things will be more transparent. It will be easier for admission to discharge processes.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to speak in support of clause 47. I spoke on Second Reading about my strong support for the introduction of a single patient record. I am not a tech expert like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield—

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; a single patient record will not stop professionals from asking the necessary questions of patients at any time. Each ward round, the doctors ask the patients how they are feeling. They will have that conversation; that will not stop. We are talking about repeatedly having to tell the story. The point was highlighted when the Committee heard from Jacob Lant, the chief executive officer of National Voices, a coalition of health and social care charities. In his 15 years of patient and public engagement, the most consistent theme is patients’ frustration at constantly having to retell their story, and the fact that medical notes are not available across different healthcare settings. Not only is that frustrating for patients, but it can also be deeply distressing. Kath Abrahams, the chief executive of Tommy’s, told the Committee that “Women report constantly having to retell their story—highly sensitive or traumatic experiences of loss—and that repetition can happen across the early pregnancy unit and maternity services.” –– [ Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 66, Q108.] As medical professionals, we are taught the importance of empathy and understanding, but if the absence of a unified patient record system is aggravating traumatic experiences for patients, we need to address that. The absence of a national unified report can also compromise patient safety and lead to clinicians making decisions based on partial or incomplete information, significantly increasing the risk of error. We heard evidence of that from the chair of Healthwatch England, who highlighted the risk posed to patients with multiple comorbidities. He said: “Without a single patient record, we can find that a consultant or a GP has access to only one part of that multiple comorbidity…That can lead to all sorts of unforeseen errors.” That can result in poor health outcomes, increased hospital admissions and reduced patient trust, which is why he went on to speak about “the great advantage that we can get from a single patient record.” –– [ Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 49, Q79.] Experienced mental health patients often move between A&E, GPs and mental health services and have to repeatedly go through that traumatic experience. I have spoken in the House previously about my deep frustration that the digital records available to me in mental health services in Kent and Medway were incompatible with those used in other parts of the NHS, both locally and across the rest of England. I know that that frustration is shared, so in advance of the Committee’s consideration of clause 47 I spoke to some of my former colleagues, as well as other healthcare professionals in my constituency, to find out what systems are used to record patient information.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that would be the outcome of this legislation. I will give an example. My constituency is very close to Dover. Lots of travellers go through Ashford, my constituency. We often get patients from Scotland, Manchester or Liverpool, for whom doctors cannot start a treatment because they have to wait 24 hours to 48 hours to get the information from the hospital where the person comes from. I am not saying that the story is the same across the country, but that is what we are experiencing.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It really surprised me to hear my hon. Friend talk about his experience of 450 systems in the computer system in his local hospital. I was shocked, because as a clinician who previously worked in the NHS, I wanted a system that made patient records readily available so that we could care for patients. My understanding is that the clause amends the National Health Service Act 2006 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a system to make patient information readily available to patients and to those involved in providing health or social care in England. Under the current system, care and treatment across different parts of the NHS are not as co-ordinated as they could and should be. All too often, that means that patients have to repeat their medical history every time they see a different medical professional. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, talked about how that can sometimes be useful for getting the diagnosis right, but it can be very traumatising for someone to have to explain the same story again in such a short period of time. Speaking in the Chamber, I previously gave the example of a mental health patient going to A&E on a Friday. They tell their story to the professionals there and they tell the same story later when a mental health professional comes to see them. When they are admitted into a mental health hospital, they have to explain the same story when going into the ward, and then again to the nurses. Having to repeat their story again and again is traumatising for most patients.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am very sympathetic to this amendment, and to the argument that patients and carers should have enough information about what they are providing care for. In the current system, carers get a copy of the care plan, which states what the patient’s care needs are, as assessed by health professionals. Does the hon. Member agree that carers need to see only the care plan for the patient, rather than the patient’s whole record?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We are in 2026. Social media and the media scrutinise everything that we do. Will the hon. Member confirm if there has been any report in the media that somebody, anywhere in the country, has had their condition made worse, or died, or did not get treatment?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 2 clearly states that everybody should have a legal right to an appointment with their GP “within seven days”, while the current provision is that patients are entitled to see a GP or other professional within 24 hours or two days for urgent care. Would creating this legal burden on GP practices not reduce their ability to prioritise, meaning that the people who need urgent treatment will be delayed further?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Hundreds and hundreds of constituents would like to drive an electric car but have no access to home charging, and they would have benefited from that funding. Yes, we are talking about taxpayers’ money, but by not becoming an energy-secure country, we are only helping countries like Russia. Given the urgency of meeting our national emissions targets, it is essential that no opportunity for progress is left unused. Will the Department work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as well as other relevant Departments, to take a more proactive and co-ordinated approach? That should include identifying barriers that prevent local authorities from applying for funding, improving communication about available schemes, and providing practical support where needed. In particular, will the Government consider measures such as offering targeted guidance or even establishing a more strategic framework to ensure that funding reaches all parts of the country effectively? By strengthening collaboration across Departments and supporting local authorities more directly, we can help to ensure that councils are fully equipped to access the funding available to them and, in doing so, maximise our collective ability to deliver on the UK’s climate commitments.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I was coming on to talk about my own local council, where we are facing problems. Local authority involvement is all the more important given the fracturing of the long-standing cross-party consensus. We now hear voices, particularly from Reform UK, who would simply abandon net zero altogether. Walking away from the challenge would not protect our constituents, but leave them more exposed to higher energy bills, energy insecurity and the growing impacts of climate change itself. Where there is opposition at a national, regional or local level, it is important that the Government are proactive in setting out the explicit case for the net zero agenda as well as the tangible benefits of particular policies. Let me draw on an example from my own local authority. Last year, the Government made £25 million of funding available through the electric vehicle pavement channels grant. That funding was for local authorities to install cross-pavement channels to support residents without access to off-street parking so that they could charge their vehicles at home and benefit from cheaper domestic tariffs. I had concerns about how the grant was being used in Kent, so I wrote to Kent county council. In response, the Reform-led administration said that the council had decided not to submit an application for the grant. As a result, of the £667,000 of funding that could have been available to the people of Kent, the council received only £50,000. That represents a shortfall of well over half a million pounds of funding that could have been used to help my constituents. That is deeply disappointing at a time when the Labour Government are putting forward practical support to help households with the transition to net zero.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  As the report makes clear, carbon budget 7 is one of the most important stages on the path to net zero. In previous carbon budgets, cuts in emissions came from more straightforward changes, such as moving electricity generation away from coal. As we continue along this path, this carbon budget will involve changes to the way we heat our homes, the way we travel and the technology we use. Delivering that will require behavioural and structural changes, and future emissions reductions will depend increasingly on the choices made by our constituents. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) when he warns that if the Government are to be successful in delivering carbon budget 7, they must have the support of the public. The policies to achieve net zero must therefore be fair and must avoid placing disproportionate burdens on those households with the fewest options. The Committee was clear that the continued pathway to net zero requires greater policy certainty and co-ordination, and more joined-up Government action. I would take this further and expand on a point that I made when the Climate Minister gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee last week. As this Labour Government continue with their mission of shifting power away from Westminster and into the regions, we should ensure that mayors and local authorities have the support they need to help to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support clause 7 and amendment 33, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West. Having worked in the NHS for many years, I have seen that education and training, especially mandatory training, is absolutely necessary. Some may argue that health staff have too much training, particularly mandatory training, but this amendment specifically concerns training “in the wider determinants of health such as housing standards, exposure to air pollution, occupational risk, and use of harmful substances like tobacco.” We may have staff, especially those working in mental health, who have training in some of those areas, but staff in A&E, where patients first present, may not have that training, and may be missing that curiosity. We have heard many incidents involving families living in mouldy houses or people exposed to air pollution. It is important that staff have the curiosity to consider where a patient has come from when they turn up at A&E, or, when planning a discharge, where they are being discharged to. In the last few years, we have seen many internationally trained healthcare workers join our health sector who may not be familiar with the social and housing situation in this country. Whether this is to be a part of their initial training as nurses or doctors, or through mandatory training at work, the amendment is important because it could help to prevent illnesses and identify them earlier through professional curiosity. I support amendment 33.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly support the argument that clinical staff, even if they progress into a senior role, should carry out some sort of clinical practice. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is what went wrong over the past few years, especially when NHS England was created? Many senior clinicians who were moved into management posts had no contact with clinical areas. That is what this Government are trying to fix by abolishing NHS England.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I used to work in a mental health trust for many years, and I am still its employee—I am on an extended career break from the trust.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Lant, I am trying to understand a bit more about the patient experience and improvement in care that Healthwatch brings. My understanding is that when a patient raises a complaint with the local provider, it usually gets investigated by a local service manager or a matron, but when somebody is not confident about raising a complaint with the local provider, they go to Healthwatch, and that complaint usually filters down for the same local service manager or matron to investigate it—we have seen that happening. Patient experience is not being improved without local accountability or local change. Can you explain why you are concerned about abolishing Healthwatch and bringing more accountability to local ICBs or local authorities, which may improve patient experience and patient care? Jacob Lant: The issue is that the system—the NHS provider, the commissioner or whoever is picking up the individual complaint—will treat that as an individual incident to look into. Healthwatch may support the individual to raise that complaint or that individual piece of feedback, but the collective learning across that is more important, and it is pulling out the themes that are consistent across multiple bits of feedback, both positive and negative, that makes the difference. We see that evidence and insight from Healthwatch making a difference in local and national policy. It might not feel like that to the individual patient, but things like the creation of a single patient record exist in part because of a lot of campaigning by local healthwatch on the issue of people having to repeatedly tell clinicians about their experiences. It also could be issues to do with not being able to find a dentist, for example; the system will treat that as an individual incident of helping someone who is trying to find a dentist or not, but Healthwatch could use that insight to petition and push for national change around the commissioning of a service like dentistry. A topic like administration of care, which Healthwatch, National Voices and the King’s Fund have all worked on together, is invisible from the way that the system perceives performance at the moment, but because we listen thematically to patient experience, we can push for a much greater focus on things like the basics of communication and keeping patients up to date on what is happening with their care, which really matter. Healthwatch is thematically looking at patient feedback differently from the way that system does, and that is something I fear may be lost.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to touch on the single patient record. I declare that I used to work in mental health services. In my experience, mental health patients often navigate between A&E, GPs and mental health services during weekends. Often the clinicians do not know what medication they are on, or what kind of contact patients had on the Friday or Saturday. Also, during the discharge process, getting medication from the GP can be delayed until the discharge notification gets to the GP. Yes, there are concerns about who will own this data, but do you not think that the single patient record will bring a huge benefit for patient safety and continuity of care? Kay Keane: In the example you gave, the hospital should be giving seven days-worth of medication to the patient. That is clearly its responsibility. Within those seven days, the GP practice should get a discharge letter that says what has happened; if appropriate, we then take over the prescribing. If the information comes and is good quality—if the data is good and timely—the things you mentioned do not happen; they happen when neither of those things are the case. In my experience, information that comes out of A&E is often difficult to understand. A&E might make a diagnosis that it works with, but by the time that gets to the ward it can be different, so the A&E information we act on could be very different from what the patient is discharged with. Timely and good-quality information is therefore really important, and that GP record then becomes the centre of the patient’s care. Dr Dickson: You are talking about transfer of care between services and about a weekend being an important flashpoint, but I think that that transfer of care does not happen appropriately even during the week. It is getting better, with electronic systems, but it is still not necessarily working for the full benefit of patients, especially if they access multiple services. The value of the single patient record is to make that safe, but the question is, will it do that? Can it do that? Is it safe to do that? Will the patient’s data be protected? That is what we are we are worried about. I think that is what patients worry about. They perceive that we do that already, and when they come up against the healthcare service, they realise that it does not happen; they do not realise that it is not a personal thing to them, but a systemic problem. It is about getting patients to understand the systemic nature of the lack of data sharing at the moment.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Sarah, you mentioned that the patient should be the centre of all this. I do not think that anybody disagrees—including any politicians—that making these changes is in the best interest of the patients. However, many changes have happened over the decades, but data for the last 10 years shows that patient safety incidents and complaints are steadily going up, so those changes have not made any impact on patient care, safety or experience. We need to do something here. After each incident, there is a recommendation or an action plan, but clinical staff or patients do not have much involvement with those and do not see any difference. Healthwatch helpfully finds the issues, but it may not actually go back and see what changes are made following its recommendations. The CQC physically goes into clinical areas to see the difference, and has the power to take action against those responsible, so is it not a good change that more accountability will sit with the providers, and the CQC—or local authorities and ICBs—can take action against them? Professor Croisdale-Appleby: Forgive me; you asked several questions. Which would you like me to start with?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I asked whether it is not a good change to streamline these bodies so that fewer of them have powers to take action like the CQC? Professor Croisdale-Appleby: There is always a danger, if I may say so, in the use of the word “streamline”. We have to think what is lost in the streamlining process. I do not want to repeat what I have said and waste your time, but one thing that is important is whether there is a golden thread running through seeking out and listening to patients’ views, putting those together in a coherent form, making recommendations for improvement—that is what we do all the time at Healthwatch—and then holding people accountable for that. I remember Penny Dash saying that one of the points of the Bill is to bring this closer to those who commission and those who deliver. I am not sure that it necessarily takes it closer to that simply by embedding it—as a colleague asked earlier—within the formal structure. There is a danger in that that the patient voice is often a spiky voice. As a former chair of hospitals and so on, I know that patients do not always say things that are convenient. That point about independence is vital. If I may, sir, I take slight issue with your term “streamlining” and would try to take that apart into the different components that might comprise it. Sarah Tilsed: I cannot comment too much on the CQC, but on the point about a rise in complaints but nothing seems to be happening, we are finding that patients do not want to complain any more because they are finding that they are getting a worse service of care. That might be a slightly separate issue, but considering that there are so many complaints and that patients are not wanting to complain because they are scared, I do not think that streamlining is the right way. We need an independent voice that will focus solely on the patient voice, which I think we are completely losing at the moment.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I was listening to Dr Byrne’s concerns about confidentiality and trust. I want to declare that I have worked in the NHS in the mental health sector for many years. I worked in one of the biggest mental health trusts, Kent and Medway mental health NHS trust. We use an electronic patient record called Rio. As Dr Cocker said, before anyone is given access to the record, they have to have training on information governance and data protection, and access is given based on their role. That system creates an audit trail, so patients can request to see how many people have accessed their information in the last month or two—there are facilities on the system to check that. Is staff training and raising awareness among patients important for creating trust and confidentiality? Dr Byrne: Those things are very important, yes. There are some technical solutions. Again, the SPR is an opportunity to look at that across the system, because systems vary greatly in the sophistication of their audit function, for example. Even when there is an audit function, if someone has legitimate access through their role as a doctor or a nurse, it can be difficult to know whether their access in any particular case is legitimate. These are not common occurrences, but it is extremely distressing for patients if their confidentiality is breached for any reason. It is not simply a matter of technical controls. We need to look at how we build stronger, more effective deterrents across the system by having effective sanctions when incidents do occur. I am keen to look at that and delighted that the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England are, I think, very interested in having that conversation with me. At the moment, it certainly seems that there is a variable response across the system to inappropriate access. Looking ahead to the SPR, we need to look at that make improvements, so that the public can have faith that, given the harm that it can cause them, it will be taken very seriously if anyone does access their records inappropriately. There are technical, cultural and system aspects to think about here. The SPR is definitely an opportunity to do that, and I am very keen to work with other stakeholders on that.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Water Supply in Kent · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered water supply in Kent. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to colleagues for coming to the debate, but it is disappointing that we are having to have it at all, after the fourth incident—and the third major one—disrupting the supply of water to South East Water customers in six months. Between November and December, approximately 24,000 customers experienced low water pressure or little to no water supply. When supplies were restored, a boil water notice was issued. In January, about 30,000 customers again had to put up with little or no water supply. In April, around 6,000 customers experienced water supply problems, which South East Water said were “caused by a burst water main.” At the end of May, as we know, customers had to cope for 11 days with interruptions to their water supply. On that most recent occasion, around 22,000 customers across Kent, including roughly 4,000 in my constituency, were impacted. Last week, during an urgent question secured by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), I spoke about how, like many of my constituents, I have lost all faith in South East Water due to its repeated failures. Access to clean, reliable water is not a luxury; it is a fundamental expectation. When people turn on their taps, they should be able to rely on a consistent supply of water. That is the absolute minimum any water company should guarantee, but all too often South East Water is not meeting that minimum expectation. The repeated disruptions are not only inconvenient but deeply distressing for residents, who should be able to rely on water. The impact of these repeated failures is evident from the Consumer Council for Water report last week, which showed that trust in South East Water had been “materially weakened”. More than half of those surveyed now store bottled water at home in case of future incidents. The most recent incident occurred during a short period of hot weather, when the consequences of shortages can be especially acute. It affected households; farmers, whose livelihoods depend on a steady supply of water; and vulnerable individuals in care homes, where continuity of basic services is critical to wellbeing and safety. The wider economic impact must also be recognised. Hotels, restaurants and pubs across parts of the county were forced to close, losing vital income during what should have been a busy period coinciding with the school half-term holidays.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Water Supply in Kent · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. There are many farmers in my constituency, and I have heard about the challenges they face when there are water shortages and they do not know when the water will come back—even the uncertainty is difficult for them. For businesses, loss of trade is not simply a temporary inconvenience; it can have lasting repercussions. Taken together, South East Water’s failures highlight a pattern of underperformance that is no longer acceptable and that demands urgent attention and accountability. I welcome the confirmation from Ofwat that the recent incident will be part of its ongoing investigation into South East Water, but can my hon. Friend the Minister set out what actions the Government are taking to strengthen compensation arrangements for customers and what is being done to ensure that those affected by serious outages receive proper support and redress? I want to recognise those who did their best during very difficult circumstances, including staff from local authorities, other agencies and the health and social care sector, as well as South East Water’s employees on the ground. I would also like to pay tribute to the Water Minister and her officials for the way they actively engaged during the latest incident. In the conversations the Government had with South East Water, did the company give any assurances that lessons would be learned? It is important to have a robust evaluation of the measures put in place to assess what was effective and, more importantly, what needs improving. According to the company, it used tankers to supply more than 2 million litres of water to its network. More than a week after taps started running dry, I was still being contacted by constituents experiencing supply issues. The company needs to explain why it took so long to restore supply during this and other recent disruptions. South East Water reported distributing more than 1 million litres of bottled water to customers. However, one constituent on the priority services register did not receive water at her property. After my office intervened on her behalf, we were informed that water would be delivered later that day, by which time the constituent had confirmed that her supply had already been restored. The issue of people on the priority services register being left waiting for water was raised in the House during previous outages, but it continues to arise. In any evaluation that takes place, consideration needs to be given to the location of water distribution stations. Those living in rural areas, elderly residents or those without access to a car cannot travel far to collect bottled water. Provision must reflect need. Communication is another persistent failure. Constituents received little or no information, and updates were often inconsistent. I know that is something that the Water Minister has raised with the company, but it is simply not good enough for constituents to be left wondering what is happening to their water supply, or when it will be restored. South East Water’s communication with Members of Parliament also needs to improve. During the recent meningitis outbreak, alongside daily updates from the UK Health Security Agency, MPs were offered regular virtual meetings to answer questions. Although South East Water sent out daily email updates, the information I received from constituents often contradicted what the company was saying. It took direct contact from my office to request a virtual briefing before one was arranged. Of course, the most important lesson to be learned is how to prevent future water supply disruption in the first place. Each time an incident occurs, a different reason is given, whether that is a plant failure, severe weather, a burst water main or increased demand during hot weather. Those explanations do not change the underlying reality: for years the company has prioritised shareholders’ interests over those of its customers, and has failed to make the necessary investment in its infrastructure. After years of under-investment, South East Water’s ageing and leaking infrastructure is struggling to cope. That cannot be allowed to continue. After all, if my constituents have poor service from their telephone provider, they can change their network, but because water companies have a monopoly, South East Water’s customers have no choice but to put up with this failing company. This lack of resilience in our water infrastructure is particularly concerning, given the need for more housing in my constituency and across the county. During the Conservative Government’s last year in power, planning applications were at their lowest point for a decade. As we look to fix this problem, it is important that housebuilding takes place with natural resources such as water in mind. That includes ensuring that water companies and housing developers make the necessary investment in infrastructure. What action can the Government take to give councils, such as Ashford and Folkestone and Hythe in my constituency, and other planning authorities confidence that all water companies make that investment, to ensure that current needs are met and that future growth, including the demand for affordable housing, can be supported? Building on the proposals set out in the water White Paper, will the Minister update the House on what action the Government are taking to deliver a water system that the people of Kent can depend on? Climate change makes this challenge more urgent. Last week, the Environmental Audit Committee took evidence on the impact of extreme heat, and we heard that we are likely to see more frequent heatwaves and periods of extreme temperatures. Kent and the south-east of England will be particularly exposed, which will have implications for water supply. Hotter weather increases demand, while dry summers reduce availability. As the Environment Agency has pointed out, Kent is already marked by exceptionally low rainfall. While I welcome the proposed Broad Oak reservoir, South East Water is not expected to submit a planning application until 2028 at the earliest. That will take time to deliver, and even if it is in place, further action will still be required to safeguard supply. In last week’s urgent question, the Minister mentioned that the Government are looking at desalination plants as part of the longer-term answer to water supply challenges. Those could provide a reliable source of clean drinking water that is independent of rainfall, particularly during prolonged dry periods. I would welcome further details on the role the Government see for desalination within a balanced, long-term strategy for Kent’s water supply. I would like to ask the Minister one final question. This Government have taken strong action by nationalising the steel industry to protect it for future generations. They have also addressed the failure of rail privatisation by bringing rail companies back into public ownership. Given the steps they have already taken on water, which include passing the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 and giving the Environment Agency more powers to monitor water companies, what consideration have the Government given to taking failing water companies into public ownership?