Tristan Osborne MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 2 Dec 2025 · Angiolini Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  May I join colleagues across the House in saying that our thoughts are with the family of Sarah Everard? I also thank Lady Elish for her inquiry and the part 2 report published today. The Public Accounts Committee recently conducted an inquiry that looked at the National Audit Office report on policing around the country. We found that there is a total inconsistency across all forces when it comes not only to data metrics but to how they deal with and interact with such cases. Is the Minister working closely with the Minister for Policing on the forthcoming policing reform legislation in order to ensure that there is consistency across all forces so that we can deal with this problem head-on and not allow forces to get away with piecemeal and different approaches across our country?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  This Budget is about aspiration and investing in the future potential of the British people, from the health service to our small businesses to our high streets. It is about supporting infrastructure and development, whether in airports, roads or power generation. While we are on the topic of astrology, black holes have recently been the subject of debate. I would simply point out to the Opposition that, although they are absolutely right to talk about black holes, maybe they can recall the situation in which they left this country after the last Parliament, with 11.5% inflation and 5.2% interest rates, rising gilt prices, and six Chancellors in five years. That shower, and the circus routine, have ended, and we now have stability with a Chancellor who is once again supported by the markets and engaged with businesses and across industry. On the benefits for my constituents, not only will the headroom deliver much more market confidence, but the retail offer is reducing the pressures on the cost of living—from the £150 reduction in energy bills, supporting our manifesto commitment to reduce energy costs, to the freezing of rail fares, which will save an average of £320 a year for commuters from Chatham to London stations, and the engagement on free prescriptions, which will save thousands of residents across Kent and Medway money on their repeat prescriptions. As many of my hon. Friends have said, the ethical mission of this Labour Government is to reduce poverty. The single act of scrapping the two-child benefit cap will reduce poverty by the biggest margin since the last Labour Government under Gordon Brown and the previous one under Denis Healey, and I am really proud to support it. In my constituency, 3,300 children will be lifted out of poverty by this move, and I think it is testament to the hard work of those on the Front Bench that we have been able to deliver that. Lastly, this Budget is about building the foundations of a more confident, prosperous country. We have had no quarters under this Labour Government when we have not had growth, in contrast to the recession under the last Government in 2023. This country is growing and has stability, with a firm Chancellor who has a grip on the finances and is setting a clear direction for the future. I am proud, as a Labour representative, to support the Budget tonight.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. The Public Accounts Committee has recently scrutinised the state of clinical negligence in the UK. At £60 billion, the Government liability for clinical negligence significantly increased under the last Government. The Government have commissioned David Lock to review the issue. Does the Secretary of State agree that reform is desperately needed in this space?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Prosecutions and convictions for domestic abuse dramatically fell under the last Government, which impacted constituents across all of our areas, including in Chatham and Aylesford. What steps are the Government taking to increase the level of prosecutions and convictions for this heinous crime?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates in cases of violence against women and girls.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q4. The leader of my local council, Kent county council, has said that they are a “shop window” for Reform UK. With councillors facing criminal charges, inappropriate conduct and behaviour, a defection, five expulsions, a failed DOGE-inspired cost-cutting drive and an authoritarian leader who shouts and swears at colleagues, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the people of Kent deserve so much better? How will the Government ensure that we deliver higher standards in local government?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) has said, we should be looking to create streets in which our residents can live, work and thrive together. However, it is indeed the case that the in-boxes of Members in this Chamber are full of messages about HMOs. There are 1,018 HMOs in the Medway council area, 658 of them in the most socially deprived wards, and one in five of those 658 HMOs has issues relating to at least one serious hazard, including mould, fire safety and electrical problems. We know that many HMOs are well run, but a significant number are not. It is welcome news that in my local area, Medway council is looking at the article 4 direction and considering selective licensing as a solution. We need to promote that as a policy to ensure that all our residents can live in safe and secure homes. I look forward to seeing that report from my council shortly. I would like the Minister to answer some questions. How can we strengthen and streamline the article 4 process to allow councils to engage in it? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) has said, at the moment the process is onerous and can take many months. Can we look at introducing a national framework? Can we also look at unlicensed HMOs and ensure that our planning teams are resourced, so that we can ringfence money and support residents, and get the most appropriate type of housing for our communities? Lastly, the process of completing an article 4 direction is cumbersome, as I know from experience. What more can we do to give statutory guidance to authorities to ensure that they engage with landlords to prevent bogus charities and other types of bogus operators, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield mentioned, from trying to get through the process?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Draft Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister for stepping in and for reviewing the outstanding contributions of previous Environment Ministers. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice for her work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for all her work on the issue over many years. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for sustainable resources, and as chair for Policy Connect on the circular economy task group, let me say that the draft regulations are very welcome; we look forward to further developments in other product areas as the circular economy task group reports. This measure follows the Welsh legislation and the Welsh Government’s move to ban these products, with a ban hopefully to come shortly in Northern Ireland and Scotland. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, the European Union is watching us very closely, as are other countries, to see how it will be implemented. From the Conservative Environment Network to the Socialist Environment and Resources Association and Liberal Democrat environmental groups, there is genuine consensus that these are products that have reached the end of their lifecycle. We know that bioaccumulation is occurring in mammalian species. Autopsies of porpoises and other animals show an extremely high level of bioaccumulation, which then passes into the food chain and into human beings. We know that that has significant impacts in relation to cancer and other disorders. Further research is ongoing into plastics and their consequences in human physiology. The 18-month transition period will allow companies to clear stock—I think that that is the ambition—and allow new products to be developed. As has been mentioned, many companies have already made the step towards being plastic-free. A secondary benefit will be a reduction in sewer blockages. However, it must be noted that any transition product might still have some impact, so that cannot be the primary reason for implementation. There has been some noted scientific research showing that it would be an improvement, because a more biodegradable product, such as a cellulose-based product, will disintegrate much more quickly than a plastic product. I am hopeful that our society can innovate to create products that disintegrate faster. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, talked about the NHS. The impact assessment states that the Government have already spoken to Kimberly-Clark, which has been part of the process from the start, and will continue to work closely with it. Although the hon. Member is absolutely right to raise those concerns, we are already speaking to industry professionals, and I am confident that we can come to a resolution. All that remains is for me to thank the Minister and all colleagues for their contributions this afternoon. I look forward to supporting the legislation.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mauritius was one of the early signatories to the UN global ocean treaty? If so, I am not sure what his point is.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  “It seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement, the greatest source of visual beauty, the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living”—wise words by David Attenborough. They are words that everyone can relate to, whether that is a university professor in Oxford, a 12-year-old watching “Blue Planet” on the BBC or, indeed, the specialist in ocean conservation I met yesterday as part of my role as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean. Everyone in this room, in this country and on this planet has an interest in ensuring that our oceans are protected. When we stare down from space at our blue jewel of a world, it is simply unfathomable that 230 million square kilometres of it are at present effectively unmanaged. It is a free-for-all. It has been allowed to become so because of history, but we now have the obligation to create a system of management, both in this room and across multilateral agreements with other countries. It is the wonder of our democracy in this country and other countries around the world that we can finally introduce a piece of legislation where we can manage many of these locations. I stand as a proud MP for Medway, in particular Chatham, which has an historic dockyard that served much of our maritime trade and provided support to the Royal Navy. Many in my community have a proud history and legacy of serving on the oceans, from working on fleets supplying freight to participating in our royal naval tradition. Our country has a proud history of conservation through the National Trust and other terrestrial organisations. We also have a number of third-party sector organisations that are committed to delivering on ocean conservation, not just through this treaty but through the many there have been in the past. Such organisations include Oceana and the Marine Conservation Society. There is also excellent work being done by Plymouth University and Southampton’s National Oceanography Centre, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) and I had the pleasure of visiting earlier this year. Our Natural History Museum, with its work in London and across the country, the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace have all advocated for this in many ways and continue to do so. In many cases their work is not high profile; they do their work quietly and behind the scenes, such as by engaging with DEFRA—I am sure the civil servants can attest to this—and ensuring that they are safeguarding our fisheries and world. This Bill is extremely welcome and timely. The high seas treaty reached its required 60 ratifications on 19 September, and the 60th ratification triggered a 120-day countdown, after which the treaty comes into force. If we want to be at that multilateral table to deliver for our residents in our communities and our country, we need to deliver this legislation. I welcome the Bill being placed before the House, and I welcome the debate with Members across this Chamber—from those who are fascinated by the sperm whale or the right whale to those who have rowed across oceans and seas. The contents of the Bill are critical. Genetic heritage has not been mentioned much today, but it is a critical element as it can lead to cures for cancer and heart disease. Genetic heritage is a marker for our future on this planet. If there are cures that come as a result of this legislation, it is today that we give security and licence to it. The designation of marine protection areas has been much debated across this Chamber with regard to UK controls, and I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to do more domestically to protect our MPAs, make them fit for purpose and allow them live up to their designation. This legislation creates the licence for marine protection areas in international waters, which will support our heritage and legacy for future generations. It is a pathway to the goal of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. The Bill also gives scientific protections around licensing. We know that there are significant challenges for both our biotic and abiotic resources. Much time has been spent this afternoon discussing the damage caused by international industrial fisheries, with new technologies and industrial-sized trawlers coming from many nations of the world. The damage caused by these monsters, as I refer to them, is decimating not only our biological resources directly in that location but sea birds, species and any food chains associated with it. There is also a debate about mining and drilling to be had in the next 10 to 20 years as we begin to get access to our deep-sea resources. Whether it is hydrates or base metals that we need, we need to have that conversation, so I implore the Government to look very closely at any moratorium. Then there is climate change, which is not to be denied by many across the world. It is happening. Species are under threat, and the destruction of habitats as a result of the warming and acidification of the ocean is impacting both coral reefs and seaweed beds. To conclude, I still have a number of questions around the use of the Marine Management Organisation in this country and regional fisheries management organisations. How much extra resource will they need, because I certainly have questions at present around the MMO and its oversight? How do we know that this is going to be enforced? The UN has calculated that to make this effective we might need to look at figures of around $170 billion annually. Where is that money going to come from? There are serious questions about who will enforce overfishing protection and marine protection areas when we have fishing piracy going on around the world. What are the measures for dispute resolution? We know that there are United Nations convention on the law of the sea disputes around the South China sea with China, and disputes are also ongoing over the Arctic, so what measures and mediation will this treaty introduce? This treaty tells everyone watching about our values, whether they be a 12-year-old “Blue Planet” watcher or a professor in a submersible in the Arctic. It sets the tone for the next hundred years. It is necessary that we do this and I implore colleagues to support it.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Criminal Courts: Independent Review · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for this debate. He will be aware that there have been a number of debates on this salient issue here and in the other place. Nationally, the court backlog across England and Wales now exceeds 78,000. It is a problem that has been inherited, but we need to acknowledge it and face up to the challenge. In my local area, Maidstone Crown court has 2,500 cases outstanding, while Canterbury has 1,000. I have met victims as well as those working on the frontline of the criminal justice system, and I acknowledge some operational challenges that I intend to raise today. Every single case we have heard from colleagues represents real people—real victims and defendants who are not getting their time in court. Defendants are suffering the concurrent mental health conditions of waiting for a sentence and victims are not getting redress. As my colleague from the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), rightly said, if we do not tackle this issue, it is predicted to get worse, with 100,000 cases by 2030 if no changes are made. I welcome the Government’s announcements of an extra £92 million for legal aid so far this year and an additional 4,000 court sitting days, taking us to 111,000. That is a necessary step, but it is also right that we have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to conduct a wholesale review of our criminal courts, and it is in an independent spirit that he has come forward with these guidelines. There are 45 recommendations. I think it is eminently sensible that we look at out-of-court resolutions to a number of cases where the sentencing is below a certain threshold. The two-year threshold is sensible; it could be higher, but the Government will need to take a balanced approach on that when they respond to part 1 of the report. I also think that the reclassification to summary-only offences, so that magistrates get more responsibility, is eminently sensible, because at the moment the number of referrals going into Crown courts is simply too high. The creation of a dedicated Crown court bench commission is a sensible next step; I look forward to seeing how that will work in practice, given that we have logistical and staff constraints within this sector at present. I understand that the recruitment of 6,000 extra staff might be required, which will be a challenge. The incentivising of early resolution through sentence reductions is also sensible—it is a practice we are already employing, but it can be expanded. Of course, all these suggestions will only reduce cases by 9,000 court sittings per annum on average, so it is right that we are speaking to the public about these issues and I look forward to the Government response. I have one minute left. I have spoken to the Minister in previous Westminster Hall debates about my local courts in Kent. There are some operational issues as well, and I acknowledge some of the concerns raised by colleagues, including the increasing use of digital technologies in courts and the improvement in capital finance to improve court premises, some of which are falling apart, and to fix leaking roofs. I have also raised independently the movement of cases across artificial geographical boundaries, so that we can spread caseloads across other parts of the county and other regions. There must also be greater support, including greater human resources support, for justice offices and casework officers working in our court systems, so that we can get the cases through. I will continue partnership work with the Government, but I welcome part 1 of Leveson’s report and I encourage Members to support it.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Every single one of us is here because we want to deliver justice for every one of our constituents. As a former police officer, it has been really welcome to hear of the lived experiences of barristers, criminal prosecutors and people who have worked in our Prison Service, because it is their expertise that makes this place deliver for people. As a former police officer, I know that this Government have inherited a criminal justice system on the brink of collapse after 14 years of Conservative neglect. I can see that the early release scheme has been in action tonight, with Conservative Members being absent. Probation was hollowed out and police numbers see-sawed; they were cut in the early part of the Conservatives’ tenure, only to grow later after crime rose. The stark truth is that the Conservatives left prisons full at the end of their term; they know that, and they have never apologised for that derogation of responsibility. The Conservative party is the party of law and disorder, and this is its failure. No matter the gimmicks of the shadow Justice Ministers—whether it be chasing people in tube stations or climbing lamp posts—that record will have been on their watch. That is why this Bill is so urgent. We know that the number of prison places is growing, with 14,000 more before the end of the decade. We have a Government who are finally stepping up and listening to the public when it comes to putting people in prison, but we know that that cannot be the only solution and that we need to adopt other approaches. That is why the Sentencing Bill is so necessary; it recognises that capacity must be built, but also that sentences must be reformed so that the right people are behind bars for the right length of time and the public can have confidence in justice. Our prisons should not be a revolving door for ever more prison experience and criminals rotating through the system, and we need to change that. This Bill takes a clear-eyed approach. Let us be clear about this: dangerous offenders and those posing the highest risk will continue to serve long sentences—no ifs, no buts. For most offenders, though, we will move towards an earned progression model. Behaviour in custody will determine how much of a sentence is served. As we have learned from the States, that is a model that works, and I look forward to seeing it develop in action, overseen by Ministers who will consult with the professional bodies and prison staff. I welcome the reforms to the way in which we approach sentencing, listening to professionals such as The Times’ Crime and Justice Commission and David Gauke so that we can have a system that delivers the outcomes we want. This shift is not about being soft; it is about being smart and ensuring that punishment is effective. I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill is not perfect, and I look forward to improving it in Committee, working with all Members. It learns from the failures of the past, of which there are many; it builds on the findings of an independent review; and it balances punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. I hope Members will support it today.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Court Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  14. What steps he is taking to reduce the length of waiting times in the Crown court.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Court Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  In west Kent, an initiative to share the resource of Maidstone Crown court with Woolwich Crown court is spreading cases into areas where there is not such a backlog. Can the Government indicate whether that is being openly considered in other parts of the country so that we can spread the backlog across different areas?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Weaponisation of social media has become a real cancer in our society, with MPs and others being targeted. What steps are the Government taking on hostile state threats on social media that might be being used to undermine our democracy?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government amendments, and thank those who have steered the legislation to this point. This is a generational upgrade in employment rights, and as a Labour MP, I am very proud to support it. It is a landmark shift in some ways—a declaration that in modern Britain, hard work should be rewarded with decent, stable work, security, dignity and fairness. Having worked in the private and public sectors at different times in my life, I believe that the Bill strikes a fair balance between the workplace rights of the individual and the rights of the employer. That is why I welcome the extensive consultation that the Government have undertaken with the private sector and with trade unions and other organisations. I am a member of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the National Education Union and have proudly represented and spoken for them in my career to date. I wish to speak about a number of the Opposition Lords amendments and my concerns about them in short order. I have concerns about Lords amendment 1. Zero-hours contracts have allowed people to be trapped by insecure work, low pay and one-sided flexibility. I know from speaking to shop workers in my constituency that they have not been able to plan ahead with their finances because of the unscrupulous nature of some working relationships with employers. That has left families unable to plan their weekly shopping and childcare as well as their futures, especially in respect of securing loans and other financial settlements. It has become a way for employers to manage down by allowing too many people to take very short hours and then not allowing them to gain other forms of employment. The Government’s measures to ensure zero-hours contracts are controlled—where the individual can request zero-hours contracts but there is an onus on the employer to support guaranteed hours—strike the correct balance. I therefore reject Lords amendment 1 as the Government’s measures strike a fair balance between the employee requesting and the employer giving. Lords amendments 23, 106 and 120 relate to sensible changes on unfair dismissal. As has been mentioned, under the last Government the unfair dismissal provision was set at 12 months and that was extended to two years under the current Government. This does not take into account the fact that many who are subject to unfair dismissal might have been working for the employer for a significant period and also be subject to paternity leave, parental leave and other types of support. We should be supporting people with secure provision in work, and I believe that six months is a fair period in which most employers would be able to grade that assessment. I do not accept Lords amendment 48 on seasonal work. It would add a loophole by which employers could exploit workers. The Bill pays due regard to the realities of seasonal work, both at Christmas and in farming and other types of practice, and I would welcome consultation on such provision continuing. On political funds, I urge colleagues to reject Lords amendments 61 and 72. We must return to a model that has worked for over 70 years where people choose to opt out of political funds, because securing employment rights is one of the endeavours of a trade union. The trade unions were set up to secure rights for employees, and seeking to achieve that is one of their political endeavours. I have concerns about Lords amendment 62. The Conservatives complain about the 50% threshold but they did not adopt that in their former leadership election, and perhaps it will not be the threshold in their leadership election to come in the next six months. If they adopted their recommended 50% threshold of members, we might not see a replacement. If they cannot use it for their own internal processes, that raises questions about why others should be made to do so. I also encourage the Government to consider online balloting as a next necessary step. We do online balloting for many of our leadership processes and it is a sensible way forward, as well as other forms of engagement by post. As a former teacher, I do not support Lords amendment 121. Negotiations should be conducted in a fair way and the Bill covers that, preventing one-sided correspondence between teachers and their professional body. As a former special constable, while I accept Lords amendment 21 in principle in supporting our special constables on the ground, that should not just be for a single group of people but should be considered for others, perhaps including carers and other support workers. I welcome the Government’s review of employees’ right to take time off; that is the most sensible approach. On balance, I am not surprised that the Conservatives and others do not support the Bill—I and others have written as USDAW MPs. I believe that we should support a balanced approach between employees and employers. I welcome the work the Government and former Ministers have done to that end. The Bill strikes a fair balance between those who work in the private and public sectors and the obligations employers are to offer, which is why I will be supporting the Government tonight.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Defence Industrial Base · Hansard source

  More

  Medway has a proud tradition with its former dockyard in Chatham. Last week, I visited the BAE Systems aviation centre in Rochester in my constituency to see its graduates and apprentices. What more can be done to support graduates and apprentices in defence? Will the Minister take the opportunity to visit the BAE Systems site to look at that work in person?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Defence Industrial Base · Hansard source

  More

  18. What steps he is taking to help strengthen the defence industrial base.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Teacher Recruitment · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps she is taking to recruit new teachers.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Teacher Recruitment · Hansard source

  More

  As a former teacher, I know that new school buildings not only help student progress, but encourage teacher retention. Can the Minister confirm that new school buildings are indeed part of this Government’s programme for change, and will she commit to visiting Bradfields academy in my constituency, a specialist SEND school that is investing millions as part of the schools rebuilding programme?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity · Hansard source

  More

  Members will be aware of the public streaming of violence and criminal activity towards property and police officers. This is the second year that this has happened over the summer period. Will the Minister confirm that she is engaging with other Departments on how we can review streaming activity so that it does not promote violence and criminality and replication in other locations around our country?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Blue Badge Eligibility · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we all have to work within systems, but this one seems heartless and a bit cold. I think that is the general experience of many, that it seems to take a “computer says no” approach if someone does not have one of those specific physical mobility issues. I fully accept that we need a system, otherwise there might be people who choose to exploit the scheme. However, there must also be a point where we accept that people’s health is not linear. It is not a case of someone having something life-altering and therefore they can get the badge, and no other conditions exist, because most people’s health will change. In recent years, there have been changes to extend the scheme to non-visible conditions, so we have made concessions previously—autism and mental health challenges can be taken into account. However, those with debilitating illnesses and temporary conditions are the focus this afternoon. We know from the media that this issue is not just confined to Kent. The excellent work of Kent Online is helping to highlight this case, but it is happening across the country. In other places, we have seen cases where people experiencing side effects from cancer have been refused, and where people in severe pain—who can prove that they are in severe pain—have been refused access because they are told their condition is not enduring enough. That is unacceptable. If someone can prove that their condition exists and that they are engaged in medical treatment, anyone would think that that was enough evidence. People may concurrently suffer from mental health issues, fatigue and other challenges as a result of not securing this support. Some are recovering from major surgery that leaves them barely able to walk, yet they are refused this service, which seems completely counterintuitive. I can tell hon. Members from experience, as others can, that a six-month recovery, when someone knows that they will recover, which I fortunately had, is still an uphill struggle, because it involves dealing with the consequences. I ask that any scheme, especially this one, be a mechanism rather than an obstacle course. It feels as if we are on an obstacle course and, certainly in residents’ views, that is the case. I thank Kent Online and residents for raising this campaign, and I hope that, with the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling and others, we can bring this issue into the public domain on a cross-party basis. As a relatively inexperienced MP, I have learned many lessons about how to run campaigns properly, and I salute the work of the hon. Member across the aisle on this—because we can genuinely get some positive change. This is also a sign of local leadership. I am pleased that the council in Medway has stepped up and is open to having this conversation. I hope that we can work to get Kent county council in the room, because it covers the large majority of constituents across Kent. I believe the work we are doing can lead to change and I am passionate about the outcomes. I have some questions for the Minister. First, is there positive work going on in the Department to review the blue badge scheme? Could that conclude that we can extend eligibility? Secondly, has any guidance been provided to local councils about local schemes—using best practice from, say, some of the London councils—and could we extend that principle? There is a bit of inconsistency between councils in terms of examples of where this works well in practice. Thirdly, I understand that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting the NHS through extra investment in our hospitals and frontline services—that is extremely welcome. Could cross-departmental work be done with the Department of Health and Social Care to facilitate blue badges for those leaving hospital as part of their discharge regimen? Could they get an automatic letter that can be submitted to a public body, allowing for a seamless service, rather than having to go through a regimented application process? We could use a bit of common sense across Departments so that people do not have to go through a bureaucratic process to apply for a blue badge. I am quietly confident that we can see change, working with campaigners on a cross-party basis. I thank everyone for coming this afternoon.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Blue Badge Eligibility · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my colleague, friend and constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), for securing this critical debate, and Kent colleagues of all parties—Liberal, Labour and Conservative—who have come together to support this initiative. There are colleagues in the Chamber from other areas where this problem is manifest. It is a concern across the country. I also thank residents who have stepped forward to articulate their position. Going to a newspaper and putting their names out there is a brave thing to do, and they are setting in train something that could change the rules for millions of other people in this country. I say to them, “Believe you me, the work that you have done is making those changes. You are sitting in the Public Gallery today because of your efforts and your diligence.” I thank Bev, Sandy and all the others who have written to us and are getting involved in the campaign. This campaign is personal to me. Like, I suspect, many others in the room, I have had a life-changing health issue. At 38, I had what became a pulmonary embolism due to a heart attack, at a very young age, and was completely unexpectedly taken into hospital. The post-recovery period lasted 12 weeks, for six of which I was almost unable to move without support and help—at the age of 38. It was a traumatising and scary personal experience, and there are many such stories around the country from people who have broken limbs, suffered trauma or had cancer treatment. We need a scheme that takes into account the different scenarios of people’s everyday lives. The scheme needs to change. As a Labour Government, we have a proud legacy on this issue, because it was Labour that introduced the scheme and a Labour Government that modernised it to support people who face serious barriers in their daily mobility. It allows them to park closer to essential services, to visit GPs to get treatment, or simply to collect shopping—to many, that would seem a simple act, but to those with these disabilities it is extremely frustrating and difficult. I respect the Department for Transport but, like others, I have had quite formulaic responses from it, saying that people need to demonstrate an enduring, substantial disability. I know from colleagues that it is difficult to do that in a written piece of correspondence and without an in-person interview. The Department’s response does not take into account the fact that people have different levels of fluency in English, might not have medical knowledge and might be unable to articulate their exact position.

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

  More

  The day after the change of control of the council, party political auditors came in. There has been a communications exercise highlighting the SEND transport budget for cuts, but we do not know what those cuts will be, and there has been no communication with residents, causing fear to spread about whether their children will be affected. This is not just about my hon. Friend’s constituents in Ashford, but about residents in Margate, Maidstone and Tonbridge—the problem is manifest across the entire county. A number of solutions have been proposed, so I would like to ask the Minister a series of questions about them. As the Government have now created three-year budget cycles, can something similar be done to secure long-term funding for councils, so that we do not have to rely on the safety valve going forward? Although I agree that students need to be in an appropriate landscape, private provision for SEND is sometimes 10 times more expensive for each child, which is not sustainable when the budget is going up by so much. What could we do to transfer those children and bolster mainstream schools? I know some excellent examples of that, such as at Bradfields academy in my constituency, which is receiving Building Schools for the Future funding under this Government. How can we expand that principle into other mainstream schools, so that we can provide specialist autism and ADHD units? How do we align services regionally? In my area, child and adolescent mental health services are fundamentally failing and we have had to transfer them back in-house to the Kent mental health trust. How can we ensure that CAMHS is really working? Finally, the appeals system is failing across some counties, so how can we ensure it is fit for purpose and does not cost councils millions of pounds to sustain? These are my questions and I hope the Minister can answer them.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this debate. He is a fellow Kent MP who regularly speaks about these issues—it is one of his passions. I will echo many of the views that have already been expressed. With 21,000 students on EHCPs, Kent stands among the worst in the country, with 13% completed within the statutory deadline—in Medway it is even worse, at 12%. Across the county we see those stark figures, but they represent the real human lives that we see in our casework every single week, from the child who does not get to school within the statutory deadline of 90 minutes, or the child who is not given access in the classroom through the specialist teaching assistant provision that they need, to the parents who have to give up their jobs in some cases and go on to benefits to look after their children and get them into those schools. Every single Member of Parliament has received testimony in their inbox about the problem. I know that the Government inherited an appalling legacy from the previous Government—it was basically admitted that SEND provision was an absolute mess. Although I blame the Tories on Kent county council for the problem, it is not unique to any one council or to the control of any council; it is a systemic and structural problem as a result of demand not having been met over many years. In my area, it is manifestly worse because the chaotic Reform council has cancelled meetings about education and SEND, ambushed its own transport cabinet member and fired him on the spot, and suspended councillors already. It is turning into a nightmare because councillors cannot even manage their own house, let alone focus on the priorities of SEN students and deal with the plurality of residents.