Tristan Osborne MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing this debate, and I am also grateful for all the other debates that we have had across Parliament on this issue. In addition, I thank the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its detailed, scrupulous analysis and for undertaking to meet key stakeholders in the community—I have used some of that feedback for this speech. In my view, South East Water is manifestly a corporate failure, which has been allowed to metastasise over the last 10 years. That has left customers paying the price for something that is ultimately a basic need in every single household. That failure stems from four key factors. South East Water failed to effectively monitor its management of the only product that it distributes; it failed to maintain its assets, from pipes to supply chains and ultimately the storage areas and the places where water was secured from; it failed to invest in its infrastructure; and it failed to respond to and communicate with not only MPs and council leaders but with other key stakeholders in the region, including the Kent Resilience Forum, leaving people exposed when incidents occurred. Like others, I celebrate the resignations of key senior managers, but my focus now is on how we drive the company forward so that there is not a repeat of these incidents, which have gone on since before this Government—other incidents occurred from 2020 to 2023. More broadly, it must be said that incidents occur in other parts of the country, albeit on a smaller scale, so this represents a structural failure within the sector. I welcome the Cunliffe review and some of the reforms that we are making to water regulation, so that we can take some of these issues by the horns and deal with them. Fundamentally, though, my constituents want redress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford mentioned, we know from the statistics that 24,000 customers were impacted in December and that 22,000 were impacted in May. Although we did not have water shortages in my constituency, several key villages—Wouldham, Burham, Eccles and Larkfield—and the town of Snodland were placed in the “at risk” category. Although their water supply was not restricted, in effect they given a warning that it would be and had to prepare for that, and they are next to a key water supply station. I was inundated by messages from concerned people over the Christmas period—“When is this going to happen?”, “What is going to occur?”—so I would say that the company first needs to fundamentally improve its communications, which I think have been lamentable. Nor do I think that it was particularly effective at communicating with Ministers on how it manages crisis situations, and the way it communicated with local council leaders, local community leaders, MPs and others was absolutely atrocious. The senior management of the company has now changed, but what processes have been put in place to ensure an absolutely clear line of sight and experience in communication? Indeed, one of the outcomes from 2023 was that South East Water was supposed to improve communication, but it has clearly learned absolutely no lessons. My second point is about the company’s failure to maintain its assets. I know that colleagues here today will talk about Pembury works, Bewl Water and parts of the supply chain, but water companies are supposed to present to Parliament five-year capital management plans and get support from their shareholders for where that will go in future, so there is a real question about whether shareholders were holding the company responsible. Also, why did the company’s own internal processes not even record some of these events? It was quite telling that when David Hinton appeared before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, he said, “Well, we couldn’t have foreseen some of these events.” Possibly not, but that was because the company was not monitoring the very things that it needed to monitor before those outcomes occurred. What is the company doing now, and what are the Government doing to press it to act on this? Investment is also critical. With all the infrastructure expansion we are expecting in Kent—not only new homes but new businesses and industrial and commercial enterprises—there is clearly now demand for future water supply. Given the company’s questionable financial status in terms of worth, where are we heading on its financial sustainability? What are the Government doing to prepare for any financial outcome around financial market confidence in the organisation? Although this is not a Thames Water situation, in my view we are very close to something similar occurring. Lastly, in my view—this was also the conclusion of the Committee—the company should be held to account according to the standards of public accountability. When water companies fail, how specifically do we intervene—as any businesses or consultancy coming into a business would—to direct some of that change? I worry that, without leadership, the company will drift and these incidents will repeat every six months or every year for the next three years. We need to know that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and my residents need to know that when they pay their water bill at the end of the month, they will get the service that they expect.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My contribution will be brief, as other colleagues said a lot this morning. Clause 3 is extremely pragmatic and proportionate to the challenges we face. As Sir Brian Leveson made clear in his oral testimony, it is necessary because financial investment and efficiency measures alone, while essential—no one present disagrees with that—are insufficient to bring down the backlog. We all know that structural reform is critical if we are to see a meaningful reduction in the backlog. Clause 3 comes with context, because the backlogs have more than doubled since 2019. Despite some quarterly variations, which have been mentioned, we see that the backlog is increasing annually. On the current trajectory, we are now entering unparalleled territory, with real, material consequences for the victims of crime. This was all predicted and modelled in the previous Parliament, and it has since come to pass. The current trajectory is 130,000 cases by 2030, and 200,000 cases by 2035. While some may acknowledge that there are decisions that have led to this position, it requires the Government to step in and deal with the consequences. We need the policy in the Bill to meaningfully reduce caseloads, and we need it today. There is clear evidence from the testimony of many of the witnesses that cases are sometimes taking 80% longer compared with 2019, due to their complexity and the evidence and digital analysis that is required in many cases. Currently, 21,000 cases have been open for a year or longer. Again, that is the current trend and trajectory. Inequity is undermining confidence in our justice system. I say this as a former police officer: it is not just the victim who suffers, although they absolutely do need justice for the crime committed against them; defendants, some of whom may be innocent, are also having to await outcomes. The police and agencies, while not necessarily being responsive because of their independent nature, have to manage the victim. I know from testimony given directly to me by police that court waiting times and having to manage victims over many years have direct consequences for cases. There are no winners when it comes to inaction. Today, more than 90% of cases are dealt with by magistrate benches, and in some cases that is with multiple magistrates. The evidence pack indicates that only 3% of criminal cases go to jury trial. Even if the reform takes place, the majority of cases will still be dealt with in the same way as previously. Only 1% of cases will be heard by the new division. Despite the claim that there will be substantial changes for the majority of cases, only a very small number will be affected. The Bill is not about the abolition of jury trials; it is about changing the thresholds at which they are implemented.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The point is that the premise of his inclination was that it is appropriate for thresholds to be changed. Although there will absolutely be principled disagreement between different advocates about where that threshold will be and the appropriateness of who will oversee those cases, be that a bench or a single judge, the reality is that there is consensus, I hope, that thresholds have changed through time. The thresholds in the Bill are a proportionate response to the overwhelming challenge of a court backlog that we inherited from the previous Government. In my view, clause 3 allocates mid-level cases effectively and ensures that demand in Crown courts is reduced. We know the consequences if we do not do this. To the critics saying this is not fair, the reality is that our constitution says that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and I believe that everyone in our courts system, be that the 90% who are engaged with magistrates courts, or those who go to Crown court, is dealt with fairly. As has been mentioned, I do not want to create an artificial divide between cases that are heard in one or the other; both are deemed fair, and we believe that people sentenced in magistrates courts are given a fair trial. The thresholds in the clause are fair and reasonable, and we have to consider this as a wider package of reforms along with the digitalisation of the court system, the modernisation of the estate and improvements to transport and infrastructure, all of which play a part. Fundamentally, it goes back to my central point that those things alone will not bring about the reduction in backlogs that we all want to see.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to her new position and thank her predecessors for all the excellent work that they did in getting this legislation through Committee and in their representations in the House of Lords. As has rightly been said by Members across this Chamber, this is a seminal piece of legislation that puts Britain at the forefront of smoking cessation. It is a Bill that will be modelled in other nations around the world and that reflects the changing nature of tobacco use in the United Kingdom. I remember that when I was growing up in the 2000s—not that many years ago some might say—smoking was a real problem in schools. Among under-18s in particular, 50% of cohorts were smoking. I am a former schoolteacher, and if we fast-forward to today, that figure has dramatically reduced. However, we see new technologies such as vapes and chewable tobacco taking the place of smoking. I welcome many of the measures in this Bill and the fact that we are the cheerleaders taking it forward. I also welcome the cross-party consensus in accepting many of the Lords amendments and in accepting proposals from representative groups outside the House. Those proposals include the ban and restrictions on filters, which are evolving as I speak; in many cases around the world, filters are quickly changing, so they still remain a problem. I accept some of the changes regarding vending machines. One of the big things discussed in Committee was vending machines in mental health and other health institutions as smoking-cessation tools. It is welcome that, as a result of the debate in Committee, we have accepted that vaping remains a smoking-cessation tool. Broadly speaking, until evidence is presented that shows otherwise, vapes are a far healthier product than cigarettes, so they continue to have a place in smoking cessation. I thank the Government for accepting Lords amendments on the issuing of fines of up to £2,500 by local authorities and the ringfencing of that money for those councils. We know that councils do outstanding work in challenging illegal tobacco. My council in Medway in Kent has one of the most successful track records in identifying illegal tobacco and challenging those who market the product, but we know that that is just the tip of the iceberg. These products contain significant quantities of dangerous chemicals and other types of product that can be severely damaging to people’s health. I also want to mention restrictions on advertising. We know that there is gamification around tobacco products. We know that tobacco companies have sought to advertise specifically to young people so that they become addicted at ever younger ages. That is not a new technique; it has been happening for generations. I am glad that the Government have accepted Lords amendments on advertising to ensure that we restrict it on television and in other marketing efforts. This Bill and all the amendments tabled by Members across this Chamber and in the other place, reflecting the views of different organisations in civil society, are broadly speaking extremely sensible, and I am glad that the House is not dividing on the Lords amendments tonight. Lastly, I pay tribute to all the people working in our health services, who have been the most clear advocates for this Bill. They are the people who have been at the coalface every single day dealing with the consequences of tobacco, be they lung conditions, heart disease or concurrent conditions. It is because of their work over many years that we are here today with this Bill and these Lords amendments.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Gambling Harms: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank those who have led the debate in our communities, including my hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and for Brent East (Dawn Butler), and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who are among the many Members with a passion for this issue. There are also all-party parliamentary groups that lead outstanding cross-party work on behalf of parliamentarians who have realised the scale and scope of this issue. I pay tribute to all the constituents who have communicated with me and raised this issue in campaign organisations and groups. I have a personal testimony. One of my family members passed away early because of a gambling addiction—a secret addiction that we were unaware of until he passed away and his gambling debts were fully transparent. There are many families across the country who have been touched by similar stories about family members, friends and neighbours. This issue is directly linked to how companies interact with people, and particularly the way that modern communication technologies are impacting young people. As colleagues have correctly enunciated today, 30% of young people have seen gambling-related content online. Advertising at sports events, such as premiership football games, is normalising the interaction with particular brands. There is also the use of online influencers, with young people looking up to or interacting with individuals who are being sponsored by organisations. There is a clear corporate agenda, with gambling companies seeking to increase their reach into ever younger cohorts. We know that this is a growing problem. In 2023, 0.7% of young people aged between 11 and 17 experienced gambling addiction, but that has increased to 1.5% now. That is linked to online gamification and the mobile devices in our pockets. Some 8% of young people gambled online, indicating that apps and casino sites—many based in international locations, with extremely weak barriers in place—are flouting legislation in this country. We also know that gambling on e-sports and other gambling is proliferating around the world—the problem persists not just here—so there are case studies from elsewhere that we can learn from. Lancet Public Health recently looked into the issue and suggested that there is a gender divide here too. As colleagues have said, young boys are far more susceptible to the influences I have talked about—overwhelmingly so—than young girls, with 49% of young boys who are impacted by gambling having interacted with online media platforms. We also know that the sector is spending a fortune on influencing and advertising. As has been correctly articulated, £2 billion is spent annually in this space. As Sports Minister, my predecessor as MP for Chatham and Aylesford, Dame Tracey Crouch, did outstanding work to try to restrict gambling access, through her work on fixed odds betting terminals. Indeed, she resigned as a Minister because the then Government did not take this issue, or the influence of the sector, seriously. I support her and the work that she has done. We need to be careful that extremely expansive commercial operators are not unduly influencing us; we must take that extremely seriously. In the time I have left, I have some questions for the Minister. There is now a well-established, foundational link, both direct and indirect, between advertising and harm. What more can we do, working with the Advertising Standards Agency, to restrict such advertising? Several European countries have already done so. The Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium have introduced regulations, so there is precedent for such restrictions. What can we do to work with football and other sports to restrict advertising near schools and sports grounds in order to restrict excessive content marketing? What can we do to regulate the newer forms of gambling and advertising that we increasingly see on mobile devices? What can we do to ensure that the NHS and our other public health bodies really face up to this challenge, and can give free stigma-free advice to our young people? Lastly, as I mentioned, every individual in this room will have come across cases where gambling addiction and harm have impacted someone, but that is just scratching the surface of a pernicious problem. If we do not deal with it in a respectful but forceful way as a Government, we will create legacy issues for generations to come.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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.