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.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Environmental Protection and Biodiversity · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. I am proud that chalk streams are part of the portfolio that we are looking at to safeguard our natural world. However, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, my focus is on a different ecosystem—one that is no less important than our terrestrial ecosystems. I want to ask the Minister several questions on oceans. Last summer, we celebrated with David Attenborough the ban on bottom trawling in this country. Will the Minister provide an update on when we can expect to implement that ban in UK waters? Enhanced marine protected areas are also key. We should celebrate the fact that the UK recently signed the UN global ocean treaty, but are we looking to enhance our marine protected areas to protect our species within those? Lastly, we know that microplastics and plastic pollution are a significant problem in oceans around the world; as part of the circular economy review that we are shortly to publish, can we reduce the amount of plastics being fed into our oceans and environment? Ultimately, the Earth and the oceans do not belong to us; we belong to them. We are custodians of the future for generations to come. I hope that our oceans will be part of that tapestry.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Environmental Protection and Biodiversity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for his passionate speech. Chatham has a proud maritime history and connection with the oceans, as well as the beautiful chalk streams of the escarpment that flow into the River Medway.

• 21 Jan 2026 · UK Wine Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I agree 100% that we do need to support more agricultural colleges. Clearly, individual courses will need to have throughput with apprenticeships into wine producers. There are not many of those and they are, at present, quite contained. I absolutely agree that, as the industry grows, we need to encourage skills development in that space. I have other queries similar to the hon. Lady’s, and some of these policy interventions would not be expensive for the Government. On support for wine tourism, apparently 19% of our domestic wine is sold directly to visitors and local customers at the cellar door. These are not just transactions; they are experiences that anchor vineyards in their communities, create hospitality jobs and bring people into rural areas. A carefully designed relief on duty for on-site sales would not distort the market and threaten revenues but empower producers to grow sustainably. If we can offer small-scale support to the sector at this stage of the industry’s growth, we can realise and return greater revenues later. We also need to safeguard what British wine actually means. Consumers deserve clarity, and our producers deserve protection. Wine labelled as “English”, “British” or “UK-made” should genuinely be made from 100% British grapes, and labelling reforms should enhance transparency, rather than create loopholes. At the same time, we need to beware of regulatory changes that could undermine domestic sparkling producers, and we should instead allow domestic producers the opportunity to make a protected geographical indication category for English prosecco, for example. Adding to that, it is vital that we do not dilute internationally recognised standards. As has been mentioned, we of course need to support education, research and development, and the promotion of skills. Much of the grant funding that once supported equipment, education and research has fallen away over the years. In my view, if we are serious about growing a high-value rural industry, which is already showing this growth, strategic investment in training, research and overseas marketing is not a luxury; it is a requirement to oversee growth. We know that we operate in a global market, and competing wine nations, such as France and others close to us in Europe, are already providing this backing to their industries. We need to be in this space to ensure that our producers are competitive on a level playing field. On exports more broadly, no new wine region has succeeded internationally without some initial state backing. If we want English wine on shelves in Tokyo, New York and Copenhagen, the Government must be a partner, which is why supporting wine producers at expo conferences and trade fairs is absolutely critical. Small amounts of money to support advertising in those locations could generate significant throughput and expansion in exports. My colleagues are right to mention taxation, and we need to be open to considering a level playing field. When it comes to small cider and beer production in this country, tax relief is offered at the cellar door, and I believe that the Government could also consider doing that for small wine producers. I understand that a statutory review of the system is due in August, and I urge the Minister to lobby her colleagues in the Treasury, as tricky as that might be, to look at both the level and methodology of wine duty to ensure that it supports, rather than constrains, this growing sector. I understand that the challenges with the Treasury might be significant, but it is nevertheless worth me articulating that. On packaging policy, there are of course real challenges. Under extended producer responsibility, the fee for glass is around eight times higher than in other comparable European schemes. Although I am an advocate for our environment, as well as for the sustainability of many workplaces, we know that the wine industry relies on glass as a premium product and this problematic double-charging has an impact on communities. Can EPR fees be reviewed in the light of the size or turnover of a company, or the scale of its operation? Although I accept the premise of extended producer responsibility, perhaps there are some areas that could be looked at. Land use planning must also recognise the unique nature of vineyards. As has been mentioned, they are not simply farms but rural assets—they are agricultural enterprises that not only produce high-value crops but act as tourist destinations, attracting visitors to local economies. Balfour, which is a Kent-based winery that I have had the pleasure of visiting, now offers a bespoke restaurant and hotel. That is now standard in many wineries, and some are aligned with pubs and other hospitality venues. Tasting rooms, restaurants and event venues are also linked to many of these producers as they diversify their businesses. They are not just environmental stewards, maintaining landscapes and biodiversity; they are indigenous parts of our communities. As we have seen in other European nations, we should be celebrating and talking about that. As we look ahead, the UK wine industry will be a vibrant part of our national story, and it is one that we can absolutely sell to the world. I believe that this vision is aligned with our Government’s strategy to create a more dynamic rural economy and to support the economies of the future—as our climate changes, this space is only going to grow. I believe that we can build those jobs and pride, while delivering world-class British produce in our communities. Lastly, outside of Government, supermarkets and distributors have a part to play. If we visit France and go down a wine aisle, we see that the French actively celebrate their product and market it with a logo, and they encourage their people to purchase it. I believe that our supermarkets should have that responsibility as well, and we can encourage them to market English wines in a similar way. Domestic demand would dramatically increase if there was consumer access to the wines that we produce—I say that to restaurants as well. The industry is now going through a phase where there is movement and tumult as new wineries open and close, but in 20 years’ time the sector will be double or triple the size it is today. The Government should enable that as much as possible and ensure that our rural economies benefit, so we get the pleasure of tasting the best wine in the world.

• 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.