Tristan Osborne MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. May I ask the Prime Minister about our national health service and what better treatments we can offer people suffering from memory loss? A very distressing case was recently brought to my attention by a constituent in Wouldham, a village in my constituency, of a man who could not remember his own words— even though he said them on television—that the NHS should not be funded through general taxation. What can we do to ensure that my constituents in Chatham and Aylesford secure clarity on future Kent and Medway NHS funding, and what can we do to help the leader of Reform UK?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Medway Maritime hospital in my constituency is benefiting from a £25.9 million investment to introduce heat pumps and other measures. Does the Minister agree that we could invest in public sector provision to reduce bills in schools, hospitals and other buildings across the country?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 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.