Tristan Osborne
MP for Chatham and Aylesford · Labour · United Kingdom
“My constituents will welcome this defence investment plan, which is more than £298 billion over the next four years. Of course, BAE Systems in my constituency is part of that programme of expansion and the new jobs and opportunities it will bring for young people.”
“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.”
“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 o…”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 339 lines we hold for Tristan Osborne, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 7.
“On perpetrators being in court for sentencing, if you start off with a victim-centred approach, that is a good way to be led—what does the victim feel? There will invariably be crime types, such as the crime types that we work with involving women who have experienced male violence of some description—VAWG—where there should be some form of directive that alerts courts to the fact that they really do need to check in. They need to ask the questions. We know that, even where there is guidance, practice directions and training, it does not always manifest in the everyday practice of courts.”
“We think that needs to be better explored in the Bill. Farah Nazeer: On lenient sentencing, there is no silver bullet. It is probably threefold. First, it is awareness and education, as you rightly say. Secondly, it is time. Thirdly, it is support: support to understand what the process looks like, to go through it and to hold your nerve. It is all that emotional support that sits around it. There is a threefold set of interventions that needs to happen. I would absolutely welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role to look at family courts and what happens within that setting, but that will be possible only if the office is resourced to meet the requirements and the ambitions set out in the Bill. That comes back to the resourcing question.”
“We welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers, particularly in relation to the victims code. Less than a third of victims are aware of their rights under the victims code. That is corroborated by service users at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. It is pivotal for that information —that education piece—to be there and for it to be monitored for greater accountability and transparency. I think the provisions can go further. We have spoken a lot about family courts, which is absolutely right. We need to consider that part of the Bill, and, I would argue, civil courts. We see stalkers using civil courts as a legitimate means to continue stalking their victims through vexatious claims. Often, they have no recourse to justice when a criminal investigation is ongoing at the same time.”
“Very quickly, I definitely support the extension and expansion of Victims’ Commissioner’s powers. I would potentially question how the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to work on systemic issues with the current level of resourcing that is committed. There is not necessarily a proportionate increase in the resourcing for the commissioner to be able to take on individual cases and look at systemic issues as well. We need to be clear about managing expectations, and potentially about what the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role can deliver. Suky Bhaker: I very much agree with Andrea on the sentencing. As mentioned, there is an education piece there. Victims are not aware, or are made aware far too late in comparison with offenders’ rights. There is merit to increasing the timeframe as well.”
“There is a lot of strength to the sentencing review’s call to review all the communication channels and look at how we can best streamline them and how they are most effective for victims and survivors. There is also a wider public education piece about what is going on with sentencing. I would not say that most members of the public are that well informed, because where would they get that information? It is only once you are in the system that you start to realise how complicated it can be to get the information that you need. We have to marry that with being able to tailor the needs of individual victims. There is no homogeneous victim group. Different victims will want to know information, but the offer should be there, and we should empower victims as much as we possibly can within the process.”
“We do know of victims and survivors who realise only at the last minute that they are eligible, so they have run out of time, and it has been a desperate dash to get an application in. We should end that because it is not serving anybody. There is the point about extending it, but it is not an either/or; it is also about the communications, the length of time, and letting people know that this exists. I was part of a sentencing review panel, and a lot of evidence came through about the complete confusion that victims find themselves in when it comes to trying to get information. There is not one source; there are many different places where information can be fed through. You are often trying to fight to find somebody who will be able to help you. It is very inconsistent and patchy currently.”
“My third question is about sentencing hearings. There are obviously going to be differences between where someone who is sentenced for affray or a violent offence and where it is a sexual offence. Are there nuances with the victims? Do some victims not want to see the offender in the courtroom? Should that be a mitigating circumstance in all cases for them not to appear? For instance, you mentioned a case example of harassment. In that case, should we give more focus to the courts to say, “You should not actually be attending this court hearing”? That would be almost a reversal of this policy, so that we are putting the victim before the requirement, if that makes sense. Andrea Simon: With the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, it is both things. It is certainly a communications issue.”
“Q I have a few questions. First, on unduly lenient sentencing, is there currently an issue primarily with education of this scheme? Is there a broad awareness among victims that the scheme currently exists? Or does more time needed to be added on? If it is an education issue, that is fundamentally different from saying, “Add on a few more weeks and it might solve the problem.” Fundamentally, is this an education issue? The second question is about the Victims’ Commissioner. That is obviously a welcome step. Is there any other element where you think the Victims’ Commissioner should get more responsibilities? They have to report annually and will have to take into account. Should they have broader powers, maybe to look at family courts and give a viewpoint? You mentioned that earlier. Do you think the Bill goes far enough?”
“Chris Jennings: Our relationship with the police will be key, too. We work closely in partnership with them on these sorts of things. That will be required during this change, too, to maintain those close operational relationships on the frontline.”
“Kim Thornden-Edwards: On your second question about a switch from exclusion zones to restriction zones, we are currently working through the finer detail of that policy change and its impact and implications. We will take stock and determine what policy change is required to enable staff to make the change, what practice and operational guidance and instructions will be required, and what training element will be required, should that be necessary. We will be working through all those potential implications to this change. Our staff are very well versed in exclusion zones and understanding those. I am confident that they will be able to understand the change in emphasis and what some of the implications are, and will be able to bring the necessary degree of professionalism, integrity and foresight to those arrangements.”
“Depending on how a perpetrator appears before the court—whether they are beaming in from prison via video link or attending in person at court—there are different responsibilities in terms of who undertakes the potential restraint of the prisoner. If we deliver somebody to court, court officers take custody of that person and look after them in the dock. I am less able to speak about the skills of the court staff, because it was many years ago that I worked in the court service and I do not feel up to date. If you are in prison and beaming in via video link, I guess—to an earlier question—it would be possible to train prison officers who are already skilled in some forms of control and restraint in a different way. My instinct would be, although I am not perfectly qualified, that for court staff that would be quite a leap.”
“Q I have two questions. First, is it correct to say that your officers in court settings are not trained to gag prisoners or to engage in restraint of prisoners to present them before the court? Would it require wholesale retraining of officers in the system to engage in that change of behaviour? My second question is about restriction zones. We are pivoting away from exclusion zones to restriction zones, which is giving more focus to victims. Do you think the monitoring is in place for the Probation Service to be able to manage that change of approach, to ensure that there is a pivot away from the rights of the perpetrator to the rights of the victim? Chris Jennings: Maybe I should pick up the first question.”
“Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. In my Chatham and Aylesford constituency, Clarion Housing is working with Octopus Energy in Snodland to install roof solar panels and heat pumps in social housing units. Can the Minister confirm how we can expand on such schemes, using the tenant power tariff for example, to reduce energy costs for our most vulnerable constituents?”
“I thank the Home Secretary for her response. In Kent we are using section 59 powers to confiscate bikes, including in Snodland and Walderslade in my constituency. However, the police have stated that the legislation is not powerful enough, and that they welcome powers to seize bikes. Can we ensure that police inspectors and police and crime commissioners are given guidance and that the number of vehicles seized is monitored, so that we can stop this problem once and for all?”
“Leaving the best until last, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a former police officer, I can say that community payback works. Does the Lord Chancellor agree with me and many of my colleagues in the criminal justice system that rehabilitation of offenders, including filling potholes and clearing fly tipping, is popular, not only in Chatham and Aylesford but in Newark and across the country?”
“Of course it could, but this is a welcome step none the less. Lastly, I will discuss the court backlogs and the impacts on communities, which I have raised in Westminster Hall debates. I welcome the powers in the Bill to improve sentencing powers for six offences, including unlawful subletting, breaches of restraining orders and violation of criminal behaviour orders. We need to get the magistrates to step in and work with that. In short, there is a lot in this Bill that we should support. I encourage colleagues to vote for it today.”
“As someone who worked as a police officer, I know that antisocial behaviour, from nuisance biking to graffiti and persistent noise, is a major problem in many communities across the country. The Victims’ Commissioner will have the power to stand up to local councils and other bodies of authority on behalf of people who have less of a voice in society. I welcome that measure, because I believe that victims of antisocial behaviour should be treated the same as any other victim of crime. I welcome the time limits for sentencing reviews, which the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned. He will be aware that the Bill extends those limits; if a review is received in the last 14 days of the existing 28-day period, there will be an additional 14 days to act. Could the Bill go further?”
“On victims’ rights, it is absolutely correct that we should have reasonable ways of getting a perpetrator into a courtroom, but the Bill needs to go further; I would support audiovisual recording of such things. We do that for the Supreme Court, where people are able to see sentencing. With victims’ consent, justice for high-profile cases should be in the public domain. I urge the Government to go further by allowing the rest of society to see justice being served, as I think we are now reaching that point in our technological development. I welcome the fact that the Bill grants victims a statutory right—not just a courtesy—to be kept informed and to have their voices heard during critical stages of the process. I also support granting enhanced powers to the Victims’ Commissioner.”
“This Bill is an important and necessary step towards restoring the principle that justice is not just about punishing offenders, important though that is. It is also about standing up for the most important part: victims. As I have said in Westminster Hall debates, justice delayed is justice denied. Given the previous Government’s record with regard to policing cuts, soaring court waiting times, the mismanagement of probation services and our prisons being left full, I am afraid the inheritance is dire, but this Government are trying to correct those mistakes. I will cover just three points, because I am conscious that other colleagues wish to speak.”
“May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), the families of victims across this country who are here listening to us today, and the victims who are seeking justice through this Bill? I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her strong articulation of concerns about rape and domestic abuse, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her very strong speech. There have been some extremely passionate speeches today, with constituents’ views at their heart. As a former police officer, I have seen the criminal justice system from both sides, and I can tell the House that it has fallen short in recent years—not just in prosecuting crime, but in supporting those who are most harmed by it. We have heard similar testimony today.”
“I welcome that response, the certainty the decision has provided to people living in the Thames estuary, and the visit yesterday to supply-chain businesses by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Will the Secretary of State for Transport confirm that she will meet me and a delegation of Kent and south-east London MPs to discuss how we can ensure that investment and skills are secured for local supply chains and the development of further education colleges?”
“The modernisation and introduction of the blue badge programme was a lasting legacy of the last Labour Government. Can the Leader of the House provide time to discuss a cross-party campaign, led by Kent MPs and the editor of my local paper, Matt Ramsden, to support the success of the scheme and look at the inclusion of time-limited conditions in the eligibility criteria?”
“I welcome the clarification and statement from my right hon. Friend. The way in which she has dealt reasonably with questions in the House is testament to her fortitude and ability. A number of groups in my constituency have made representations, including Hilary Cooke from Medway Pride and women’s advocacy groups. There is a worry around some of the elements to do with harassment and discrimination—a concern that some might take an opportunity to target the trans community. Will she guarantee that Labour’s Equality Act will stand, and will prevent abuse, harassment and discrimination?”
“It would also help to restore confidence in our criminal justice system, which is in crisis at the moment due not solely to cuts to Crown courts, but to a lack of policing, and lack of confidence in the back office, in probation and in other criminal justice approaches that we have taken. I am not suggesting that my solutions will resolve all the problems with our criminal justice system, but this backlog is causing significant concern among residents in my part of north Kent. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.”
“Ultimately, all these ideas are part of a wider pattern to try to reduce backlogs in the Crown courts, which would ultimately serve all our communities: it would help the police with resource allocation around ongoing cases that have reached charging and are waiting to be presented at Crown court; it would help the victim, because the individual would get their day in the sun, and justice, much more quickly; and it would help the defendant, because an innocent person will be able to get their case heard in front of a court without having to wait, in some cases, for years, with all the tolls on mental health toll and on families that such a wait entails.”
“I absolutely understand that there will be pushback on some of these suggestions, since this has been a nominally independent system for many decades and almost centuries. However, when I have suggested many of these ideas to judges and other court professionals in the system, they have said that in some cases they are already operating with these models. There is already shared casework among some of the London Crown courts, for example, because they have ad hoc agreements. We could support existing conversations between senior professionals in the court system to ensure that we are reducing backlog.”
“Is there a streamlined process that could be managed centrally, to advertise or promote that as a career aspiration, rather than an ad hoc process where people can be requested to come in on a regional basis? More central management and support is required from an HR perspective, including supporting criminal justice officers and clerks and the processing of cases in our Crown courts. In many cases, a lot of back office processing is required for the court’s management of individuals. I suggest that, if we invested more in that back office space, we could process cases more quickly. Some of those solutions require some capital investment —I suspect the Minister will not be entirely happy with that, because it requires engaging with HM Treasury—but some do not. Instead, they require a change in the system’s approach to the judiciary.”
“Fourthly, we know that there is a capital investment issue in some Crown courts, but I understand that family courts are operating out of some Crown court locations across the country. Other family courts are operating out of council buildings and other locations that do not need cell capacity. Has there been a conversation about the family courts moving out of Crown court locations, since they do not need the cell capacity, and freeing up that court space for Crown court and criminal cases? That is another capacity question. Fifthly, on recruitment of judges, I understand there are significant pressures around locums and trying to get KCs to come into Crown courts to cover the backlog of cases.”
“Has that been positioned to the Treasury? Thirdly, there must be a review of sentencing. I welcome the Government’s current move to look at sentencing, in a process being led by David Gauke, among others. One issue that judges have raised to me is that a significant number of people are electing to go to Crown courts, creating additional pressures on those courts. What could we do in the sentencing process, and what steer has been given, to try to reduce the throughput into Crown courts? I fully accept the principle of justice in this country that individuals have the choice to go before a jury, but is there some way of reducing the throughput into Crown courts?”
“As I understand it, the current system does not allow transfers easily between court jurisdictions within geographies, so my first question for the Minister is, can we look at a more centralised approach to case distribution, to move some of the cases from areas of high backlogs to areas of relatively low backlogs? For example, in Kent, we could move cases from Maidstone to Canterbury or other areas around the region, to reduce those times. My second question for the Minister is about expanding digital and video recording equipment—capital investment —in some of these courts. We know that, with such investment in pieces of equipment, courts can streamline cases. Does the Department have an investment programme to investigate the cost-benefit of speeding up court cases as part of a revenue versus capital exercise?”
“The problem is not only the sheer volume of cases but their complexity. I know that the Government are doing some work around sentencing to look at how we can streamline these processes, but the complexity of cases involving serious violence and domestic abuse requires significant time and attention. How do we resolve these issues? I have met a number of professionals, including police officers who have been working at the frontline and professionals in the Crown court system itself, whom I have met independently of the process. I have also met people from advocacy organisations and groups, who have suggested a number of recommendations. Some are structural and will involve cost, but there are others that I have been working on with them. One of those is the question of how we can move cases around the system as it stands.”
“For the police, it means an ever-increasing cost to them and the risk of losing cases because of the time that it has taken for them to get to court. The backlog has a profound impact not just on individuals but on the entire criminal justice system and confidence in it. Courts that are overloaded struggle to maintain their pace. They are increasingly relying on stretched resources and often working in difficult conditions. For those working in the system, deeply honourable individuals—judges, barristers, solicitors and clerks—who have given over their life, in some cases, to supporting the criminal justice system, there is a constant pressure to clear cases more quickly, which has created an ongoing mental health crisis among staff and concerns about the fairness of the justice process in meeting those timelines.”
“The constant pressure to move the system forward means a record-high Crown court backlog across England and Wales, now exceeding 73,000 outstanding cases. That represents a 10% rise between September 2023 and September 2024 and a near-doubling of the backlog versus 2019. It is essential to note that these figures are not just abstract numbers. They represent real people—victims and defendants who have been waiting months and, in some cases, years for their cases to be heard. The cases vary in nature. Some are extremely distressing; they include rape and other sexual offences. For those people, the growing backlog is not just a statistic but a source of extreme anxiety, frustration and uncertainty.”
“Additionally, the latest figures from the Kent police and crime commissioner, covering the period from July to September last year, show a 269% increase in court backlogs compared with 2019. This leaves a total of 3,261 Crown court cases waiting to be heard in Kent as of September of last year. The stark disparity in waiting times between courts is deeply concerning, as it undermines the principle of equal access to justice for all. It is a problem that demands urgent attention, as it reflects a growing imbalance in how the justice system is applied. I know it is popular in this place to talk about “two-tier justice”, to coin a phrase, but it appears that under the Governments from 2019 to 2024, many victims and alleged perpetrators, and their families, have had no-tier justice—they have been left in an ever-extended limbo.”
“The delays are not just frustrating; they have far-reaching consequences for people’s lives, for their mental health and for the reputation of the justice system itself. When delays are allowed to go unchecked, the system loses its legitimacy and people begin to lose confidence in its ability to deliver justice at all. This is a national issue affecting courts across the entire country, but Kent has been particularly impacted by the delays, especially certain parts of the county. Some courts are experiencing far more severe backlogs than others. For example, according to open-source information, Maidstone Crown court currently has 2,367 outstanding cases, compared with Canterbury, which has 894 outstanding cases. Those figures are interesting, and I will go on to talk more about them.”
“The issue is not just about numbers or administrative delays, but about real people whose lives are being upended because the justice system is struggling to deliver in a timely manner. I hope that today’s debate will allow us to scrutinise these issues and, more importantly, to come together to find practical and meaningful solutions to the crisis that we are facing, because at its core the phrase “Justice delayed is justice denied” remains as relevant today as when it was coined. That truism has never been more evident than in the context of the growing delays in trials and hearings. For victims, defendants, witnesses and everyone involved, long waits for justice can be an agonising experience.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered court waiting times in Kent. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank everyone present for attending. I appreciate that it is the end of the term, so it will be a pleasure to witness the popular and lively debate that we are going to have over the forthcoming hour, I hope, but we will see. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to open today’s important debate about court waiting times in Kent and, more broadly, across the entire country. This issue has become more pressing in recent years and is symptomatic of deeper structural challenges across the entire justice system of England and Wales.”
“I thank all for contributing this afternoon. I have nothing further to add, and wish everyone a relaxing break. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered court waiting times in Kent.”
“According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ small business report, early years education is vital for children’s development, so I welcome today’s announcement that school-based nurseries will be created at Horsted infant school and two other schools in Medway, and at five others in Kent. Does the Minister agree that this investment, coupled with that given by Labour councils across the country through school streets programmes, will create a true learning environment that is fit for purpose?”
“Is there not an inherent contradiction here? I am not against the principle of citizens’ assemblies; my concern is the idea that they need to be formed by Parliament. Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman not see an inconsistency between a party that has a mandate for delivering nationalisation, and handing these matters over to a citizens’ assembly for deliberation? Does he not see that there is an inherent contradiction between the two?”
“Friend the Member for Norwich South has said that he is open to mutuals and other types of co-operative management styles. The debate today has been fixated on national utilities versus private, and that is not entirely an honest debate; take Europe as an example.”
“That, coupled with the series of reforms that are coming down the pipe, will bring about fundamental change in our water landscape. I look forward to seeing future reports on that. The legislation that the Government are looking at will, together with other measures, fix a broken system. In their own words—we on the Government Benches all agree with them—the Government are trying to create a better and more sustainable future, greener and healthier rivers, and stronger governance in our water system. We can all agree that the Government are taking the right direction; it might be just the pace of change that is leading to frustration. I want to set the debate in its broader context. My concern with this Bill is that we might be going down an ideological cul-de-sac, although I appreciate that my hon.”
“I welcome that advocacy of those outside the House, and those viewing the debate. Continue being a strong voice on these issues. Privatisation has failed. Private companies since the Thatcherite privatisation have not been regulated properly, and they have taken significant profits and passed them on in dividends to shareholders. The figure is up to £60 billion or £70 billion, by some calculations. Flooding, burst drains, rising costs and the bonus culture have all come together to create a system that has lost the confidence of not only the public, but the public politic of this country. Change absolutely needs to happen, which is why I welcomed the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Bill, which this Labour Government prioritised from September; it is one of the earliest pieces of legislation that we prioritised after our election.”
“It is on their behalf that I contribute to today’s debate, because whether or not we are passionate about our natural environment, in some way we are all here because of the shape of our landscape. I pay tribute to a number of organisations that lead in this space, including Watershed, which recently released a report; it is diligent in monitoring sewage releases across our country. Surfers Against Sewage, which a number of my colleagues have mentioned, does outstanding monitoring work, and River Action and Friends of the Earth have also engaged with me as a constituency MP. All of us in this House are doing great advocacy work, alongside Feargal Sharkey and other passionate campaigners. That advocacy has directed the Government towards early implementation of a number of critical policies, and it needs to continue.”
“I rise following a number of excellent and eloquent speeches, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), who talked about flatulence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who talked about fatbergs. I hope to add some value, and also depth to some Members’ contributions. Rivers are critical to our national identity. It is a pleasure to have the River Medway in my home constituency of Chatham and Aylesford. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister visited the river a few weeks ago when she came to Southern Water’s Ham Hill plant. I also have the benefit of constituents who work, live and play on the river.”
“If we hand responsibility to Sir Jon Cunliffe, he will be able to look at the issues in much more detail. As I have mentioned, regulatory reform is absolutely necessary, but he will also look at financial resilience—water companies have been able to borrow and leverage too much, which has had a significant impact on the cost of water for many people—and at nature-based solutions, which should be pursued more vigorously. To conclude, we should wait and see what the independent water commission concludes. We should not make this into an ideological argument. Although people’s assemblies have a place, in this case they are non-binding and an unnecessary addition. I welcome other contributions.”
“I do not see the necessity of having another non-binding body making recommendations via a structure that we would establish, because it would not have any more weight than any other non-binding body. I understand that previously, national bodies and people’s assemblies have met in Birmingham over a series of weekends, but a lot of the proposed reforms are extremely technical. My worry is that political parties that have a mandate at a general election to either nationalise or not nationalise will simply tie the hands of people’s assemblies, binding them to an ideological viewpoint. That may not have a beneficial outcome. This House is the people’s assembly, so I do not believe that having non-binding institutions like those assemblies adds any value. This Government are correct in their approach.”
“The issue is not necessarily about what structures and bodies run water, albeit that I accept that privatised utilities have not worked in this country, but the regulations that they work with. The Government’s position is sensible and reasoned; they are handing the issue to a specialist, Sir Jon Cunliffe, who can give regulatory advice on how we can improve the system. Moving on to the debate about people’s assemblies, I agree that they are a good idea. Let a thousand roses bloom. I am happy to receive representation from all bodies. If this people’s assembly is non-binding, I do not see the difference between it and any other group that will be engaging with us in a public space and in a public way.”
“I am happy to take that criticism. I just say this—the hon. Member might like to come back on this—I understand from its manifesto that the Green party is for nationalised utilities. If she supports a citizens’ assembly, would the assembly’s conversation be narrowly confined to having a nationalised utility, or would she open discussion up to other forms of mutuals and other ways of working? Moving on, this private versus state debate is not quite the issue it is made out to be. In Europe, there is a significant number of state-run utilities, and they have similar problems with pollution and outflows. The European water regulator has said that there is €75 billion of natural pollution and 37% of Europe’s surface water is in an unhealthy ecological condition. The reality is that that is happening under state utilities.”
“The right hon. Member might be forgiven for thinking that we are starting from a zero-sum game, but we already have restrictions, as people must be 18 to purchase cigarettes and vapes. Shop workers are already challenging customers on their age, so the regulations do not come from nowhere. Secondly, if you read the Bill, you would know that there is a date specified that would be very clear on identification—”