YouSaid · the spoken record
Tom Tugendhat
Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.
On the record 2015–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Tom Tugendhat. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“31 out of 32 of those that have failed to meet their capability targets, and last is Iceland, which does not even have a military.”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is pretty extraordinary to see the partisan way in which the Minister has approached every single question. He has been completely incapable of giving this House, or indeed Mr Speaker, the assurance asked for on multiple occasions, and that only leads us to assume that he is hiding the untruth, which he wishes he did not have to say: he will not be bringing the defence investment plan to this House. That is pretty extraordinary, and it is not just one year, but 14 years. This Government claim we had 14 years in which we made errors, and they may be right about many of them—in fact, I have criticised some of them myself—but they had 14 years to plan and have now had two years in government, and we are nowhere. We are still seeing defence capability fall. In fact, NATO puts us at No.”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Again, that is a perfectly acceptable point to make, because if we are to have the system that we currently have, and if we are to use it in the way that we currently do, I am afraid the position that the Lords have taken is completely legitimate. What they have done—totally within their own rules and totally in the way that House works—is that they have listened to outside voices; they have heard from other sources, as well as from those that were heard in Committee or in the debate in our own Chamber; they have tabled some amendments, some of which have been accepted and others rejected by various people in the Lords; and they have come to a position.”
House of Commons8 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. The challenge this case brings up has been seen over and again in this place. It is not just about the legitimacy of the Commons. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said this is about not just parliamentary democracy, but constitutional reform. That is a perfectly acceptable position to hold, but it is not a matter specifically related to the assisted dying Bill. What the hon. Member is suggesting, and it is a perfectly legitimate point to make, is that, actually, our parliamentary system is completely broken, that no revision is possible from the second Chamber, and that the second Chamber should not have a voice on how those amendments are made.”
House of Commons8 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will not be giving way on that. If the hon. Member for Sunderland Central does not like that position, or the way in which the Lords run their business, that, again, is a perfectly legitimate thing to say, but then he is asking for very fundamental constitutional reform. Again, that is completely okay, but to do it on the basis of a petition of 140,000 names strikes me as a somewhat ambitious reading of the settled will of the British people. We have somewhere between 60 million and 70 million people—I am not quite sure where the figure sits today—and 140,000 does not sit very high against that number; it sits pretty low, frankly.”
House of Commons8 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“All I ask on this is that, when we look down at the questions that have been raised and when we hear, for example, the voices of the disability groups, the various different medical groups and all the royal colleges, all of which rejected this Bill, and we say to them, “Look, we really must legislate at speed because there is a pressing need to do so,”—the hon. Member is really making the Mark Zuckerberg argument. He is making the “move fast and break things” argument.”
House of Commons8 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the contrary, I think what the hon. Gentleman is arguing, although he may not think he is arguing it, and he is perfectly entitled to ignore what he is arguing—it happens all the time in this place, it is absolutely standard, for Members on our Benches to make one argument and mean another— [ Laughter. ] Members on all of our Benches. Come on! Let’s not have the hypocrisy; we all know it is true. It is absolutely true that we hear, on every side of the House, people making one argument and meaning another all the time. Today, the hon. Gentleman is making the argument for constitutional reform, but he actually means he is in favour of assisted dying. Again, that is a completely acceptable position, but it is not frank; it is not being straight with the House and it is not being straight with people.”
House of Commons8 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will not be giving way again. That is a perfectly acceptable argument for those who can afford to fail, but the problem is that the hon. Member is not dealing with the investment of a few people, which may or may not start a business or software company that fails or succeeds; he is playing with the lives of thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.”
House of Commons8 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It takes two years, normally, before it even gets to the Leader of the House and his various Bill committees, where we test, adjust and play with the Bill with the different Ministers, and the write-round process. The argument that that period of expertise, from Government, civil servants, lawyers, medical experts and all the others, can be replaced with a brief hearing in Committee is, I am afraid, simply not true.”
House of Commons8 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will not be giving way again. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central is instead saying that the role of democracy is to behave like the private interest group of a small cabal. I do not believe that is the case. I believe that the role of democracy is to measure, to weigh and to take matters slowly. If, on a matter of life and death, that is not the case, when are we supposed to be measured and take time? Before people say that we had a long time in Committee, they should never forget that we start working on Government Bills years before—not weeks, not months, but years. Any of us who have introduced a Bill in this place know exactly what I mean. A Bill starts as an idea.”
House of Commons8 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member may think it is long, but she really has no idea of time if that is her perception. The reality is that Government Bills take time because they have to be got right. This Bill is wrong. The only thing that stopped it was the Lords. If the hon. Member for Sunderland Central wants to abolish the Lords, that is fine, but if he could make that argument, I think we would all be a lot happier.”
House of Commons8 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman is making the entirely valid point that democracy is not just what happens in either Chamber, whether it is the Lords or the Commons, and democracy cannot be reduced to a number, whether it is an electoral number at a general election or a number in the Chamber. Democracy is what we do between times. I keep hearing that we Conservatives had 14 years in government—I do not deny that, and I recognise many of the errors that we made. But is it not also true that there were 10 years between the first and second votes on this campaign? Much of the democratic process could have been done in those 10 years through public debate, engagement and lobbying, instead of its being reduced to the actions that happened in the Chamber? Frankly, that is reducing democracy to a game of mathematics.”
House of Commons8 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By the way, I have come across quite a lot of companies, so that bar is set quite high. The Minister has extraordinary discretionary authority to corral and coerce companies to act, so will she look at bringing forward a task group within regional areas to ensure that emergency water plans are in place? Otherwise this situation will happen again,”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) asked a good question that the Minister touched on, but I want to press her further. Parts of Mereworth, Platt and Offham in my area were left not only without water, but without the support necessary for those who were most vulnerable, until two fantastic councillors, Matt Boughton and Sarah Hudson, both from East Peckham, really went in there and got into the fight with the water company to ensure that the water station was set up. What planning can the Minister help with to ensure that infrastructure is put in place? The water companies have got away with it for far too long. Let us not beat around the bush: South East Water has been the worst run company that I have ever come across and it is quite right that the leadership has gone.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I associate myself with the words of the Chair of the Defence Committee on the need to get to 3%. Given that we are one of only two countries in the European continent to run a nuclear programme, does the Secretary of State agree that, if we knock out the nuclear programme, we are actually spending more like 1.7% or 1.8% on our conventional defence, and that that compares rather more with Spain than it does with countries such as Poland or Estonia, which are spending more like 4% or 5%? Does he therefore agree that we need to uplift immediately?”
House of Commons1 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—forgive me, I should not call him that; he will be embarrassed. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his point about the steel industry. Understandably, he has chosen to support one particular aspect of the industry, the steelmaker, but at the expense of and to the cost of every other part of the industry—the steel consumers. How will he balance that and what provision will he make for those who will see steel prices rises because of his intervention?”
House of Commons18 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my right hon. Friend not agree that we are seeing not only young people let down, but the deeply immoral act of people being kept on welfare? In five or 10 years’ time, people will have been on welfare for so long that they will not have any options. They will effectively have been left slaves of a state that has no concern for them. Nobody in this Chamber will have any power over how the welfare state will behave then, and those people will have no options. It will be the fault of this House and this Government for having kept those people there, and having imprisoned them.”
House of Commons18 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Whoever the Labour party picks as its leader, unless its Back Benchers change and decide that they are willing to take their responsibilities seriously, we know what the result will be: the International Monetary Fund, the debt markets, and many, many people losing their homes.”
House of Commons18 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In fact, we have replaced socialism not with communism, as the Chinese have, or with the kind of authoritarianism that we see in some parts of eastern Europe, but with command capitalism: the illusion of privatisation with the direct intervention of regulation. We are seeing the absolutely predictable results of Government instructing individuals how to behave. Well, guess what? Individuals are opting out. We saw them opting out of hiring when the national insurance rate went up; we will see them opt out of leasing when the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 closes down that market; and we will see people forced out of the choices that they need to build their own lives. That is a hell of a pattern for this Government to set for the country. Let us be honest: with the current way that they are going, there is no way out.”
House of Commons18 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The King’s Speech—the King, if not the Government, did it well—set out another series of wish lists for a Government who are going to last another few weeks. They are an Administration who are simply not going to change the reality, because they are not willing to take the decisions that need to be taken. I am afraid that is the reality of the United Kingdom’s position. We are not being serious. We are not dealing seriously with the fact that we have young people who want to work and have energy, drive and determination, but who are being sold down the river by parties that are all sticking to triple locks on pensions and promising benefits to people who are already in work—as the Employment Rights Act 2025 does—but not to those who seek employment. We are seeking to go down a path of control, statism and nationalisation.”
House of Commons18 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yet here we are talking about how much more we can spend and how much more we can get individuals to put their hands in their pockets, with the promise that they will get the money back in four, 10 or 20 years’ time. I am afraid that is simply not realistic. It is nothing to do with the credibility of this Prime Minister or whomever the Labour party chooses next; it is down to the simple reality that about a year ago, the Government refused to take the first and only decision that would have strategically mattered in this Parliament—to constrain welfare. The moment they refused to do that, they put themselves in opposition to simple financial reality, and the rest of the path was set. I am afraid that is exactly where we find ourselves.”
House of Commons18 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We find ourselves in a situation where the conversation in this House has reached a point of unreality, because we are not addressing a very simple fact: inflation is coming down the tracks very quickly because of the decisions to challenge the energy markets directly in places such as Iran. We are seeing enormous pressures steaming up from Iran, from the strait of Hormuz, from the lack of gas flowing and from the absence of fertiliser. They are about to hit us in the grain markets in September, when the first harvest is not complete, and they will hit us in the meat markets in the spring, because that grain will not have led over the winter to the growth of animals for protein. We are storing up a whole series of challenges for ourselves.”
House of Commons18 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has been a pleasure to sit here for a number of hours and hear some views that are, frankly, special. Let me start with some of the factors that have been completely missed from not only this debate but the King’s Speech. I do not think the realisation in this place takes the reality of our situation very seriously. We are broke. We owe not only £2 trillion to the debt markets—which, I am afraid, despite orders to foreigners to hand over more money, we do not control—but £10 trillion to people to whom we promised pensions and the businesses that built our schools and hospitals the last time we had a Labour Government.”
House of Commons18 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am delighted to hear that we will be working more closely with the European Union. As the hon. and learned Lady may know, my wife, being French, will be particularly pleased about that, but what will that mean for the agreement we have struck with the Pacific nations in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or the deal that we did with the Australians? Will the hon. and learned Lady be cancelling those deals as she focuses on the European Union, or will she be staying out of the customs union and the single market, and therefore being focused much more on being a rule taker? I am interested to hear her response.”
House of Commons18 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He could spare those civil servants to actually get contracts delivered, instead of messing around with games, or put his heart into the fight with the Treasury that needs to be had right now, as his friend Lord Robertson has made clear.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is deeply unedifying to hear the Minister and others playing political games on a matter of national security. We can all look at the past; I can tell the Minister about the body armour that I had to give to somebody else for the invasion of Iraq because we did not have enough in 2003. I can point to the underfunding of helicopters; friends of mine were killed on operations in Afghanistan because of that underfunding. That was under Governments before his, but yes, they wore the same colour tie as this Government do. The question for him is not what happened in the past, but what he will do about these things in the future. The defence investment plan, the Minister says, is not urgently needed because he is spending anyway. Well, why is he wasting his time producing the damn thing?”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But the problem he has is a fundamental one: the only way we achieve the connection between generations and communities, and the only way we get that life flow of the living blood of an economy— the equities market—rather than the dead hand of the state through the bonds, is in a free market. By putting his hand on the tiller and his finger on the scales, he is changing that, and that incremental change over time will do much greater damage than he fully appreciates today, despite his best intentions and despite the intentions of the Bill. That is why I will not be supporting the Government today.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We see an amazing start-up culture here in the UK, but immediately they hit series A and B, people go to America—they go to California or to a Delaware corp and get foreign money. Again and again, that is happening because the state, for very understandable and entirely principled reasons, made a decision to take authority off savers in order to protect them, and I am afraid that that is what the Minister is doing again today. I understand the Minister’s point. I understand why he feels he needs to take that power. He feels that the Government have a role in ensuring that pensioners get a better deal. I get that. He also feels that the best way to do that is for the state to exercise its authority over a market system. Again, I understand that.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Equities are fundamentally different. It is true that they are not predictable and it is also true that they do have risk, but they are a bet on the energy of the young people in our community. They are that bond or ligature between generations that fundamentally makes a community strong, rather than tearing it apart. Over the past 20 to 30 years, we have seen those bonds erode. What is the result? A slower growing economy. Why? Because there are no assets to invest. There is no water for the crops, if you like; there is no fertiliser for the soil. What else have we seen? Young people have been moving away because they do not have the opportunity to start their business, or when they do start their business, they do not then have the opportunity to go to the next stage.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, although the intention was to de-risk very slightly, the accumulation of time means that the bond element of pensions has grown, so that in the UK the figure is now roughly 60%, whereas in Australia or Canada, which are similar economies, it is roughly 20%. That is a real problem not just because it means pensioners are getting a lower return—they are getting a return based on the debt of the country, not on the energy of young people—but because young people are not getting the energy or the lifeblood they so vitally need when they are starting their lives. Let us look at the difference between equities and bonds. The truth is that bonds are fundamentally dead money: they are money taken or held by the state in ways that pay back over five, 10, 15, 20 or more years—in fact, a couple of times, over 100 years.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In that one small area, this Bill repeats an error that was made nearly 30 years ago when the Government, for very understandable reasons—it was a very tense moment in pension savings, just after the Mirror Group Newspapers scandal and the Equitable Life scandal—took upon themselves powers, which were entirely reasonable at the time, to de-risk some of the private pension market. That de-risking was about moving savings, very gently at the beginning, from equities into bonds. In the early days, that did not make much of a difference. It took the percentage of bonds in investment portfolios from 19.1% to 19.3%, and so on.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate. Sadly, it reflects the interests of Members that so few of us are here for a debate about one of the most important elements affecting the future of our constituents, friends, neighbours and, in fact, ourselves. Pensions are rather more than just a savings scheme; they are the thread that binds generations. They are the remarkable invention of our ancestors, who found a way to make sure that the energy, innovation and force of the young could be tied to the assets, education and experience of the old. It is that bond between generations that makes pension saving so special. While I welcome much of what this Bill does, I fully align myself with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) about mandation.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of the challenges with defined contribution schemes is that so many of them are parcelled out in much smaller volumes than one would like, and when one compares them with, for example, Canada or Australia, we see superfunds in certain countries and not in the UK. While the Minister is correct that this means slightly lower bias, it also means significantly less growth in the UK market, because there is less capital flowing. This is an argument for both young and old people. I know that the Minister understand this, but it is worth making that link. Pensions are just as much about funding youth as sustaining age.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That means we see that that removing or strangling, if you like, of live money—turning live money into dead money—which is a net burden on the whole economy. I appreciate that it is not quite as black-and-white as I have painted it, but it is a challenge that is affecting the entire economy.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Minister for his words; it seems that we rather agree. I agree with him that the problem with the defined-benefits system is that it is addressing—let us be frank—an ageing demographic. There is, however, a challenge: because of those changes and the influence that has had on defined benefits, there has also been some influence—I would not overstate it—in the culture that has affected defined contributions, which are therefore overly bond asset-heavy, if you see what I mean, in comparison to Australian and Canadian markets. That is not to the degree that I was talking about earlier of 60%—clearly, that is different—but it does mean that we have got a pensions economy more geared to an ageing demographic and then over-geared in other areas to follow the lead of the defined benefits.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Minister, because this is actually becoming a debate in the Chamber, which is so rare. The Minister is absolutely right, but the reason why I link the two is that the nature of defined-benefit removing assets from UK equity markets has led to much slower growth in the UK stock exchange. That means that the levels of return for UK equities are lower, so defined-contribution trustees do not invest so heavily in shares. We then have a knock-on effect: when pensions need to have UK asset allocations—they want to have their savings in pounds, for understandable reasons—they cannot get the return off the FTSE 100 or 250, so they end up being tied into Government bonds. We therefore get that draw in a slightly different way.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“May I quote the Prime Minister? He told us just a few moments ago that energy bills will “stay down until July”. He also correctly said that “we do not set the global price for oil and gas”. Is the Prime Minister making an enormous gamble on the energy price? How much money has he set aside in order to ensure that bills stay down even if prices rise? I am not sure if he is aware, but the last tanker to leave the strait of Hormuz and bring fuel to the UK docked only a few days ago. The last tanker to arrive in US waters will arrive in a day or two. After that, we are on our own. Is he taking that bet? Who is going to pay for it?”
House of Commons13 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I emphasise to the Minister that they are two of the very best run councils in the whole country and have been for a number of years. We are very lucky to have brilliant people at both councils, and both are trying to do the right thing for future development and adopt a local plan. In both cases, however, that has been delayed from 2024 because of the Government changing planning policy. It is not the fault of either council that they do not have an adopted local plan; that is because of tinkering and meddling by the Government and, historically, the Planning Inspectorate.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although Tunbridge Wells has been the worst affected, towns and villages such as Tonbridge, Edenbridge and across the north downs have lost water supply this winter and last winter. Why is that? It is because there is not enough water in the system to supply houses in our area. I am aware that the Water Industry Act 1991 in effect places a legal requirement on water suppliers to ensure that running water appears when the tap is turned on. Although South East Water is not very good at doing that right now, we also need to focus on the future. That means asking fundamental questions. Where is the water—now and in the future? Do housing targets accurately reflect the water infrastructure in west Kent? I will focus on two authorities in the area that I represent: Tonbridge and Malling borough council and Sevenoaks district council.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They are up by 34% in Tonbridge and Malling and by 63% in Sevenoaks district. Then, of course, there is the grey-belt policy. I have been getting used to Green party and Labour MPs going through the voting Lobbies and making things easier for development to merge towns and villages and create one single, homogeneous, blended whole and for development on previously protected grey-belt land. However, water seems not to have been considered. There are many aspects of water locally that I could focus on, including the excellent work done in Edenbridge on water quality by NEDRA—the New Edenbridge District Residents’ Association—but in the interests of time, I will focus my comments today on water supply only. This is now a very salient issue for those of us in west Kent.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That this House has considered water supply and housing targets in west Kent. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John—not for the first time or, I certainly hope, the last. What is less pleasurable is having no water coming out of your taps. Sadly, that could be the reality for more than 13,000 new homes in Tonbridge and Malling if the Government get their way. Planning decisions in the community are, I think we would all agree, best left to local councillors. After all, it is right that those elected at the most local level have responsibility for shaping the place they live in and represent. However, this Government’s planning policies are taking us away from that principle. Since the general election, we have seen mandatory housing targets reintroduced and increased enormously.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thirdly, would the planned increases identified in the water resources management plan allow South East Water to cope with the Government housing targets for Tonbridge and Malling? South East Water says that the increases will not be sufficient to meet the Government housing targets.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sure that the Minister agrees that this would not be appropriate or wise. Having received the response, and being the excellent councillor he is, Adem Mehmet wrote to South East Water on 15 January this year, which happened to be in the middle of the water outages we were facing. South East Water responded on 3 February. Three simple questions were put to South East Water. First, does South East Water agree that it cannot provide sufficient water to cope with a significant increase in housing targets? South East Water agrees that it cannot. Secondly, do the current targets mean that there will be more water shortages? Again, South East Water agrees that the probability of water outages is higher.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The TMBC cabinet member for infrastructure, Adem Mehmet, approached infrastructure providers for consultation responses, including South East Water, which is the drinking water supplier for almost all of the borough—and the whole of the part that I am lucky enough to represent. I have a copy of the response here, dated 17 December 2025. In it, South East Water tells Tonbridge and Malling borough council that the maximum number of additional homes it can supply between now and 2042 is 6,318. The Government housing target for the council is 19,620. What is Tonbridge and Malling borough council expected to do? Is it supposed to allocate sites for 13,302 new homes, despite having been told that there is no infrastructure for water to be supplied to those properties?”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Well, it isn’t. If the situation with water suppliers is a problem in Sevenoaks district, however, it is critically urgent and potentially disastrous in Tonbridge and Malling. For the benefit of the Minister, I will explain what has happened in recent months. Tonbridge and Malling borough council agreed to its regulation 18 local plan consultation in the autumn. It received unanimous cross-party support, which was a huge vote of confidence in the leadership of Matt Boughton and the work of Mike Taylor, the cabinet member for planning. Both of them have contributed enormously to the life of our community.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In advance of this debate, I asked the new leader of Sevenoaks district council, Kevin Maskell, to outline what engagement on local plan and infrastructure delivery matters the council has received from water companies. The answer was that only two of the four water companies had even replied, and the replies received were very limited. Indeed, the experience from Sevenoaks is that water companies see their role as not being a priority. There is no detailed modelling for housing projections against water resources management plans, especially for site allocations. All infrastructure planning is deferred to the planning application stage, where the water companies are not even a statutory consultee. That makes it impossible to plan for the cumulative impact of developments on the water network. How is that good for planning?”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is no surprise to me that this issue applies across the whole of the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. One thing that the Government have not changed, but ought to change, is the position of water companies in planning. Somewhat strangely, water companies are statutory consultees on the local plan process, but not on planning applications. I invite the Minister in her response to explain whether she agrees that this is peculiar. There are four water supply companies across Sevenoaks district. Two cover the area that I am privileged to represent: SES Water in and around Edenbridge, and South East Water elsewhere.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our community should not only take its fair share but be part of that opportunity. However, new homes must be built only if we can actually supply them with water, and at the moment we cannot. I urge the Minister to consider the points I have raised and, on the Tonbridge and Malling issue, agree to meet Matt Boughton and me as a matter of urgency.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A new reservoir would help, but where would that be in our community, given our proximity to Bewl Water and Bough Beech? The truth is that there simply cannot be enough water for the scale of development that the Government are insisting be accommodated in our area. That means that there is only one way out of the issue: the Government must urgently and immediately reduce the housing target for Tonbridge and Malling borough council, and do the same for other councils in South East Water’s area, including Sevenoaks district council. It would be completely irresponsible for the Government to proceed with the current housing targets for both councils while this issue remains unresolved. The Minister knows that I agree that we need more homes; in my community, we particularly need homes for people to live as families with their relatives.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government are telling them that they must meet their housing targets, and they have no choice, yet the housing target has 13,000 more homes than the water supplier has the ability to cater for. It is not even close to being realistic either way. What is the solution? There are only two possibilities: one is to get more water into the system, and the other is to reduce the housing target. The water resources management plan 2024 identifies a lot of schemes: new pumping stations, upgrading waste water treatment works, a new pipeline in Tonbridge and new drinking water storage tanks. We could do all the above and we would still be 13,000 homes away. The question remains: where is the water coming from to fill the extra capacity in the water network?”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗