Tristan Osborne MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jun 2025 · Vehicle Nuisance · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Vehicle Nuisance · Hansard source

  More

  23. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle vehicle nuisance.

• 22 May 2025 · Independent Sentencing Review · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 20 May 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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? 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.

• 15 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 15 May 2025 · Lower Thames Crossing · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 15 May 2025 · Lower Thames Crossing · Hansard source

  More

  15. What recent progress her Department has made on constructing the lower Thames crossing.

• 22 Apr 2025 · “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Court Waiting Times: Kent · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Court Waiting Times: Kent · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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? 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

• 2 Apr 2025 · School-based Nursery Capital Grants · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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 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. 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. 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.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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 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 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. 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.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that you want to guillotine speeches to five minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the Bill and, as a member of the Public Bill Committee, to see it come before the House. I welcome the contributions of Members across the House, and the quality of the scrutiny we saw in the Public Bill Committee. I also want to reflect on the years of campaigning and service undertaken by Ministers and shadow Ministers that have brought us to this place, and on the advocacy in broadcasts and on the news of people who were smokers but who say that they never should have started. I also welcome the views of young people in my constituency who, when speaking to me at schools and colleges, have told me how vapes are becoming more pernicious and more commonplace in their lives. I will speak to Government new clause 11 and new clause 6 on age verification and the rising escalator, and I will challenge some of the points made about enforcement. I will also talk to new clause 13 on education and a road map to a smokefree generation, and to new clause 19, which sets annualised reporting on nicotine-based products. I will also challenge some of the Opposition’s misconceptions about trading standards and the regulatory landscape. The Bill is forward thinking and responds to an issue, but it builds on previous legislation over many years and best practice in other places and other countries to regulate and reduce smoking. We know that noble crusaders on public health have in the past taken action to clean our air, clean our water, and introduce seatbelt restrictions and food standards. We know that public health measures work. Smoking is the largest preventable cause of illness and premature death in the United Kingdom, killing about 80,000 people a year. It is estimated to cost £2.4 billion to the NHS and a further £1.2 billion in costs every year, with smokers five times more likely to need social care support at home. The annual economic productivity loss adds up to £27 billion. Not only is there an ethical and social motivation behind the Bill; there is an economic one as well. Age verification was a topic of debate in Committee. I welcome Government new clause 11 and new clause 6 on age verification. Government new clause 11 introduces digital identification, and links in with Government legislation to introduce digital ID over the next five years. This is absolutely enforceable. In many off-licences and supermarkets today, age challenge happens at bespoke counters. Individuals under the age of 18 who try to purchase vapes or tobacco-based products are challenged on their age. All the Bill will do is introduce a fixed date, which can then be assessed using any form of digital ID. It is no more onerous than what is currently happening, but it will require training and a transition period. I challenge the comments made by some opposing the measure that it is somehow unenforceable. We already enforce age restrictions on the sales of products—it already happens.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I want to take him back to his speech, when he said that he would consider an increase in age to 21 or 25. My concern is that that would introduce a two-tier adult status. If we increase the age from 18 to 21 overnight, there will be adults who previously could smoke who will then be banned from smoking for three years. I do not accept the premise that we should have two-tier adults, which is why I believe in a staged increase in smoking cessation. On new clause 13, I support the Government’s ambition to reduce smoking and I want to make it absolutely clear that this measure is part of a global standard to reduce smoking around the world. The Bill is pioneering and I urge Members to support it.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support this Bill and the Government’s amendments. Specifically, I will talk to new clauses 18 to 22, on corporate parenting; new clauses 44 to 46, on kinship; and new clause 36, tabled by the Conservatives. As a former teacher in secondary schools in Kent, I believe these measures are overwhelmingly welcomed by many of my constituents, and also by professionals across social work and social care and in the education sector. Of course, the context of the Bill and the Government amendments is 14 years of cuts to many secondary schools and social care services in councils across the country. Successive cuts have been made to the numbers of schoolteachers and those supporting children on the frontline, with many children left in contextual settings that were inappropriate, with schools constantly having to chase agencies for resolutions. Of course, we had six Conservative Education Secretaries since 2019—a revolving door that would make the average attendance officer blush. To get to the specifics, new clauses 18 to 22, tabled by the Secretary of State, will ensure clearer responsibilities on corporate parenting. I welcome the strengthened provision for care leavers, including the responsibilities placed on local authorities to support the transition of young people into adulthood and independent living. This transition is a period of tumult for many young people, but our most vulnerable do not have the support of parents to help them manage it. I welcome the changes to the Housing Act 1996 to clarify that care leavers should not be considered intentionally homeless and should be supported. I also support new clauses 44 to 46, which provide much greater clarity on registered providers. In my area of Medway, many young people were placed with providers where people had serious contextual safeguarding concerns, and many of these residencies were unregistered. Unsurprisingly, these children ended up being involved with the police, and with local authorities as the environment and management of these homes was in some cases unscrutinised and poor. Sadly, as chair of the community safety partnership in Medway, I regularly saw waves of criminality associated with some of these homes. I therefore welcome the measures to tighten up the audit and scrutiny of them by regulators. In addition, I welcome the debate raised by new clause 25 and elsewhere on kinship care in the UK. Kinship care plays a vital role in supporting children who are unable to live with their birth parents, offering them a familiar and supportive environment during a challenging time. There are over 141,000 children in kinship care in England and Wales. The benefits of kinship care are significant, and children should be offered the same redress as those in foster care. Children placed with relatives or close family friends are able to maintain stronger emotional bonds, retain connections to their cultural identity and stay within their local communities. The clauses on which I wish the Government to go further on are those to support kinship care, and I urge them to continue to do so, working in dialogue with Back-Bench MPs, charities and third sector organisations. Lastly, on new clause 36, I want to talk from my experience as a teacher about the effective management of banning mobile phones and the safeguarding components specifically linked to part 1. As a former teacher, I know this has significant merit with issues of mental health, social media bullying and screen time causing concern, which is why I welcome the Government’s position of further research in this space. However, many schools already operate policies to this effect, including “no phones visible” policies during the school day, and before I could support any such proposals, I would need clarity about the professional distance in relation to any such amendment, including what would happen if a child were to be found with a phone—would that lead to an immediate suspension or expulsion—and what would happen if a mobile phone is concealed? Are teachers expected to challenge students and try to turn out their pockets, because for many professionals that would be a step too far? I would need to see real guidance before advising teachers about trying to challenge students who may not have a visible phone on them, but where there is suspicion that they have one. There also needs to be further consultation work. Where do we draw the line between a mobile phone and a tablet device, such as an iPad—which many children may also bring into school—that allows access to social media? Is there not a conversation to be had with social media providers and other companies about withdrawing services for those under-18, as opposed to stopping them holding the technology, especially as we know that much of this is linked to out-of-school activity as well as to in-school activity? Further debates on this topic are needed before we simply jump to a ban. There are many things that students do in schools that we might challenge, such as eating foods we do not approve of. However, we have to be careful because digital devices and digital literacy are important if children are to grow up into adults who understand the context of the digital devices they hold. Banning can have a cobra effect in the sense of not enabling children to learn how to manage themselves on these devices. Many of the amendments show the importance of an holistic approach to education. The Bill and the Government amendments acknowledge that academic achievement alone is not sufficient for children’s success, and that agencies and social services have a broader responsibility to support our most vulnerable. Part 1 of this Bill links holistically to other parts, which will be discussed tomorrow, on free breakfast clubs, cuts to school uniform costs, and reforms of pay and conditions. I urge all Members to support these amendments.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Of the six Education Secretaries we had between 2019 and last year’s election, did any of them propose banning mobile phones in schools—or is this the latest bandwagon from the Opposition?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Did the right hon. Gentleman say that it was a “rite of passage” for young people as young as year 6 and 7 to have a mobile phone, and that it was in the gift of their parents to decide? Last year, did he not suggest that we should wait until the guidance given by Government is fully reviewed and understood before we go for an outright ban? Why has he changed his mind?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that insufficient police numbers in recent years resulted in a shoplifters’ charter under the last Government, when people were allowed to shoplift up to a set amount. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for her Westminster Hall debate last week, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for his ten-minute rule Bill on nuisance biking. The number of reckless bikers and boy racers who tear through our streets and churn up our parks has significantly increased in previous years. Under the previous Government, the weak section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 effectively allowed these bikers to get away with a slap on the wrist. I welcome the measures in this Bill that will allow these vehicles to be seized, which will send a message that those who are caught with these vehicles will lose that asset immediately. Kent police called for these powers when I went on an operation in November and witnessed the cat-and-mouse tactics of perpetrators and the resources needed to impose these extremely weak penalties. Knife crime has surged since 2010 and disproportionately affects younger people. The Bill gives the police new stop-and-search powers in high-crime areas, allowing law enforcement to be much more proactive in intercepting potential threats. I welcome this measure, specifically in areas of high knife crime in the urban centres of Chatham and Aylesford. The digital age has produced new avenues for crime. As many colleagues have mentioned, that includes child sexual exploitation, as well as exploitation and violence against women. The Bill will introduce more powers to challenge stalkers and strengthen protections against child sexual exploitation. I am a former teacher, and I had to look at safeguarding cases involving online activity on a weekly basis. Without these additional powers, it will be increasingly difficult to catch the malign influences that are harming our young people. I believe that the Bill will also enhance police transparency and accountability. It improves police training, focusing on de-escalation techniques and mental health awareness. It equips officers with the skills necessary to handle a wide range of situations with sensitivity and professionalism. We know police officers do this every day, but we also know that the diversity of challenges they face requires new training. As colleagues have said so eloquently, domestic violence is often a hidden crime that leaves victims feeling trapped and powerless to escape. The Bill strengthens the legal framework for protecting victims by introducing new provisions for protective orders, including the ability to ban a perpetrator from returning to a victim’s home even before their trial. It also mandates better support for victims, offering increased access to legal and social services. This Bill is not just about laws; it is about lives, safer streets, protecting communities, and justice that truly serves the people. It represents a forward-thinking, balanced approach to law and order and public safety. It provides our police with the powers they need to combat crime, supports our justice system to deliver fair and effective sentences, promotes greater community engagement and, most importantly, ensures that victims of crime and our communities receive the care and protection they deserve.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support this Bill, which will provide the necessary tools to restore public confidence in law and order. As a former warranted police officer, council portfolio-holder for enforcement and chair of Medway community safety partnership, I have been working with and within my community to challenge many of the issues that this Bill will counter. I thank Kent police and Kent county council staff for all the work they do every weekend, every day and every hour to help and support our residents. However, this Bill does not come without context. For over a decade, the previous Government chipped away at our criminal justice system. They cut police funding. We all remember the Police Federation’s “Cuts Have Consequences” campaign, and the previous Government slashed officer numbers before recruiting more officers to lower levels per capita. They slashed PCSO numbers and weakened council enforcement teams. Court delays skyrocketed. Probation was privatised, then nationalised and then privatised again. Legal aid was gutted. Prisons were left full. These reckless acts have fuelled antisocial behaviour and shattered public confidence in law enforcement.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I could not concur more. Police funding and police officer numbers have resulted in fewer fines being issued for many types of crime. In fact, the Bill will give the police more powers to challenge nuisance biking and other offences. The Bill is an absolutely necessary first step.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Antisocial Behaviour and Illegal Bikes · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the section 59 legislation allowed these bikers to get away with a warning the first time, which just meant that we continued to see persistent biking crime by the same people and the police felt powerless to stop them? That was the consistent position of the previous Conservative Government; they did not listen. Does she welcome the change that is coming through in the forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Can the hon. Member confirm which Government left taxes at a 70-year high? Can he also confirm which Government led to interest rates and inflation being at record highs, which has stung so many mortgage holders?