I woke up this morning and immediately WhatsApped my daughter to wish her a happy birthday. She is 27. Gulp, my first baby is 27!
My day in Parliament started with a reception to launch Water Resources South East’s (WRSE) draft regional water resources plan 2025 to 2075. This is a project undertaken by the six water companies supplying the South East (including Southern Water) to create a regional level plan which will secure future water supplies to a growing population for the next 50 years, while also supporting and enabling economic growth as well as protecting and improving our shared environment.
WRSE’s plan outlines how this can be delivered – through both reducing demand and leakage as well as substantial investment in new infrastructure. The regional solution includes leak reduction and water efficiency activities which will provide an additional 14 million litres of water a day; new reservoirs at Broad Oak near Canterbury, Kent providing 22 million litres of additional water by 2036 and Broyle Place, East Sussex that would provide 18 million litres of water a day by 2075; new pipelines to increase the amount of water that moves between water companies and also within the supply area, as well as new treatments works, and even a desalination plant, in Kent.
Crucially, none of these new solutions have been considered in isolation. WRSE is proposing a truly regional solution which secures the water we need to improve and protect our environment, enhance our resilience, and allow our region to grow sustainably.
I am really pleased about this regional plan because I have worked constructively with Southern Water over the past few years and it is clear that water is not just about sewage discharges, but conservation and supply.
Southern Water is consulting on its water resources management plan, which has been informed by the collaborative WRSE regional plan draft regional plan from 14 November. The link to the consultation is -
I then popped in to take part in a roundtable event to discuss the link between Government policies and the Sussex environment from representatives of some of the environmental organisations that are working across the region. This was a roundtable organised by the Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, who asked me to attend because of my work in Parliament on nature-based solutions to climate change, land and sea. I was happy to join the roundtable – MPs across party often work together on a common goal and this was a discussion about nature and nature recovery, including on ways to ensure that the nature commitments in the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto, as well as the provisions within the 25 year environment plan and Environment Act, are fully realised. We discussed the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which had caused a bit of disquiet amongst some organisations including the RSPB and Sussex Wildlife Trust. It is important that we do not roll back regulations which benefit our environment, health or regional economies. I have since spoken to a Defra minister to outline the concerns raised. I was reassured that the Government has no intention of rolling back relevant environmental protections, but that some regulations do not even apply to the UK, and more so, we will be making better environmental protections on some things. Much to sift through then.
Unfortunately, I was too late to speak (to speak, MPs need to be there at the beginning of a debate), in the Westminster Hall debate on terminology in Family Law, but I was able to make an intervention on the importance of parents reaching an agreed decision on their children, rather than having a judge or magistrates making it for them. This requires support from government to ensure that mediation is a requirement and made accessible to all. Divorce and separation touch all corners of our society and families in constituencies across the country and children are sometimes the saddest victims.
We need more positive rhetoric to be used when discussing separation and divorce and whilst we now have the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act (2020) with the 'no fault' divorce, there is still much work to be done on shaping language used in the media, television programmes and more widely in conversation in the public realm.
This debate was followed by PMQs where I managed to meet up with a couple of lovely constituents who had attended, before going to the drop-in event for pancreatic cancer awareness month. My brother-in-law died of pancreatic cancer; it is a nasty disease and it was useful to pick up data and statistics from the event for the South East. Survival rates are low and MPs are being asked to campaign on early diagnosis (within 21 days of referral) fast access to treatment and immediate support given from a dedicated specialist nurse. This disease is devastating and affects thousands of people in the South East – 7,253 diagnosed between 2015 – 2019.
At 2pm, as a member of the 1922 Executive, I was asked to ‘report’ to the equivalent Conservative group in the House of Lords. The Lords want to hear of rebellions or likely problems (gossip!) in the Commons, what Bills are coming up, amendments likely and the general feeling of the Conservatives in the House of Commons. It was really interesting for me to do this report for the first time and I am sure it will not be the last! This was followed by a telephone call with one of our local councillors regarding campaigning for the Rother District Council Elections next year.
At 4pm we had the 1922 Executive Committee meeting to discuss various issues affecting backbench MPs, including legislation. The 1922 Executive Committee has 18 executive members, including the chairman, Sir Graham Brady, who organise weekly meetings and other business. The 1922 Committee meets at 5pm every Wednesday when Parliament is sitting, and it gives backbenchers the chance to air their concerns. One of the committee’s biggest responsibilities is overseeing the leadership elections. We can call a vote of no confidence if 15% of the parliamentary party - or 48 Conservative MPs - write a letter calling for the vote. The 1922 Committee acts as a sounding board to the Conservative Party. We hold a monthly meeting with the party leader, the Prime Minister, to update him on the opinions of the party. We have to be really careful with journalists outside the Committee Room, especially when the Prime Minister, Home Secretary or anyone who is controversial that week is speaking to the 1922 – they hang outside the Committee Room and if they get no information from MPs (leaking is a serious issue), we think they listen with glasses to their ears against the walls!
We had 4 votes after 6pm on the National Security Bill (I had sat on the Bill Committee for this which although took several days over several weeks, was fascinating).