Tony Vaughan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we could improve the regulation of water companies by ensuring we get independent audit and monitoring of the data from them? In Folkestone and Hythe, two beautiful beaches in Romney Marsh are subject to “Do not swim” warnings, partly because Southern Water comes up with the data, the Environment Agency agrees with it and nothing happens. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that important change to our system needs to happen?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Hate Crime Law: Misogyny · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response, but I want to highlight the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) about cracking down on platforms that facilitate misogynistic abuse. Forgive me if the Minister has covered this, but Ofcom has come out with voluntary guidance that suggests various mechanisms for providers to follow. Ultimately, however, if they are not mandatory requirements in the same way as Ofcom’s amended codes of practice, how will that ever force these platforms to stop the monetisation of misogyny and the sorts of practices that are leading to the mass indoctrination of young people? Can she say something about how we might be tightening that up?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Hate Crime Law: Misogyny · Hansard source

  More

  I defer to my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the work that she has done in this area over many years. It is important that she has raised that issue, because it is something that the petitioners wrote about in the article that led to the petition and this debate. The way that discrimination and prejudice operate is not compartmentalised by protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. Quite often, a number of those characteristics are present at the same time. It is important that we have a system that understands that first and foremost, so that we can ensure that the way that victims are dealt with actually takes account of those different needs. We will not necessarily treat everyone the same, but we will treat them in the way that they need to be treated, having regard to their protected characteristics. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. In her summing up speech, will the Minister address some particular questions? First, when will section 145 of the 2026 Act be commenced? I understand it is not yet in force. Secondly, what assessment have the Government made of the merits of introducing sex as an aggravating factor in respect of all offending, not just offences under the Crime and Disorder Act, which is the ask of the petitioners? Finally, do the Government have any plans to require existing police officers to undergo training on gender-based violence, given that it is currently only for those being brought into the system? I look forward to hearing from her.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Hate Crime Law: Misogyny · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 746640 relating to crimes motivated by misogyny and hate crime law. It is always a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. In February, Amara Relf wrote an excellent blog post called “Students need misogyny to be recognised as a hate crime”. This is how the post starts: “When we began our roles as sabbatical officers, one priority was clear: improving student safety. Very quickly, it became apparent that while serious sexual offences can carry severe sentences, the everyday behaviours that shape women’s lives, catcalling, groping, sexually suggestive comments, and harassment, are too often minimised, overlooked, or left entirely unpunished. Sexual harassment, as its own category, is rarely criminalised in practice. As a result, many students are left asking a difficult question: why report something when it feels unlikely that anything will be done?” This lack of consequence not only enables harmful behaviour but also actively discourages reporting. This is why we—Lily, Amara, and Holly—have launched a petition calling for misogyny to be recognised as a hate crime.” I thank Amara, Lily and Holly for the petition, which has attracted 114,927 signatures, including 123 from my own constituency. Amara and her colleagues also commissioned a survey among Russell Group universities that found that 67% of students would be more likely to report their experiences if misogyny were treated as a hate crime. Amara argues that “Legal change alone won’t shift deeply ingrained attitudes—but without it, cultural change becomes even harder to achieve.” The ingrained attitudes that the petitioner is talking about are reflected in the fact that, according to the Office for National Statistics, 23% of women aged 16 to 24, and 16% of those aged 25 to 34, have reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment in the previous year. That is compared with around 5% of women aged 35 and older. It is clear that younger women are bearing the brunt of this sexual harassment epidemic. The petitioner is right that the law needs to change. Take the criminal offence of harassment, which is, broadly, unwanted conduct that causes a person harassment, alarm or distress. If the perpetrator of that harassment is motivated by hostility to the victim’s religion, it is a statutory aggravating factor, which in practice means the offender’s sentence is more severe. But if the perpetrator is motivated instead by hostility to the victim’s sex or gender, that is not currently an aggravating factor. That is, in my view, wrong. Misogyny is not currently a centrally monitored hate crime characteristic in England and Wales, so data is not currently collected about offending with a misogynistic element specifically. I am pleased to say that we are seeing positive change with this Labour Government. Following an amendment tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill—now the Crime and Policing Act 2026—by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), the Minister agreed to bring forward a Government amendment in the Lords. The resulting clause on aggravated offences is now section 145 of the Act. That will extend the racially and religiously aggravated offences in sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which includes offences like assault, harassment and criminal damage, to also cover hostility based on sex, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity. That means that the higher maximum penalties already available for race and religion are now available in those cases too. I strongly support that change because tackling misogyny needs to be embedded in the Government’s approach to hate crime more generally. I also support it so that hostility based on misogyny is centrally recorded, and we can finally have a true national picture of the scale of this problem. The petitioner has also called for tougher laws against online abuse and to tackle anti-feminist hate groups that target and radicalise young people online. As she said in her article, “For students, the online dimension is inescapable—group chats where women are rated and degraded, anonymous platforms where harassment flourishes, social media pile-ons. The algorithmically-driven spread of ‘manosphere’ content means that young men are being radicalised into misogynistic worldviews at scale, and women students are experiencing the consequences in their seminars, their societies, and their relationships.” Last October, Ofcom issued guidance to tech firms requesting that online platforms introduce measures, such as abusability testing, time-outs for repeat offenders, easier mass-blocking tools and the demonetisation of misogynistic content. I support those measures and they all sound good in theory, but the fact that the guidance is voluntary means that it is unclear how platforms will be forced to act. As the End Violence Against Women Coalition told the Women and Equalities Committee last year, nothing less than a binding violence against women and girls code of practice is required for us to stand a chance of turning the tide against the wave of online misogyny that we are seeing. There is also the question of the capacity of the criminal justice system to respond sensitively and effectively to victims who are brave enough to raise a complaint. The Equality and Human Rights Commission tracker notes that there is currently no compulsory training for existing police officers on responding to rape and sexual offences; only new recruits are covered. The UN Committee against Torture specifically recommended that the UK provide mandatory training on the prosecution of gender-based violence to all justice officials and law enforcement personnel, not just new recruits. Extending mandatory refresher and specialist training to serving officers would close that gap. Women’s Aid has also called for specialist domestic abuse training to be provided to all judges, not just those in jurisdictions that frequently see VAWG cases. My constituency caseload indicates that tackling domestic abuse and violence against women presents system-level challenges. I pay tribute to brilliant local organisations, such as Rising Sun domestic violence and abuse service, Home-Start Shepway and Beech House, as well as the local police force for everything it does to support victims in our community. There is always further that we can go, and the need for better specialist training is underlined by evidence given to the Women and Equalities Committee last year suggesting that police and safeguarding professionals often do not recognise manosphere-linked misogyny or incel ideology as a warning sign in the same way that they would with other radicalisation indicators. Training gaps often mean that genuinely concerning behaviours do not meet thresholds for intervention, such as through the Prevent programme, because they are misogynistic rather than linked to a proscribed organisation. The petitioner is right to hope that stronger criminal laws, stronger awareness among criminal justice and safeguarding professionals, stronger support for victims and stronger online protections may help and are needed to help turn the tide of misogyny, but that is a whole-of-society effort that requires everyone, particularly men, to demonstrate what healthy attitudes to women look like. The petitioner has made a compelling case: misogyny constrains women’s daily freedom, safety and willingness to participate fully in education, work and public life. I welcome the important progress made through section 145 of the Crime and Policing Act, but legislation must be matched by properly trained police, prosecutors, safeguarding professionals and judges; by meaningful support for those who come forward; and by enforceable action by online platforms against the abuse and radicalisation they too often enable. We cannot wait until hatred escalates into the most serious offences before we act. We must recognise misogyny where it is present, challenge it wherever it appears and make it clear to every woman and girl that the law is on her side. I hope the Minister will set out how the Government will build on that important legislative framework so that women and girls, including students in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh, can live, study and participate in a public life—free from harassment, intimidation and misogynistic abuse.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Hate Crime Law: Misogyny · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Amara, Lily and Holly for creating the petition that resulted in this debate, and for the opportunity to ask the Minister a lot of important questions about this vital issue. I also thank the Members who spoke in the debate, all of whom supported tightening up the current laws through the amendment to the 2026 Act. The online dimension to this problem came across particularly strongly in Members’ contributions. On the one hand, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about the horrendous practice of nightlife videos; on the other, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) rightly underlined the critical importance of cracking down on platforms that facilitate and promote online misogyny. As the Minister said, non-contact abuse does lead to contact abuse, which is why it is particularly insidious. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) also rightly raised the important question of ensuring that support is available for victims as the systems change. I thank the Minister for all her remarks. The petitioners will have heard them: Lord Macdonald is a former Director of Public Prosecutions and he knows the system; I do not know what he has recommended, and neither does anyone else apart from the Minister, perhaps, but it will contain the answer to the petition regarding misogyny as an aggravating feature in all cases. As the Minister has said, it is important that changes to the law have the intended effect and that is something that has to be looked at carefully. It was also encouraging to hear from her that there is expanded specialist training for police officers and that the Prime Minister has recently sped that up. I again thank the petitioners for their petition. I also thank all those Members who have attended this debate and I thank the Minister and the Government for the significant and strong range of measures that we are taking to tackle VAWG. There is always more that we have to do. We have to go faster and we have to go further to address this issue; as the Minister says, it is one of the most important issues of our time, and we owe it to the young people here and listening across the country to succeed. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered e-petition 746640 relating to crimes motivated by misogyny and hate crime law.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  On the threats to British citizens, two British citizens are detained in Iran in Evin prison: Craig and Lindsay Foreman. They are innocent. They have been arbitrarily detained there for more than one and a half years, after a flagrantly unfair trial. It has been reported that Craig has now been sentenced to a further two years, for reasons that seem entirely opaque. The couple have been on a hunger strike for 68 and 59 days, and both have lost significant weight. I welcome the appointment of a special envoy for consular cases and the state threat designation for the IRGC, but what steps are the Government taking that will give the Foremans and their family hope that welfare items will reach them, that full communications will be restored, and that the Government have a plan to get them home?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary refers to the “gaming of the system”, but will she clarify the basis on which she says that? Around half of Home Office initial asylum decisions are overturned on appeal, so there is a huge issue about the quality of Home Office decision making, as various National Audit Office reports have shown. It would be useful to know the proportion of appeals that are actually, in her words, abusive.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will focus in the short time that I have on part 1 of the Bill on immigration appeals reform and specifically on whether it will cut the appeals backlog. I start by making the point that Home Office decision making is a significant driver of appeal numbers. The Home Office’s internal quality checks show an error rate of around 48% in the most recently published figures, and around 45% of Home Office refusals were overturned on appeal, according to MOJ statistics for the year ending March 2025. It is important to make the point that if those decisions were right first time, there would be substantially less pressure on the appeals system. I fundamentally agree with the Government that the asylum appeal backlog must be addressed urgently. They were right to enact a six-month target for asylum appeals in accommodated cases in section 49 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. Since then, around 70 first-tier tribunal judges have been recruited. My first question for the Minister is this: given the increase in FTT numbers, the increase in sitting days and the impact of section 49 and other measures, where can we find the Ministry of Justice and Home Office assessment that explains why the FTT is unable to clear the backlog? Without that kind of assessment, and in particular an estimate of how much it will cost, it is impossible to understand why these far-reaching reforms are better than improving the existing system. My second question is, why are the Government bringing forward a new model for appeals, when the Home Office’s impact assessment says that it will have an “uncertain” effect on the appeal backlog, with no evidence that the appeal reforms will actually work?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. Another hon. Member referred to the importance of evidence-based policymaking. When I look at the impact assessment, it is not clear to me that the case has been made. I think it fair to say that the only evidential basis for these reforms is a hope that they will be better than the current system, but that, I suggest, is not a basis on which to abolish an arm of the judiciary of this country and undertake major structural changes to a key part of our asylum system. There is evidence to suggest that a lay adjudicator system will not work. Last week the Justice Committee heard evidence that Denmark tried to bring in lay adjudicators about 15 years ago, but, as non-lawyers, they struggled to apply the law to the facts. They made numerous errors and ended up being either too sympathetic or too harsh, and they were got rid of. Danish asylum appeals are now heard by a judge, a lawyer and a civil servant. As another Member pointed out, Australia tried the same system some years ago, but it too was got rid of because it increased the backlog. That brings me to my third question to the Minister: what assessment has been made of the impact of this new system on the upper tribunal? I believe that the new appeals body will simply shift the backlog, or a major part of it, from the first-tier tribunal to the upper tribunal, because lay judges will make more legal errors that will have to be corrected on appeal to the upper tribunal. I say that on the basis of 18 years of full-time practice in the courts and tribunals of this country, when I appealed against decisions made by both lay decision makers and judges. However, that is not just my view but the view of witnesses who came before the Justice Committee last week, including a former judge of the upper tribunal itself. Let me add that the way in which the Bill has been sold—for example, its purpose is said to be to crack down on abuse of appeals—is incorrect, given that about half those appeals are allowed. The idea that all unsuccessful appeals are abusive, as was suggested at the outset of the debate, is wrong. A case that was clearly unfounded would not go to appeal. We already have a filter to get rid of weak cases before they start. To end, I quickly point out that in respect of every element of the reforms, the Home Office’s own impact assessment says that the effects are uncertain. There is, I suggest, scant evidential basis for believing that these measures will actually work.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Home Secretary give way on that point?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree. That is absolutely key. A coastguard officer said to me that the money they get helps to offset some of the costs, but I think this phrase sums it up: “we do not do this for the money; the money means we can do it.” Other Members have talked about sacrificing family time; one officer said to me that he once left a wedding to attend a call-out. That is the level of bravery and commitment that these individuals are showing every day. The approach that the Maritime Coastguard Agency has adopted is not the way to treat them. If we remove the recognition in those payments, I, like the CROs I have spoken to, think it is obvious that availability will fall, resilience will decline and our coastal rescue services will simply start to disintegrate. That will put lives at risk. I echo the point made by others: the MCA has dealt with this in a very heavy-handed way—it seems entirely procedurally irregular. The MCA has serious questions to answer about how it has gone about this. My questions for the Minister are similar to those posed by other hon. Members. Does the Minister know whether the MCA has modelled the likely reduction in volunteer availability following the proposed changes to remuneration, particularly for high-demand response teams such as those in Folkestone and Romney Marsh? If so, can we please see them? Does the Minister know whether the MCA has carried out a safety impact assessment, and whether that will be published? Critically—this has been raised by others—what meaningful engagement does the Minister know the MCA has had with unions such as the GMB and with serving officers? Are the Government open to reviewing the proposed model of employment and the removal of the call-out fee for CROs in the light of that dialogue? Finally, like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), I ask for the implementation of these changes to be paused so that we can understand the impact on volunteer capacity. Ultimately, we have to maintain the standards of the service and the good will of those who volunteer every day to keep people safe. That is in the interests of the country and of all those who put their lives on the line for that service.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I pay tribute to the brilliantly dedicated and inspiringly selfless coastguard rescue officers across the country, but particularly those who operate in my constituency—at Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh. They are represented in the Gallery today. For my constituents and the many visitors who come to our area to experience our brilliant and beautiful coastline, the coastguard makes a vital contribution to the emergency services’ ability to keep people safe. I recently met a number of volunteer officers from the Folkestone and Romney Marsh coastguard rescue teams. They attend hundreds of incidents a year, including cliff rescues—we have the white cliffs of Dover; sadly, people sometimes jump off them: it is necessary to address what is going on at the top as well as at the bottom—as well as missing persons. There are all sorts of circumstances in which the police or the fire brigade cannot or will not reach people, so the CROs perform a vital role as part of the emergency services.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Rail Freight · Hansard source

  More

  On continental freight, the hon. Member mentioned volumes coming from the European Union. In my constituency, we have so much traffic coming in and out of Eurotunnel that there is not the gauge capacity for trains to come all the way through, so they have to offload and reload. Does she agree that the Government should support the enhancement of that gauge capacity, so that trucks can come all the way through, increasing demand and capacity for the whole system?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations · Hansard source

  More

  While we rightly focus on the grave situation in Lebanon, the wider region is seeing an increasing pattern of British nationals being arbitrarily detained and used as leverage by countries including Iran. In light of the news that Craig and Lindsay Foreman have had their appeal dismissed by the Iranian courts, and given their ongoing hunger strike in Evin prison—I think Craig is on his 27th day and Lindsay is on her 18th day—to protest against their conditions and ongoing detention, what further specific steps are the Government taking to secure consular access? Are the Government now prepared to condemn their detention as arbitrary, use international levers against Iran for hostage taking, and show Iran that it cannot keep taking British citizens hostage as pawns in its own games?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The data suggests that vacancy levels in hospitality remain very high. One element of the difficulties facing hospitality businesses is, in fact, skills shortages. Would the hon. Member agree that the anticipated youth mobility scheme for EU youths and the Government’s youth guarantee scheme, which will be supported by youth hubs such as the one coming to my constituency, will be an important part of addressing those skills shortages?

• 21 May 2026 · Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran · Hansard source

  More

  Just over 500 days ago, Lindsay and Craig Foreman, the mother and stepfather of one of my constituents, were on the trip of a lifetime: a motorcycle journey across the world. During their travels, Lindsay, who is a positive psychologist and life coach, planned to research along the way the elements of what makes a good life. She wanted to ask people in all the different countries they travelled through what happiness, fulfilment and purpose meant to them. In January 2025, they entered Iran with visas and with an approved tour company. The Iranian authorities claimed that, simply by speaking to people about what makes a good life, the Foremans were conducting espionage and attempting to overthrow the Iranian regime—a totally baseless and utterly absurd allegation. The obvious truth was that they were innocent tourists. The Foremans were arrested in Iran in January 2025 and later convicted of espionage in a trial that fell well short of international standards. In February this year they were sentenced to 10 years in prison. Their case was heard by the notorious revolutionary court, and by an Iranian judge who has himself been sanctioned by the UK, the US and the EU. That judge relied on so-called confessions of Lindsay and Craig that resulted from Lindsay being forced to sign documents in Farsi without interpretation and to fingerprint blank pieces of paper. Those documents were obtained after the Foremans being subjected to severe psychological pressure and inhuman treatment. That treatment has included solitary confinement for 56 days without justification, and while in solitary confinement Lindsay was interrogated for 30 consecutive days and Craig for 14 days. They were blindfolded to, from and during those interrogations. Craig was walked into walls deliberately. Aggressive questioning was used, with language designed to cause maximum psychological distress. For all of the interrogations, Craig and Lindsay had no legal representation at all, despite repeatedly requesting a lawyer. There were countless other due process violations —not seeing evidence, false evidence, not having the opportunity to challenge evidence, and being taken into court without any warning—and UK officials were not even permitted to attend this so-called trial. Since August and October last year respectively, Craig and Lindsay have been held in extremely harsh conditions in Evin prison, which is widely regarded as one of the most notorious prisons in Iran. I would like to put on record my sincere thanks, on behalf of my constituent Joe Bennett, who sits bravely in the Public Gallery, and the whole Foreman family, for the welfare support given by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Minister and the Foreign Secretary to Lindsay and Craig and their family. I thank them for everything that they are doing in very difficult diplomatic circumstances. I also welcome the Government’s acceptance that the Foremans are simply innocent tourists whose convictions and sentences are unjustifiable and appalling. However, Craig and Lindsay’s family would like the British Government to go further and to act with more urgency.

• 21 May 2026 · Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. Contributions in this Chamber and the response to the early-day motion that I tabled some months ago— I think around 70 parliamentarians signed it, which is a good number, given that many people do not sign such motions—show that there is cross-party support for more robust action in the case of the Foremans, and I will continue with colleagues, in this Chamber and outside it, to press for that. Over 500 days into this terrible nightmare, Lindsay and Craig, my constituent Joe Bennett and their family are desperately in need of hope. They see the French bring home their nationals from Iran, as Australia did—and as the UK eventually did in the cases of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori. I thank Richard Ratcliffe, who is in the Gallery and has been a source of great support to the family at this very difficult time, in spite of his own and Nazanin’s terrible ordeal. France and Australia have explicitly rejected espionage convictions as baseless and politically motivated, and Joe wants to understand why the UK cannot take a similar approach in relation to his parents. The family are not asking for miracles; they are asking for clarity of language, for maximum use of the legal and diplomatic tools available to our country, and for an approach that treats Craig and Lindsay appropriately: as innocent British citizens who have been taken from their usual lives and their families, and must urgently be brought home.

• 21 May 2026 · Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Craig and Lindsay are currently undertaking a hunger strike, which is essentially the only way they feel that they can protest against their treatment, after their phone cards were taken away and they were denied contact with their family. I will discuss their welfare later in my speech, but I agree that the Government need to explain what measures they are taking to monitor their health in these very difficult circumstances, including, if necessary, by using third-party allies. Ultimately, I want to set out four things that the family are calling for, on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s views. First, the British Government should say loudly and clearly that Lindsay and Craig are not spies, and that their detention is politically motivated and arbitrary in international law. I say that because this case follows a well-documented line of cases where Iran has taken innocent British citizens and those of other nations as bargaining chips for their own purposes. If the Government accept that Lindsay and Craig are innocent and are not spies, and that the trial that they were subjected to in Iran was grossly unfair and provides no basis at all for their detentions, they must have a view about why the Iranians are doing this. My constituent Joe does not believe that it is in Craig and Lindsay’s interest to shy away from calling a spade a spade here. These are obviously trumped-up false charges from a kangaroo court that Iran is pursuing for its own ends. In other words, Craig and Lindsay Foreman are hostages, they are being held for political purposes, and we should be prepared to say so openly and to calibrate our response accordingly.

• 21 May 2026 · Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that it is precisely because of the complexity of these cases, which potentially involve numerous different Government Departments, that we need an envoy for complex consular cases, who has not just the resources, but the authority to bring the Government together, and to act proactively to get such cases moving? Can he update the House on where that proposal is at, and whether there will be the framework and the powers to bring these sorts of cases forward? The Minister will be aware of matters that potentially concern other Government Departments in this case, and it may help if an individual has the authority, resources and powers to bring these sorts of cases forward. What are his thoughts on that?

• 21 May 2026 · Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is right that we need to call a spade a spade here. There is no basis for these convictions and no basis for this detention—that is the hallmark of an arbitrary detention in international law. If we can accept that, we can move to the next stage to take the appropriate measures to deal with this very serious abuse of British citizens in Iran. A number of our international partners have not shied away from such clear language. For example, France and Australia have explicitly rejected the espionage convictions of their nationals in Iran in similar situations as baseless and politically motivated. They have described those detentions of their nationals as arbitrary detention, and have used such language not to close down diplomacy, but to strengthen it. My constituent Joe and his family ask: why should the British Government be more cautious about the truth than others have been in similar situations? Secondly, what consideration has been given to providing diplomatic protection to Lindsay and Craig Foreman? That is an established way of converting an individual grievance into an interstate dispute. Craig and Lindsay are our citizens, so the Government must do all they can to protect them. That should include, at the very least, a serious and transparent assessment of whether conferring diplomatic protection on them would enhance our ability to bring them home. If not, why not? Thirdly, what consideration has been given to how the International Court of Justice mechanism and other international legal forums could be used by the UK to exert pressure on Iran? The ICJ is where the UK could argue that politically motivated arbitrary detentions of our nationals do breach international legal obligations; France has done exactly that with its nationals. What is the Government’s view about that mechanism in the Foremans’ case? Does the Ministers accept in principle that the pattern of conduct is not just unjustifiable, but arbitrary and unlawful under international law? Fourthly—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan)—given that Craig is in the 13th day of his hunger strike and Lindsay is on her fourth, will the Minister assure the family that appropriate steps are being taken to monitor their health in prison, including, if necessary, with the assistance of an ally?

• 21 May 2026 · Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on the complexity of this case?

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  Interestingly, the hon. Lady has come up with no justification for continuing to be in hock to the international oil and gas markets, so my argument that that is not a good idea has been reinforced by her intervention. I want us to be energy independent and, eventually, energy dominant, exporting our energy around the world, generating more revenue for the Treasury, creating more jobs here at home and helping to fix our current account deficit. The new energy security Bill rightly seeks to hardwire in strong consumer protections, a stronger watchdog and a more flexible, modern grid. Giving Ofcom a clearer duty to protect households, changing the way in which support is targeted at low-income and vulnerable families, and making local grids smarter so that people can benefit from cheaper off-peak energy are not technical tweaks; they are issues on the frontline of the fight against fuel poverty. The vast majority of my constituents in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh want to tackle climate change and lower energy bills, and they want Britain to be energy independent. The best way of achieving all those objectives is to deliver a balanced energy mix, and to ensure that savings and opportunities reach people’s front doors. That means introducing a serious warm homes programme, upgraded insulation, modern heating systems, and clear duties for landlords so that renters are not left shivering in leaky homes while their landlords take all the profits. Solar finance has evolved to the point where there can be no excuse not to have a solar panel on every domestic rooftop, which could allow tenants as well as landlords to benefit from lower bills. The Government must do everything they can to make that a reality. Renewables play a critical part in our energy production, along with new nuclear. We should continue to extract from the existing North sea oil and gas fields, but the Government are right to oppose the opening up of new fields. That would not lower people’s energy bills, because the oil and gas price is determined by global markets. Moreover, as many of my colleagues have said, it would undermine our mission to tackle climate change, and would weaken our global leadership role on the issue. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his Department for their work in that regard. The real jobs plan for energy is to invest in clean power, grids, storage and efficiency, and to give workers in existing industries a clear path into those new roles.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the right hon. Member that hydrogen is an important part of where we need to go, but we need to fix the fundamentals, which were not fixed during the 14 years before Labour was elected, and we need to get on with that. New nuclear creates jobs. In my constituency we have two old nuclear power stations at Dungeness that are currently being decommissioned. Dungeness is a brilliant candidate for new nuclear technologies, with an existing grid connection, land available, population centres nearby and high electricity demand. Fundamentally, there is also strong support for new nuclear at Dungeness from the people of Romney Marsh, who understand that this is about good jobs, clean power and long-term investment in their community. I recently helped to organise an event at the community hub about new nuclear, and it was packed out with local residents who are desperate for new nuclear power generation to return to their community. So I commend the actions of this Government to help speed up the development of new nuclear technology. My predecessor pushed for many years for the Tory Government, run by his own party, to bring new nuclear to Dungeness, but I am afraid he got nowhere, because his party was just not interested in helping him. I do welcome the intention in the nuclear regulation Bill to implement the Fingleton review to cut unnecessary delay and duplication. That is not to say that we will undermine environmental protections, which must of course remain effective and credible, as well as evidence-based. The argument is not nature versus nuclear. Climate change is itself a major threat to habitats and species, so changes must focus on faster decisions, but with real environmental integrity. If we are to achieve true energy security, we need new nuclear to play a critical role, because the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. We need warm and efficient homes, fair energy bills and a regulator with the teeth and the remit to stand up for the public as the system changes. New nuclear can generate a significant number of well-skilled, well-paid, unionised jobs and help support the reindustrialisation of Britain, which we of course desperately need, and so can the mass roll-out of renewables, grid upgrades and home retrofit. I welcome the energy security Bill and the nuclear regulation Bill, especially the measures that help speed up the development of new nuclear. This is about whether families can afford to heat their homes, workers have good jobs in the industries of the future and Britain can stand on its own two feet in a dangerous world. To the champions of the oil and gas industry sitting on the Conservative Benches, I say that they should do the right thing for the country, and accept that we can never get bills down while we rely on international oil and gas markets, and support these measures to give us clean, cheap power and energy independence for our great nation.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  For more and more UK households and businesses, the monthly energy bill is one of their largest bills, and it is increasing. That is largely due to rising international oil and gas prices, which in turn have been exacerbated by the recent war in Iran. It is for exactly that reason that for too long we have been energy insecure. Energy security is needed to give us cost of living security. If we get this right, we can cut bills, cut emissions and cut our dependence on volatile foreign oil and gas markets, all at the same time. I have not yet heard a single argument from Conservative Members—including the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson)—about why continued dependence on those markets is a good idea, as opposed to a driver of price shocks and increases. For most of the past 50 years the UK has been a net importer of electricity, much of it coming through interconnectors such as the one in my constituency. The growth in British renewables is at long last, and rightly, being pushed forward by this Government, and that is starting to reduce our heavy reliance on imported energy and fossil fuels. Last year our energy production was the most British and the most clean that it has been for years. Under this Labour Government, energy production has defied the doubters who decry the decline of North sea oil and gas, and who urge us to open new fields.

• 19 May 2026 · Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  Reach Out and Recover Kent, a brilliant organisation that I met in Folkestone over the weekend, helps people, including ex-offenders, to recover and stay away from addiction so they can gain skills and work to reintegrate into society. However, Ministry of Justice figures show that at the six-month post-release point, the reoffending rate is twice as high for unemployed adults as for those in employment. What are the Government doing to ensure that more ex-offenders in my constituency get tailored and timely support, particularly for addiction, to get them back into work and enable them to leave offending behind them once and for all?