Tony Vaughan MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 19 May 2026 · Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps he is taking to help reduce levels of reoffending.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the For Women Scotland case, I met several constituents who raised concerns about the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft code of practice and guidance. I thank the Folkestone Bookshop for hosting those meetings. As the Government lay the updated guidance before Parliament, what assurances can my right hon. Friend give that businesses and groups can confidently be trans-inclusive, and that it will be clear how everyone can be protected from harassment and discrimination?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Jardine, and I thank all colleagues who have contributed to the debate today. I also thank petitioners Theo Clarke and Louise Thompson and the 153,000 signatories across the country who have brought this debate before Parliament. This opportunity to debate how we improve maternity care is crucial, and it has been brought about by the petition. There has been unanimity among all speakers on the urgent need for action. The experiences of the petitioners and constituents and the mountain of evidence we have all heard leaves us in no doubt that action to address these long-standing and entrenched problems is long overdue and extremely urgent. The Minister and Baroness Amos have rightly accepted that the challenges we face are systemic and that a whole-system view, looking at people, culture, organisation, processes and infrastructure, is needed. We have heard many hon. Members talk about the ways that those problems have manifested themselves in their examples. The Minister said that the Health Secretary will chair the taskforce composed of 18 experts to provide the accountability and oversight that the petitioners are calling for. I ask the Government to have the taskforce in place as long as is necessary for us to see these changes. The petitioners have asked for a maternity commissioner to be installed permanently. I do not know whether the taskforce has a time limit, but it is important that it is in place for as long as is necessary to see the change that we all want. The women’s health strategy is to be welcomed. It is important that the strategy accounts for the needs of all groups, particularly minority groups, who suffer disparate impacts, and disabled people who are losing out because of the current system. I thank everyone who signed the petitions for participating. I think the Petitions Committee allows members of the public to participate in our democratic process quite successfully. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 751174 relating to a Maternity Commissioner.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I echo his comments about the petitioner Louise Thompson and her advocacy on this issue. The petitioners’ analysis is that there has been a vacuum of leadership and accountability across the system. I know that the Government are considering how best to address that, and we will hear more from the Minister later about that; but whatever happens, there has to be a structural way of providing that leadership and avoiding fragmentation and different interpretations of different guidance documents across the system. We need clear systemic change to cure this, because it has been an ongoing problem for many years and so far no answer has been put forward. The petitioner Theo Clarke told me a story that illustrates the point about the postcode lottery in maternity care, which the petitioners strongly believe would be prevented by measures to create expert national leadership and tighten up the rules. She told me that an obstetrician in London who she had spoken to recently told her that there are 87 different pieces of guidance that apply in maternity care. That does not sound like a framework; to many people, it sounds more like a large number of disparate documents, which leads to variations in interpretation between different areas. Theo Clarke’s strong view is that that leaves room for interpretation, which results in different approaches to care in different areas. In practical terms, that means that something as basic as training midwives in recognising and treating birthing injuries varies hugely between different areas. My constituent who I spoke about a moment ago trains midwives on this issue, but that training is not available everywhere, and certainly not in the same way as delivered by MASIC.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  Certainly, the petition is clear that without expert, national-level oversight, there is no way of turning that thicket of different guidance and frameworks into a coherent, enforceable standard of care. Whatever structural change the Government put forward has to do that job. I spoke to my constituent Jo Page earlier, and she told me that there are people in Folkestone and Hythe who are going to Tunbridge Wells to access maternity services because of their concerns about the local standards of care. Obviously, that has to be fundamentally addressed. The powerful evidence from the various maternity investigations that we have seen show that when everyone is responsible, nobody is accountable. Appointing a maternity commissioner could well mean that there is somebody with whom the buck stops—a dedicated expert responsible for turning the 750 recommendations, or the 87 guidance documents, into a single national maternity strategy and ensuring that it is implemented. That is not the only way that that could be done; Baroness Amos will shortly publish her report on the national maternity and neonatal investigations in NHS services. The petitioners strongly believe that her report should commit to a maternity commissioner and a maternity strategy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government currently view that proposal. I also ask her to commit to providing an update on which of the previous recommendations committed to may be taken forward. In conclusion, the Government’s recent decision to introduce a women’s health strategy is hugely welcome and is an important acceptance that women’s health has been neglected for far too long. The petitioners strongly believe that it would make a real difference to women giving birth if that strategy encompassed a maternity commissioner with the authority, expertise and focus to end the postcode lottery in maternity care and break the cycle of avoidable harm once and for all.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 751174 relating to a Maternity Commissioner. It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. The petition calls for the appointment of a maternity commissioner to improve maternity care for mothers and babies. I thank the petitioners, Louise Thompson and Theo Clarke, two formidable women and campaigners who have raised this issue relentlessly over several years. They have spoken powerfully, alongside many others, including the Birth Trauma Association, the MASIC Foundation, Make Birth Better, the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, Five X More and Mumsnet. I also thank the more than 153,000 people, including 203 of my constituents in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh, who signed Louise and Theo’s petition so quickly after it was launched. We should remember that most births in the UK are safe, and I acknowledge and thank the NHS midwives, nurses and doctors on the frontline, and all those working across the health service, who do outstanding work to care for mothers and babies across our nation every day. However, at the same time, there are clear, deep-rooted and long-standing problems in our maternity and neonatal services, in connection with which I will mention four statistics. First, the maternal death rate in the UK is one of the highest in western Europe, and UK stillbirth rates are also high. Secondly, the NHS currently spends more on payouts for medical negligence than on the entire frontline maternity service budget. That money should be going towards safer frontline care, not litigation. Thirdly, according to the Care Quality Commission’s latest national review of maternity services, almost half the maternity units it inspected between 2022 and 2023 were rated as “requires improvement” or “inadequate”, with only 4% rated as “outstanding”. Fourthly, over the past two decades, we have seen a heartbreaking succession of maternity scandals. There was the same pattern across Morecambe Bay, Shrewsbury and Telford, East Kent—which serves my constituency—and now Nottingham: women raised concerns, saying that something was wrong and that they were in pain or frightened, but were not listened to. That failure to listen is a theme running through every major maternity report of the last decade, with around 750 recommendations across those various reports reflecting that failure, alongside the issues of unsafe care, toxic culture and weak oversight. Unfortunately, those were the experiences of petitioner Louise Thompson, who advocated for a C-section but was denied it, resulting in a massive obstetric haemorrhage. My constituent Jo Page also experienced those systemic failures when her son was born at William Harvey hospital in Ashford some years ago. A birthing injury was misdiagnosed and she did not receive the right treatment and support for what was, in fact, a fourth-degree tear. As a result, she has suffered years of pain and indignity, cannot stand for long periods and needs to use the toilet frequently. She had to give up her career and cannot do normal activities, such as taking a flight to go on holiday. Her life has been utterly changed. Jo now works with MASIC, which supports mothers with anal sphincter injuries, to run a support group for local women in Folkestone, Hythe and the wider Kent area. She also trains midwives and doctors to correctly diagnose tears, and was recently involved in the Sky News production, “Birth Trauma: The women who weren’t listened to”, which tells the traumatic stories of three mothers who were cared for in NHS England hospitals. Jo, you are truly inspiring, and I know that the whole House would join me in expressing thanks for all the work that you do for women up and down the country. When I spoke to Jo last week, she told me that she continues to receive messages from women who have experienced misdiagnoses and did not feel listened to during their birthing experiences. Those women include a police officer and a social worker who had both been so badly injured during birth that they had to give up their careers, got into debt and suffered immeasurably. I am sad to say that, just last month, I was contacted by a constituent who experienced the same failings that they had read about in the Kirkup report into maternity services at William Harvey hospital. When I spoke to petitioner Louise Thompson, she said that she is constantly hearing from women who have post-partum physical injuries and mental health issues, and has known people who have committed suicide following maternity service and post-partum system failures. She also spoke of the profound strain on partners, who must support a recovering mother, assist in caring for a newborn and continue to work, all at the same time. She pointed out that a third of women in the UK who give birth experience it as traumatic, and that every year between 4% and 5% of them develop post-traumatic stress disorder, which is around 30,000 women in total. The impact of trauma can last a lifetime, affecting a mother’s bond with her baby, her relationship with her partner, her ability to work and her long-term mental health. Why is this happening? The petitioners believe that one key reason is a lack of unified leadership and consistency across maternal care in the UK, over many years. When petitioner Theo Clarke was the hon. Member for Stafford, she chaired the first ever birth trauma inquiry with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). They heard from 1,300 patients, including patients from marginalised communities, and from professionals about their experiences of maternity services across the four nations of the UK. The inquiry was prompted by Theo Clarke’s own traumatic birth experience, which she bravely and publicly spoke about in the House, describing it as: “the most terrifying experience of my life.” —[ Official Report , 19 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 495.] In submissions to that inquiry, mothers reported being mocked or shouted at, being denied the most basic assistance such as pain relief, and being left feeling “terrified”, “humiliated” and “ashamed”. The word “broken” appeared more than any other. The inquiry’s May 2024 report was called “Listen to Mums: Ending the Postcode Lottery on Perinatal Care”, and its 14 recommendations were headed by a call on the Government to publish a national maternity improvement strategy, led by a new maternity commissioner reporting to the Prime Minister. The petitioners believe that these measures would fill a void.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to community sponsorship of refugees who come here under proposed new safe and legal routes; we have several good examples of that in my constituency. What steps is she taking, in line with the recent asylum policy statement, to allow more communities like mine to sponsor refugees and support the Government’s safe and legal routes programme?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes my status as a barrister. Let us remind ourselves of the issues here. It is unacceptable that criminal trials should be listed today for 2030. That is a failure of the state. It is a failure of the state to provide a fundamental public service—that of justice. So the Government have to act, and I do not accept the argument that things have to stay as they are. I welcome the Government’s £2 billion investment in the criminal justice system and the decisions to lift the cap on Crown court sitting days, to implement efficiencies, to invest in the estate and to streamline case management. All of that is overdue and should have been done by the Conservatives. This is about ensuring that trials actually go ahead. However, the Government believe that that will not be enough to address the backlog without structural change, and I have not heard any attempt to argue to the contrary. I turn to the most contentious element, which is the permanent removal of the right to elect jury trial for either-way cases. As hon. Members have said, this rests heavily on Sir Brian Leveson’s assessment of a minimum 20% time saving in the Crown court. Sir Brian has been candid that his estimate is based on modelling and is an informed qualitative judgment, not a hard empirical fact. The Ministry itself accepts that this modelling might not fully reflect real-world operations, and when dealing with a safeguard as important as trial by one’s peers, where liberty is at stake, the distinction between modelling and hard data matters. Most people seem to agree that those measures will save time, but there is a dispute about how much they are likely to save.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I practised as a civil lawyer for most of my career, and I have been challenging written reasons and decisions my whole career. I do not have a problem with judges issuing written reasons in the criminal jurisdiction. I think it is a way of getting more transparency about why those decisions have been made. That is my personal view. Ideally, I would have piloted this system first and gathered the data, and only then, if that data showed that the measures were necessary to reduce the backlog, would it have been difficult to rebut. If Sir Brian is right and these reforms clearly cut waiting times, that will be good for victims and public confidence. However, if the proposals are rolled out nationwide and he and the Government are wrong, and the gains are negative or outweighed by harms to fairness, equalities or public trust, particularly for minority defendants, it will be important that this House should not have tied its hands. Removing the right to elect jury trial takes out around half of our jury trials. It is a very real interference with existing safeguards and it should not be a permanent change before we know that it works in practice. That is why I believe there must be a clear statutory mechanism in the Bill allowing Parliament to reverse this change if it does not work. In my view, we need a time-limited mandatory review on the face of the Bill to track timeliness, conviction patterns and equalities impacts, with an explicit power to require Ministers to restore the right to elect if the reforms do not deliver. A clause of that nature would be a statement of confidence in Parliament’s oversight, rather than of a lack of faith in the reforms, as has been suggested. Expanding judge-only trials requires us to address the fact that the judiciary do not reflect our country’s diversity. Replacing lay juries with a single judge demands an intense focus on how we improve judicial diversity, and particularly transparency in appointments. For example, judicial references must be disclosable so that there is accountability for providing objective, evidence-based references if we are to improve the recruitment and promotion pipeline for women and minority ethnic judges. One of the last cases in the courts that I was involved in before I was elected to Parliament was a judicial review of a decision of the Judicial Appointments Commission not to promote a district judge into a more senior position. The whole case was about why she could not see the reasons that she was not promoted. That secrecy, which is behind what many campaigners believe has been a process of secret soundings or a tap on the shoulder, has resulted in the situation that we have of a bench recruiting in its own image. That concept was recognised by the Lammy review, and it is a very real thing that we must address if we are to expand judge-only trials. We face a grave crisis, but if we are to curtail long-standing rights, we must build robust safeguards into the Bill. I hope that Ministers will work constructively with Members across the House to ensure that we tackle the backlog effectively while strengthening confidence in our justice system.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I acknowledge the considerable challenge that the Government have in winning back public confidence in the asylum system. The Home Office published a report last year concluding that there was insufficient evidence that restrictive asylum policies reduce claims, so will the Home Office publish evidence to show that cutting refugee leave from five years down to 30 months will deter claims in the UK? Does the Minister accept that a substantial settlement pathway of 20 years-plus is also unlikely to deter those claims?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor for her statement, which underlines the importance of new nuclear to boost our energy security. Many of us who back new nuclear also care deeply about nature. Dungeness in my constituency is both a nationally important habitat site and a vital location for new nuclear. Does the Chancellor agree that we urgently need a reformed framework for habitat protection—along the lines proposed by the Fingleton review—so that we can safeguard the environment and welcome new nuclear back to places such as Dungeness?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his careful response to this issue and his ongoing commitment to the international rule of law. My constituent’s parents, Lindsay and Craig Foreman, are currently serving an appalling and unjustified 10-year sentence in Evin prison in Tehran. Other Governments have given detailed instructions to their nationals as to what to do if Evin’s prison gates were to open and order break down. Will the Prime Minister confirm that a plan covering that situation will be communicated to them to ensure their safety? Have the Government impressed upon the US and Israel the importance of not targeting Evin prison, as Israel did last year, given that the lives of two British citizens are at stake?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My local workforce desperately needs new nuclear at Dungeness. Does the Secretary of State agree that the way we protect nature and habitats must be reformed in the way recommended by the nuclear regulatory taskforce, so that we better protect nature while also providing the skilled jobs and energy security that my constituents deserve?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Ms Lewell.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree, and that is the exact point I was going to make. Returning to the example I was just recounting, my mother attended this patient’s funeral, as she did for many. That shows that roles like hers are not just work; they provide a real service to the public. Her profession is extremely important during critical, vulnerable times in people’s lives. It is hard work, but vital work. However, the sector has been plagued by labour shortages for many years. After Brexit shut off the social care worker recruitment pipeline from the EU, and with a pre-existing recruitment crisis in that sector, a large vacancy problem had emerged by 2021, which led to the Home Office putting social care on the shortage occupation list. Those who came here to work have moved their entire lives here; they brought their families here as they were entitled to do. They did so when the rules said that, after five years, they could apply for settlement in the UK—that was the deal.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. It is the moving of the goalposts that most colleagues in the Chamber find really problematic.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister have evidence about how many people you think are going to switch from not claiming benefits to claiming benefits, or from not being in social housing to being in social housing, or is this just a political judgment?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 727372 and e-petition 746363 relating to indefinite leave to remain. It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I open this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I am grateful to the 330,000 people who have signed these two petitions. Evidently, they have generated a lot of interest, given the high number of hon. Members in attendance. The Government are currently consulting on changing the rules around whether, how and after how long somebody who is legally here is entitled to permanent residence in the UK, which is known as indefinite leave to remain or ILR. The first petition was started by Laurence Bansil, who is sitting in the Gallery, and it calls on the Government to protect legal migrants and scrap the proposed 10-year settlement route. The second petition was started by Pulasthi Weerasinghe, and it calls on the Government to keep the five-year route to ILR, but to restrict access to benefits to protect the public purse. My mother once had ILR. She came from the Philippines in the 1970s on a work visa. She worked in London hospitals, got ILR and then got British citizenship. She built a life here and cared for generations of patients right to the end of their lives. One of those patients was a former member of the House of Lords and a senior judge, and I remember my mother recounting her many conversations with him about his distinguished career, as well as about my own legal studies and aspirations, which he showed a keen interest in.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  The situation in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is similar to that in my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe, where there has been a long-term recruitment and retention crisis. As a coastal area, workers can only go one way. There are massive problems and, as he said, they will be worsened by this proposal.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree. The people already in the system who do not have stability, who do not know what will happen and who made a huge investment fear for their future, which is at stake. I want to address very briefly—

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. The common law sets its face against retrospectivity, and that principle should preclude this change. I want to address other elements of the consultation. The Government suggest a system of credits, for things including “social contribution”, to shorten the 10-year wait. On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but its proposed definition is dangerously narrow. It includes the police and the NHS but inexplicably, in my view, excludes care workers in the private sector. Why are we proposing a bureaucratic minefield of “volunteering credits”, which could be very difficult to verify, while ignoring the immense social value that care workers give during a 12-hour shift looking after our elderly? Their job is their contribution, and that should be the credit.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  Those are exactly the points made by the first petitioner, who works in the care sector and is sitting in the Public Gallery. I am also concerned about the proposal to place lower earners, including most care workers, on the 15-year route to settlement. We have heard about the problems of recruitment, and that will certainly make the position worse. During that limbo, people cannot progress. As one of the petitioners, Mr Weerasinghe, told me, he must complete the entire qualifying period on the same job code, meaning he has to stay, essentially, in the same job. He cannot progress and move beyond the job that he originally came here for so, at the end of the 10 years, ultimately he pays less tax. That is not in the interest of the public, and it makes no sense. If we tell a care worker they must wait 15 years for security, while Australia offers it in three and Canada in five, they will simply vote with their feet. We risk becoming a training ground for economic competitors: recruiting talent, training them up and then watching them leave for jurisdictions that offer them a stable future.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree, and will go on to make those very points. That was the deal. The Government are now considering doubling the wait for settlement from five years to 10, and up to 15 years for care workers. One of the most contentious elements of the consultation is that that will apply to people who are already here. I fundamentally oppose that rule change. Migrants entered this country on a contract, and the deal was simple: if they came to work in the sectors where we needed them, obeyed the law and paid their taxes, they could stay. Changing the terms of that contract after people have spent years building a life here is not just bad policy but a breach of trust. It makes Britain look unpredictable and like a country that does not keep its word. We cannot talk about earning settlement if we keep moving the goalposts after the game has started. In my view, retrospectivity is un-British and undermines our sense of fair play. The position of the two petitioners who sit in the Public Gallery is that it should be abandoned, and I wholeheartedly agree with them.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the petitioners, the 330,000 signatories and all hon. Members who have attended to speak in this debate over the last three hours. I have been struck by the fact that every single Back-Bencher who has spoken opposes the retrospectivity of the measures for those who are already here, on the basis that they undermine basic British fairness. There is no basis at all to apply these rules, even to those who have pending applications, given that they are even closer to the point where they would otherwise benefit. The differing impacts of different ILR qualification rules on members of the same family was mentioned by various Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). It was also said that the changes could lock victims into situations of domestic violence. That is absolutely right. I have worked on such situations in the past, and have seen that that is a very real threat. Many hon. Members talked about the increasing settlement period, which would entrench exploitation by being tied to a single employer, including my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and the hon. Members for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). Members were also concerned that the proposals will damage our ability to attract and retain the skills our country needs in a whole range of sectors. They included my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). Those concerns came especially from Members from the more remote parts of the country, such as my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe; the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and others. The Minister cited the additional numbers who could qualify for ILR, but the view that that is a burden that we need to relieve ourselves of is too short term and narrow. It assumes that migrants will switch to benefits or reliance on local authority housing, and I cannot see any evidential basis for that assertion. The Minister said that 15% of those on universal credit are non-nationals, but looking at the UK population, around 20% are foreign-born, so it seems that group is less reliant on benefits than the population as a whole. Across the Chamber today we have heard about the damage to community cohesion and integration—those are real points that must be very seriously taken into account. It is not about reducing immigration—I think it was only the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who wrongly suggested that it is. It is about settlement and who gets to belong here after they have contributed for so long. I want to end on a point that was raised by other hon. Members. It is really important, given the strength of feeling that we have heard today, that there is an opportunity for MPs to express their views about these measures if they are to proceed in any form. I suggest that a motion passed by negative resolution is not an apt way to do that. It is important that everybody who has spoken today feeds into the consultation so the views that the Government have reflect the views of the country as a whole. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petitions 727372 and 746363 relating to indefinite leave to remain.