Tony Vaughan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  I will press on quickly to the end. I just want to address very quickly public funds and integration. Mr Weerasinghe’s petition does advocate for restricting benefits for new ILR holders, but in my view that is a political choice, not an economic inevitability. If we raise core care worker pay by around £4,000 a year, that is a step towards the sector-wide fair pay agreement that Unison is calling for. Then we could bring a single care worker up to the level where they are a net contributor in tax, reducing churn in the sector and finally rewarding people who hold our health and care system together. Under the no recourse to public funds system, many migrant families are just one crisis away from disaster. Depriving migrant families of benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled contradicts the Government’s own child poverty strategy. If we want sound public finances, we need integration. Integrated families are stable—they are renters, homeowners and taxpayers. We do not build stability by keeping people on the edge of destitution for over a decade. I do not deny that the Government’s consultation is based on the potentially legitimate aim of ensuring that the path to settlement for non-nationals is fair and serves the public interest. But on the key consultation points, I would say abandon retrospectivity, integrate those who are already here and honour the contract. Secondly, I understand the fear of so-called leakage, where care workers get ILR after five years and then immediately quit for better pay in other sectors, but a 15-year trap is not the answer—it is a charter for exploitation and modern-day slavery. Instead, let us look at time-limited, sector-specific conditions, possibly requiring people to remain in a sector for a period of time. Thirdly, we must recognise care work as a valid social contribution, and fourthly, not overcomplicate the penalty system. We already have robust good character rules; we just need to apply the rules we already have. I urge the Minister to listen to the voices we have heard in the petition and today in this debate. Let us drop the retrospective measures and rethink the 15-year wait. Let us be a country that has sustainable economic migration rules, but remain one that always honours its debts—not just its financial ones, but its moral ones, too.

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  Can I thank the Prime Minister on his grown-up approach to the UK’s engagement with China? Can I also congratulate him on the agreement for a crackdown on manufacturers of small boat engines and parts, which directly impacts my constituency? Given that the Conservative party would not have even gone to China, does the Prime Minister agree that the choice is between a Labour Government doing the hard yards to shut down the smuggler supply chains, and a Tory party that prefers posturing and permanent failure in the channel?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  When the Justice Secretary gave evidence to the Justice Committee in December, he said that the evidence underpinning the 20% time saving that comes from Sir Brian’s report would be released. If that makes the proposition good—I understand that the hon. Gentleman disputes that—would he and his party still oppose even the principle of structural reform, even if it is necessary to cut the backlog and keep it down?

• 7 Jan 2026 · UK Town of Culture · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that economic regeneration through the arts and culture is a powerful way of showing the link between the past and the future in our national story? If so, would she agree that Folkestone is a prime example of that? Having been a port from which our troops went to the frontline in world war one, it became a commercial port, has been regenerated through the arts and is now the best place to live in south-east England.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Free Bus Travel: Over-60s · Hansard source

  More

  It seems to me that everyone agrees about the importance of buses generally and to their local communities. I was glad to hear from the Minister about the addition of a rurality element to how bus funding is allocated. In areas such as mine, in Folkestone and Hythe, route after route has been cut, because we are told that not enough people use them and that it is too expensive to drive all the way out to rural and remote villages, of which we have many. That is an important factor, as are hospital appointments and GP services. We heard a number of colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), talk about the importance of being able to get to GP and hospital appointments. The issue, and the point of difference, seems to be about whether this proposal is a good use of money and is affordable. The Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), said that it would not be targeted at those who need it, and made arguments about the relative increase in passenger numbers in Wales and Scotland versus in England, due to free travel for over-60s versus the £2 cap. It comes down to whether we think that bus services should be run by local people, taking into account local people’s needs, or we think that there should be a top-down Government edict on how every single local authority in the country should run its system. The Government’s approach, which I think is the right answer, is that it is for the local authority to decide how it spends that money. That does mean, however, that we must have accountability, so I was encouraged to hear from the Minister that there will be an outcomes framework to track the use of the funding, and to identify additional support where it is not being followed. I invite the Minister to look not just at support but at ways of ensuring that the money is spent in the right way, if necessary through a slightly tougher approach. I was worried to hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) talk about being pushed down the list when it comes to the amount of money her constituency—a very socially deprived area—gets versus somewhere like Tunbridge Wells, where there is not such deprivation. One wonders why her constituency is getting so much less than areas where levels of car ownership are probably much higher. There must be accountability about how the money is being used. Substantial amounts of money are being given, so it cannot be suggested that the Government have not properly funded this. It is down to local authorities to spend the money in the right way. I will continue to do my job to hold Reform-led Kent county council to account on the way in which it is delivering its service. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 702845 relating to free bus travel for people over 60.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Free Bus Travel: Over-60s · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 702845 relating to free bus travel for people over 60. Happy new year, Mr Mundell. It is, as always, a privilege to serve under your chairship. I start by thanking the petition’s creator, Mrs Karen Hickman, and the 101,000 people who signed the petition—including 211 of my constituents in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh—for securing this debate on extending free bus travel to all over-60s across England. I also thank Transport for London, Age UK London, Independent Age and the Local Government Association, which were incredibly helpful in my preparation for this debate, which I am leading for the Petitions Committee. There are many areas of our country where there is free bus travel for the over-60s: London, Liverpool, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Bus services are a critical form of public transport. They are a public good: they get people to work and allow them to visit friends and family, travel to health appointments and participate in social activities. Bus services support active lifestyles, reduce social isolation, and reduce car use, lower air pollution and make our environment cleaner and safer. It was a pleasure to meet Mrs Hickman. She was particularly frustrated by the regional differences that we have in this country when it comes to bus services, and she would like to see greater investment in rural bus services in her area of Lincolnshire. In our country, there is a growing misperception that if someone is over 60, they are somehow financially blessed, with a house on which the mortgage has been paid off, and they have plenty of assets and capital washing around. Many people think that the over-60s do not need free bus travel. I challenge that narrative, as does Mrs Hickman. Based on households below average income data, 875,000 people aged 60 to 64 are living in poverty. A new report from Standard Life identifies a substantial rise in financial insecurity among people in their early 60s, after the increases in the state pension age since 2010, and highlights that there are a quarter of a million more people aged 60 to 64 in relative income poverty than there were in 2010. In the UK, carer prevalence is greatest among adults in their 50s and early 60s, with people in that age group twice as likely as those in a younger adult group to be carers. Due to the rising pension age, many people in their 60s are seeking work. The high level of redundancy in this age group during the pandemic is one factor that has led to increased unemployment among 60 to 64-year-olds. Many people in this group are key workers: health and social care—a sector that is growing in my constituency—and retail are among the sectors with the highest proportion of older workers. In addition, over-60s with a disability or long-term health condition are more likely to face financial hardship. There is already free bus travel for the over-60s in several parts of the UK, so this policy can work. The 60+ London Oyster photocard, operated and funded by TfL, is available to London residents over 60. There are 383,000 active users of that photocard, which I know makes a positive difference to the lives of the 24% of Londoners in that age group who live in poverty. Residents of the Liverpool city region are eligible from age 60 for free travel on buses, trains and ferries. That is funded by the transport levy that the Merseyside local authorities pay. Looking for a moment at a younger age group in Liverpool, I commend the Liverpool city region combined authority for its recent introduction of the care leavers travel pass, giving free local travel on buses, trains and ferries to young adults leaving the care system. That is a commercially funded offer. What most or all of these schemes have in common is that they were implemented as a result of local powers being used by local people for the benefit of local people. Is that not how our local communities should be run? In my view, it is. Local people know what the local needs are. I understand Mrs Hickman’s frustration at the regional differences that can occur when some local areas have powers that others do not, but thanks to the Bus Services Act 2025, passed by this Labour Government, all English local transport authorities now have the power to set routes and fares. In my view, it is right that each local authority now grasps the nettle and gets on with delivering the high standards of bus services that the public are entitled to.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Free Bus Travel: Over-60s · Hansard source

  More

  The situation my hon. Friend describes is symptomatic of what I call the begging bowl approach of trying to reinstate routes, where a private company decides how it will run the service, it cuts the routes that are more difficult to make money on but which people really need, and we all go with our begging bowl, banging on the door and asking the company to sort it out for our constituents. The way that all local councils should be using the Government’s legislation, now they have the money, is by actually listening to what local people want and providing services that allow our communities to be joined up. What he describes is exactly what I have experienced in my constituency and why these changes are desperately needed.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Free Bus Travel: Over-60s · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member. Central Government have to support local government in properly funding bus services. As I will come on to say, that is exactly what this Government have been doing, but the critical question will be whether those local authorities spend the money in a way that benefits passengers. Mrs Hickman’s view is that this policy should be centrally administered and nationwide. According to the Local Government Association, making the policy nationwide would cost central Government roughly an additional £250 million to £400 million a year. Without that money, evening and weekend services would likely collapse. Losing more bus routes would be damaging for over-60s who rely on buses to get to work. As the LGA suggests, many councils argue that £1 fares for apprentices and students offer a higher economic multiplier than free travel for the over-60s. That is especially important when we are desperately trying to raise our economy’s growth rate and reduce unemployment. There is also a strong argument for focusing more on getting apprentices and students to use buses, because that cohort of young people will develop the habit of getting on a bus, which will help to secure a more stable long-term revenue stream for bus operators. As I just said, what we need is ample central Government funding for local authorities so that they can decide how best to run the bus network. The Government are backing our bus network with a £3 billion multi-year bus funding settlement for 2025 to 2029, helping to create more certainty, stability and predictability for our bus system. The aim of the funding settlement is to deliver lower fares and more frequent and reliable bus services, and the national single bus fare cap was extended to run until March ’27. The Government’s Bus Services Act empowers local authorities to take greater control of bus services, and makes them more reliable, accessible and affordable by enabling franchises, lifting bans on municipal bus companies and mandating zero emission buses. In this debate we are rightly talking about the 60s, but it was the ’80s when it all started to go wrong for our bus network, with its reckless privatisation under the Transport Act 1985. The Bus Services Act takes a completely different approach by allowing local government to create locally and publicly operated and owned bus services. Local authorities across the country have received significant funding boosts to improve local bus services. For example, the petitioner’s council, Reform-run Lincolnshire county council, received a boost of £11.8 million to support better bus services. In my area, Reform-run Kent county council this year received a boost of £42 million to spend on better bus services. The Government are not being partisan with funding decisions; Reform-run councils are receiving cash boosts to improve bus services from now until 2029, and the public should expect Reform to deliver in places such as Kent and Lincolnshire. We must hold them to account in ensuring that they spend the money not on political advisers, or mad adventures such as the Elon Musk-inspired DOGE 2.0 cuts programme, but on making bus services work more accessibly, reliably and affordably. In December, I ran a bus survey to hear from my constituents how they would like the £42 million of extra bus funding to be spent. Many told me that bus services are not frequent enough and are often unreliable, with too many late and even cancelled services. Many highlighted the issue of affordability. They want Reform-run Kent county council to spend that £42 million of extra funding on protecting existing routes from private sector cuts, more frequent bus services, cheaper fares, improved evening and Sunday services, and better bus links to schools, colleges and hospitals. One constituent suggested extending free bus travel to the over-60s, but many of my constituents talked about wanting routes that had been cut under the failed experiment of privatisation to be reinstated. They asked for changes such as frequent, direct bus services from Folkestone to the William Harvey hospital, more evening and weekend bus services across Kent, and the reinstatement of routes such as the 73, 77, 78 and 111 services in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Free Bus Travel: Over-60s · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is exactly why the Government introduced the Bus Services Act: to allow local authorities to be held to account for the decisions they make about how to fund bus services. I completely agree that bus services are a fundamental public good and a public service. In my constituency, they are essential to allow people living in rural areas, often in rural poverty, to reach GP surgeries or hospital appointments many miles away. It is not as if they can walk or rely on somebody to give them a lift; often, that is not available. A reliable and affordable bus service is often the difference between someone being able to access the town, with its shops and chemists and all the things that are needed to make life work, and sitting for days in pain, entirely cut off. I completely agree with my hon. Friend. One survey response that stood out for a negative reason was this one: “Doubt Reform will take much notice frankly”. I totally understand that hard cynicism about Reform, given its bewildering incompetence in Kent. I implore Reform to spend the money wisely. I will take my bus survey responses and put them directly to the council, because we must see accountability and competence in the way our public services are delivered in Kent. While I am sympathetic to the arguments for extending free bus travel to all over-60s across England, I believe that our policy focus should be on encouraging and supporting more local authorities to set up municipal bus companies so that we can reverse bus privatisation, which has, like in the rail and water sectors, been a failure and meant that, all too often, the interests of the private company and the shareholder have been put above those of the passenger. Before closing, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What action beyond what I have talked about are the Government taking to make bus travel more accessible and affordable for the over-60s? What are the Government doing to make rural bus services more accessible and reliable, especially for that age group? What measures will the Government put in place to hold to account councils such as Reform-run Kent county council and Lincolnshire county council to ensure that they spend their additional bus funding prudently and purposefully? How do the Government plan to use investment in our bus network to help to increase economic growth and lower unemployment? Finally, can the Minister explain how empowering local government can lead to improved bus services? The answers to all those questions would be gratefully received, because my constituents constantly press me on this issue. We are a long, coastal constituency, so it is very difficult to get around unless there is reliable public transport. That is what we have to achieve over the coming years with the funding and the new powers that Kent county council has.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Artificial Intelligence Skills · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she is taking with the Secretary of State for Education to support young people to develop AI skills.