Tony Vaughan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 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.